3 ms·

I like this film, I saw part of it again recently. but it didn't age very well IMO. It has some very overdrawn sequences of spaceships docking etc. I'm sure thi

I like this film, I saw part of it again recently. but it didn't age very well IMO. It has some very overdrawn sequences of spaceships docking etc. I'm sure this was awe-inspiring in the 60s but these days not so much :) And it's not just the times, I do find Hitchcock classics to stand up way better in this day. However it is full of pop culture influences and a lot of prescience about AI so it's nice to watch. By the way I didn't make the connection between Elite's use of the Blue Danube song until now lol. When I first played elite in the 80s I'd never seen the movie.

WorldMaker 2y ago
But it is partly "just the times". There's a dividing line in 1977 called Star Wars. Before Star Wars it was much more common for science fiction films to use long establishing sequences of especially space technology. For a 1960s audience when the actual moon landings were fresh to mind, the long, slow ballet of space was very palpable and appreciable. Star Wars changed a lot of things for scifi, including reducing some of those establishing sequences to their quickest and most basic. It is harder to appreciate something like 2001 on this side of Star Wars. Scifi movies have been trying to mostly be "the next Star Wars" for almost every decade since, with few exceptions, many of which don't always do well in the box office (Tron is a cult favorite, but early theatrical audiences found it slow; Star Trek: The Motion Picture is often considered a bomb by Star Trek standards for being a pre-Star Wars sort of movie released two years after Star Wars; Gravity and Interstellar both got accolades in somewhat recent years for mostly sort of getting away with pre-Star Wars scifi pacing, but partly got away with it from Brand Name stars and directors and a focus on IMAX tech and spectacle). 2001 didn't feel out of place versus scifi movies of its time. It feels slow and ponderous post-Star Wars.

WorldMaker 2y ago

But it is partly "just the times". There's a dividing line in 1977 called Star Wars. Before Star Wars it was much more common for science fiction films to use long establishing sequences of especially space technology. For a 1960s audience when the actual moon landings were fresh to mind, the long, slow ballet of space was very palpable and appreciable. Star Wars changed a lot of things for scifi, including reducing some of those establishing sequences to their quickest and most basic. It is harder to appreciate something like 2001 on this side of Star Wars. Scifi movies have been trying to mostly be "the next Star Wars" for almost every decade since, with few exceptions, many of which don't always do well in the box office (Tron is a cult favorite, but early theatrical audiences found it slow; Star Trek: The Motion Picture is often considered a bomb by Star Trek standards for being a pre-Star Wars sort of movie released two years after Star Wars; Gravity and Interstellar both got accolades in somewhat recent years for mostly sort of getting away with pre-Star Wars scifi pacing, but partly got away with it from Brand Name stars and directors and a focus on IMAX tech and spectacle). 2001 didn't feel out of place versus scifi movies of its time. It feels slow and ponderous post-Star Wars.