3 ms·
2001 can never be remade. It’s a singular vision, and it’s photography is still extraordinary, and it’s special effects still fine. The weakest part was the ho
by valuearb 9y ago
2001 can never be remade. It’s a singular vision, and it’s photography is still extraordinary, and it’s special effects still fine.
The weakest part was the hominid/monkey costumes. But in those scenes was also the amazing shot of the leopard. A modern director gets you more realistic hominids, burt you lose the amazing framing, coloring, and composition of the leopard scene and a hundred others.
And the story is definitive. It says exactly what Kubrick and Clarke wanted it to, no more, no less. There is no perspective a millennial can add to it without utterly ruining it.
- fjsolwmv 9y agoYou are partly missing the point. 2001 was made for an audience that doesn't exist anymore. If Kubrick somehow made the movie today, it would not look the same,and possibly could be made to all. Not because "reeeeeee millennials",but because it was a work of art made for a very specific time and place in history.
- valuearb 9y agoSince my 8 & 10 year old daughters can not just sit through the entire film, but love it, I disagree. I don’t think audiences have changed that much, what I meant is I think the story is eternal and it’s filming can’t be improved by mortal man. Maybe when we have real 3D or a medium that allows the audience to experience other senses, maybe it could be told better. But more likely it won’t be a good story for that medium.
- mcguire 9y agoI dunno. Transhumanism and the singularity are a thing, and the AI that is good and not trying to take over but nonetheless has poor consequences is something they will be coming to newspaper headlines soon. The only part that seems dated is that the future of humanity is outward looking instead of innards. (Meant "inwards", but that one's pretty good, Android.)
- emodendroket 9y agoI mean the stewardesses on the space ship feel very much of the era the movie was made, if I'm remembering it right.
- mcguire 9y agoUh, Clarke.
- rcxdude 9y agoIt may say what Kubrick wanted, but he edited the final cut to strip out a lot of exposition which puts the story Clarke wanted to tell in. Clarke was in tears after he saw the premier because of the changes. I found the movie thoroughly disappointing after reading the book. There were pretty pictures, but far fewer interesting ideas.
- valuearb 9y agoIt’s a different medium, and Kubrick didn’t want to spoon feed a resolution to his audience, he wanted them to think. I think Clarke got that in Rendesvous with Rams.