2001: A Space Odyssey

[Nexus6]

[Gaff87]

Thanks for posting that Nexus!

[Mr Webber]

Thats the one Nexus6, many, many thanks
_________________
Formerly offworld66

[Gaff87]

After watching this film i voted yes aswell
Great movie. I'm glad i watched it.

I love the fact that it has alot of similarities with Blade Runner aswell.

Voice print identification

VID-PHONS

"Give me a hard copy"

Even the "Queen to bishop 3" when he really meant "Queen to bishop 6"
I had to read about that though, lol.

I will definitely watch it again.

[phase pistol]

Hooray! Another one of us.

There are many books on Kubrick's films BTW, but only a few decent ones on 2001. Foremost among these has to be Arthur C Clarke's novelization.



Clarke and Kubrick worked interactively on the story of the film. Kubrick provided guidance and laid out the sort of thing he wanted, and Clarke submitted drafts, exploring different directions. Kubrick used Clarke as a sci-fi story generator.

Ultimately Clarke disagreed with Kubrick's direction on some of the story, so the novel version is a little different. The Discovery, for instance, goes to Saturn instead of Jupiter (tho in the sequels Clarke changed it back to Jupiter again!). Instead of locking Bowman out of the ship, HAL blows all the air out of Discovery to try to suffocate Bowman. And so on.

But definitely read Clarke's novel if you want insights into what is going on in the movie. As I recall I was sorely confused until I read it.

After you've read the novel, seek out this little paperback, "Lost Worlds of 2001", also by Clarke



This volume collects a lot of the discarded chapters that Clarke wrote for Kubrick, during the shaping of the film. So here are a lot of alternate directions, for instance telling the story from the point of view of the aliens who land on Earth four million years ago (!), or versions of the plot where ALL of the Discovery astronauts survive to the end of the trip!

The closest thing to a "making of" that was written at the time, is Jerome Agel's "Making of Kubrick's 2001"



A lot of the fat paperback is taken up with critical reaction at the time, film reviews, and essays on what people thought the film "meant".

A better "making of" is Piers Bizony's "2001 Filming the Future", which is out in two slightly differing editions.




This trade paperback is loaded with great photos and rememberances of making the movie. Well worth a look.

There is no comprehensive book of 2001 (Bizony being the closest thing), but Taschen put out a giant coffee table book of photos from Kubrick's files, covering all of his films. This is a fantastic book in its own right, but the chapter on 2001 provides our only glimpse at a lot of things such as the abortive experiments done to try to visualize what the aliens would look like (ie the infamous dancers in spotted bodysuits)...

[Gaff87]

I'm not much of a reader but think i will have to read those at some point, just to understand what the hell i just watched, lol.

I really want a space suit now, lol.

I should make another poll.

Which suit do you want?...

A, Blue
B, Red
C, Yellow
D, Green
E, Red with green helmet
F, Silver with white helmet?

(I think thats all of them)

Personally, i'd go for E.

[phase pistol]

I always hated the red-with-green helmet. For one, it's too Christmassey.


The All-Red suit is the best of course. Can't beat it.

Years ago "TWINCH Squad" (a guy from Spain named JL Ayuso) did some sixth scale figures. Thiese are not 100% accurate. And Ayuso is a dick, he stole my $400 which I pre-paid, and never sent any figures..

However some years later I did manage to acquire the Silver Lunar suit



...and Poole's yellow suit.



At the 2009 New York Comic Con, a company called GoHero showed a Twinch Bowman red suit, along with a Captain Cardboard built-up Space Pod. They later said these would be available under the name "Executive Replicas", but it's too early to know what exactly will be produced or IF it will be produced.

[Gaff87]

Oh man! They're amazing! Did you get those from the same guy?

Just wondering aswell, is 2010 worth a watch? I just saw the trailer and don't think it looks that good tbh. More dialogue in the trailer than the whole of 2001 i think, lol.

[Mr Webber]

Shame about his attitude but the suits look incredible.
Yes Neil, you have to watch 2010, its not as groundbreaking but can give you a better idea of the story behind the original.
_________________
Formerly offworld66

[Gaff87]

Just found this, not sure whether they'll be releasing them or not. I hope so.

http://toysrevil.blogspot.com/2009/02/go-heros-16-space-heroes-new-york-comic.html

Edit.
Ah, you beat me to it Karl.

[Mr Webber]

Now that is something i would buy instantly, please keep us updated on this if possible Karl
_________________
Formerly offworld66

[Gaff87]

[Gaff87]

[steevy]

2010 is pretty good.Kind of dated because of the whole US/Soviet angle since we know how that turned out and it didn't take until even 2001! PS They give the reason for HAL going "nuts".It's in Clarke's 2001 novel too so if you read that before you saw 2010 it wouldn't surprise you.I think Kubrick used Jupiter because he just didn't think he could do Saturn well.I think I read somewhere Clarke saying it was just as well since the science of the times was proven wrong on the rings.

[phase pistol]

I always thought "2010" was utter crap.

It's more of a "race against time" story (the US and USSR are about to go to nuclear war, the Monoliths are up to something, a spectral image of Bowman keeps appearing to various people...).

I dunno, very weak as a novel, and I hated the film. Basically the future world of 2001 is just thrown away, and 2010 might as well take place in 1982. The Russian technology looks really old fashioned... the Discovery is slavishly recreated, but they treat it like it was a museum piece from another age or something. Which it kind of was by that time.







So a film that SHOULD take place nine years after 2001, does not look antyhing like the future of the film 2001. It looks like Battlestar Galactica.

But the real reason I hate 2010, the ultimate reason... is because the people who made it, just don't give a crap. The film opens with a montage of stills from 2001, and a recap of the events of the first film.

And they say that the Monolith, TMA-1, was dug up... on the Sea of Tranquility.

The Sea of Tranquility.

Now anybody who stayed AWAKE during 2001, knows that TMA-1 - that's Tycho Magnetic Anomaly One - was dug up in the crater Tycho! On the other side of the Moon!

That sort of error is unforgivable, in my opinion. They just didn't care.

[Gaff87]

When i saw the trailer i thought it looked older than 2001, i'm not soo sure i'll watch it. Well, maybe. I don't know, lol.

Also, on the 1/6 subject, i did find some more "eye candy"

http://atomiccity.yuku.com/topic/658/t/EVA-Pod-Update-February-2009.html

Now, i REALLY want that!

I'm not sure if thats the one that will be coming out or not, but i did find prices for them, all fully built.

Wait for it...

"13-inch EVA POD - $2,000 ($3000)
42-inch ORION - $2500 ($3750)
66-inch DISCOVERY - $3000 ($4500)
11-foot DISCOVERY - $6500 (only 1 available) ($9750)"

[phase pistol]

As to my Twinch suits, no I acquired them from two different people.

- k

[phase pistol]

"2010" is a mildly interesting Eighties B-movie. "2001" is a classic of cinema.

SO does that entitle me to hate "2010" with the white hot fury of a billion suns? I say yes.

[steevy]

Yeah 2010 seemed to kind of apologize for some of the things in 2001 that didn't come to pass.So they tried to be more "realistic" which is kind of a slap in the face of the earlier film.When 2001 was man hadn't even reached the moon yet after all.

[phase pistol]

Well so much for the 13-inch Pod then.

CC's large Discoveries (the 11 footer and 7 footer) were in development many years ago... I remember the "underwriters" who supported it, and the amazing photographs that came out of the project.

Of course I have no place to put an 11 foot Discovery so that's why I didnt' get one.