posted by
chromas
on Monday April 02 2018, @08:48PM
from the 2020:-so-when's-the-childhood-origin-story-semi-prequel-soft-reboot? dept.
from the 2020:-so-when's-the-childhood-origin-story-semi-prequel-soft-reboot? dept.
Stanley Kubrick's science fiction epic, "2001: A Space Odyssey", was released 50 years ago this month. The film festival, Cannes Classic, will commemorate the occasion by showing an unrestored 70mm print of the 1968 masterpiece next month.
See also:
The Hollywood Reporter : Christopher Nolan to Present '2001: A Space Odyssey' in Cannes for Film's 50th Anniversary
Entertainment Weekly : 2001: A Space Odyssey star says sets 'made Disneyland look like a country fair'
Variety : Christopher Nolan to Present '2001: A Space Odyssey' at Cannes
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" Release 50 Years Ago
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 41 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday April 02 2018, @08:58PM (24 children)
Is the 50th annaversary more significant than 49? Will we be notified about the 51st?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 02 2018, @09:12PM (18 children)
50 is a nice round number. That is, a number which ends in a zero. 5010 = 1100102
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 02 2018, @09:23PM (11 children)
Ugh, half of all numbers end in 0 dumbass.
(Score: 4, Funny) by frojack on Monday April 02 2018, @09:40PM (2 children)
Someone Modded that troll? Why?
There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Funny) by SomeGuy on Tuesday April 03 2018, @02:40AM
Not quite:
There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary, those who don't, and those assholes who insist all counting must start at "0"!
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday April 03 2018, @01:32PM
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who divide people into two groups, and those who do not.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Freeman on Monday April 02 2018, @09:40PM (2 children)
No. Because, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 02 2018, @09:53PM (1 child)
I'm sure you already saw the explanation but "5010 = 110010" (subscript 2) kinda looks like a binary number and thus the following joke. If you feel that you are explaining something that REALLY shouldn't need explaining then chances are high you're responding to some sort of joke.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday April 03 2018, @03:06PM
The anonymous I was replying to, didn't specify base 10 or base 2 numbering. I assumed he meant base 10, but it's entirely possible he was referring to base 2.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 02 2018, @11:13PM (2 children)
Who are you? Binary-man?
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Tuesday April 03 2018, @07:09AM (1 child)
Yes. Or no.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday April 03 2018, @01:33PM
That doesn't work in base 1.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 03 2018, @04:54AM
And all strings end in \0.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday April 03 2018, @01:31PM
That should have been modded Toche.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 02 2018, @09:41PM (2 children)
49 is a nice square number, so it looks the same no matter how you look at it.
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Monday April 02 2018, @10:00PM
Still very flat. 54 will be two cubes, at least.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday April 03 2018, @01:34PM
Square numbers need to stop being so stiff man, and get with the times.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Monday April 02 2018, @10:08PM
You and your integer number bases...
I use e and π for all my numbers!
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday April 03 2018, @05:24AM
"Fifty"has got a kind of woody sound. "Fifty"!
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday April 03 2018, @07:02PM
Not nearly as round as 10 years earlier. That anniversary ended in 100 zeroes.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Monday April 02 2018, @09:43PM
Tradition says yes.
"Will we be notified about the 51st?"
I cannot say for sure.
I can say for sure, however, that when "Star Wars" turns 50 there won't be any prints available of the movie that was screened in 1977.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 03 2018, @12:44AM
Maybe the 149'th year anniversary is significant since the ratios of the monoliths' dimensions are: 1 : 4 : 9
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday April 03 2018, @01:24AM (1 child)
It's news because it's a premiere. It's not a premiere. It's the SAME movie that many, many people have seen already!!!
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday April 03 2018, @07:06PM
But this time it's an unrestoredprint! It's the unique opportunity to experience all the damage a film can accumulate over half a century! :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 05 2018, @01:02PM
49 is 7*7 whereas 50 is 5*5*2. That could be significant.
(Score: 5, Informative) by WizardFusion on Monday April 02 2018, @09:40PM (1 child)
The book is a great read. Just don't read the sequel (2010)
The second book (2010) was based on the film of the first book which changed a lot of the details.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Monday April 02 2018, @10:52PM
What are these films? Period dramas?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 02 2018, @10:35PM
It was only a mild success at the time. You have to admit the pace is slow, especially by today's standards. You have to view it kind of like an art film: study the look, feel, and sound and bring yourself to feel immersed rather than trying to find a plot or chase scene. What probably made it just profitable was the final Kaleidoscope-esque sequence that got the reputation for being a "groovy trip" under LSD. Many teens came in late just for the ending.
It's amazing what Stanley achieved without CGI. A documentary on how they did what they did is a show in itself. And the hardware looks "practical", compared to the smooth, sleek look of 40's and 50's sci-fi. Some of the same design and effects crews worked on Star Wars, giving the hardware a very functional and sometimes gritty feel, including wear-and-tear and dust, and engines that are clunky to start. Thus, 2001 was perhaps the start of this-is-real-and-routine-equipment feel
And it was ahead of it's time with tablet computers and Siri on Steroids: HAL-9000. Back then it was gee-whiz pie-in-sky stuff, now the kids would just say, "It's like Siri/Alexa, but smarter."
However, space travel is still not routine in the airline-esque sense shown. Probably because there's still no profit in space, beyond tourism for the rich. Maybe in another 50 years...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by turgid on Monday April 02 2018, @10:51PM (4 children)
And it doesn't even have Clint Eastwood or Harrison Ford. It's about the first film I properly understood.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 03 2018, @03:37PM (3 children)
Properly understood? Then you must have been one of those watch it on LSD types.
Of that era, I much preferred Silent Running for a space movie. That was a lot more realistic-space for me.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday April 03 2018, @03:52PM (2 children)
No, I don't seem to need recreational drugs to understand popular culture. I like some pretty "innovative" music. I can't stand techno, though. I reckon one of the big dangers of MDMA is that it ruins your taste in music. I don't do illegal substances. Scotch whisky is my limit.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 05 2018, @09:15AM (1 child)
You've clearly never even been in the same room with actual MDMA if you think it 'ruins' your taste in music.
Good job repeating and spreading FUD without so much as an ounce of critical thought though, Big Alcohol Tobacco and Pharma collectively thanks you for your unpaid contribution to their bottom line. After all, who needs a stable of Russian Twitter bots when you can use actual living breathing retards to disinform the masses just as cheaply if not cheaper?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday April 05 2018, @01:01PM
The only reason techno handbag disco music sells is MDMA. MDMA could be a useful drug for treating things like Depression and PTSD. You're welcome.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Interesting) by TrentDavey on Monday April 02 2018, @10:59PM
I remember reading that the costume designer for 2001 said the reason they didn't win was because the critics didn't realize they weren't real apes. The actors spent hours having hair stuck on bit by bit. It really shows when you see how skinny the bone-chucking proto-humans are in 2001 compared to the monkey-suits worn in Planet of the Apes.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 02 2018, @11:09PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by chromas on Tuesday April 03 2018, @01:41AM (1 child)
Fixed. I await the flogging.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 05 2018, @01:04PM
He was the dude that invented the Kubrick's Cube.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Monday April 02 2018, @11:22PM (1 child)
50 years ... I have to admit tho that 2001 isn't really my favorite Kubrik movie, if it wasn't for the interaction with HAL I'm not even sure I would have rated it very memorable. I'm not going to say it's overrated since it is quite good -- just not as good as several of his other movies. I don't even think it would make my personal top 3 of his films, possibly at the end of the top 5 -- Dr Strangelove, The Shining, Spartacus, Fullmetal Jacket ... then it's a bit off a tossup between Paths of Glory, Barry Lyndon, Eyes wide shut and 2001 that largely depends on what mood I'm while watching.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 03 2018, @01:50AM
No mention of "Clockwork Orange" ?
You must be and are disqualified from any serious discussion of Kubrick's work.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 03 2018, @06:54AM (1 child)
49 years since the same Stanley Kubrick filmed the Moon landings, but no one gives him credit for that. Those Moon landing films are his most popular work. Talk about not getting credit.
Stanley Kubrick was used to make these films because he was a jew from khazaria who will keep his mouth shut.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Chromium_One on Tuesday April 03 2018, @09:49AM
Honestly the biggest obstacle for the whole thing was how he insisted on filming on location for the sake of authenticity. It was a nightmare to get the whole thing done properly, but it paid off in the end.
When you live in a sick society, everything you do is wrong.