"My god, it's full of garbage."
The other night I happened to catch 2001: A Space Odyssey on
late-night cable. I first saw the movie when it came out at the movie
theaters in 1968, when somebody at my school thought that it would
be a good thing for our 7th grade class to go see it. And like most
people back then we were pretty much all blown away by it — even if
the ending did leave us scratching our heads. It wasn't until I read
Clarke's book version a while later that the meaning of the Starchild
and all of that finally sank in.
I didn't see the movie again for a while, not until sometime in the
70s. And I think I appreciated it more at that point. After that I
didn't see it across many years — I guess there's only so many times
I can watch even a classic movie.
So not seeing it since the 70s I was amazed at some of the things that
stood out to me now in 2009, things I had never noticed before. And of
course it was natural to make comparisons and contrasts — 1968 to
2001, 2001 to 2009.
So I thought that for this post I would just make a quick list of some
things that occurred to me the other night.
- The first thing that occurred to me was how contemporary the
computer graphics looked on the monitors. Perhaps too evolved for
2001, but certainly not for 2009. - In terms of the shuttle, space station, and Jupiter craft Discovery
we're not even close to anything like that in 2009. The space station
we have now looks like a rat's cage compared to the one in the movie;
and our shuttle program is virtually on it's last breath unless they
can infuse some serious money into it. I have to say that it is
depressing for me to look at all that and think that maybe we could
have been there if we would have just had our shit together a little
more. - It took the most recent viewing for me to finally realize just what
an asshole Dr. Floyd is. - They did score with the idea of the notebook computer — you can
see one of the scientists at Clavius base holding one at the excavation
site. But there is a total absence of cell phones. For me at least,
that was the biggest miss of the entire movie. The lack of cell phones
just stood out like a big sore thumb. - As far as "hot stewardesses" goes, these days they are called flight
attendants and are just as likely to be male as female. - There is no longer a Soviet Union. Something that in 1968 would
have seemed inconceivable. As far as any of the rest of it, though, the
movie still portrays politics as usual. Which is kind of interesting if
you stop to think about it — technology evolves quickly, human nature
doesn't seem to evolve at all. A concept that the ancient Greek historians
would have appreciated. - When Bowman goes out in the Pod to fix the telemetry unit, he parks
the Pod like half a mile from the antennae. Perhaps that's to keep the
Pod from even possibly running into the antennae. But it seems that even
in space it's hard to find a place to park. I think he could have parked
closer even at my local Artfest. - The proportions of the monolith were the first three integers squared,
1:4:9. These days it's more like 16:9 and as thin as possible. Every time
I saw the monolith this time around I kept thinking of plasma televisions.
But I think the thing that struck me the most during the movie was simply
that it had been 41 years since I first saw it, 41 years of my life. And that
has been a strange journey in itself — no monolith required.
Pretty in pink: A Pan Am stewardess.
Hmmm. Must be Ikea.
What the hell is that thing?
"Of course I know what's happening on Clavius.
But you can go screw yourself."
It's still hard to get quality time away from
the kids.
Ah yes, those annoying hardware problems.
And we're still trying to figure things out.
[/I][/ALIGN]
PainterWoman said:
😀 I was 20 in 1968 and pregnant with my first child when I saw this movie. Even at that age I couldn't wrap my mind around the fact that I'd be 51 in 2001. Here I am very soon to be 61….I still can't wrap my head around it. The age thing that is.I haven't seen this movie since the first time. It'd be interesting to see again and is on my classic movie list.
ellinidata said:
"The first thing that occurred to me was how contemporary thecomputer graphics looked on the monitors. Perhaps too evolved for2001, but certainly not for 2009."we sure came a long way!!! I did watch this movie ten years ago,after reading this post I am tempted to watch it again……….maybe :Dthanks for sharing Eddie,I still love the hot pink chairs 🙂
edwardpiercy said:
@ Pam.It's definitely a learning experience. I would recommend it. :up:@ Angeliki.I'd like to know how young people view this movie these days. Do they look at it the way we look at Forbidden Planet. — ????
edwardpiercy said:
The Sony Bravia 52" Plasma TV has a 1080 pixel resolution and will make you want to pick up a tibia and kick some ass with it.And the ironic thing is I wish I had one.
edwardpiercy said:
I liked 2010 better. I liked the stars — Schnieder, Lithgow, and especially Helen Mirren. And I just liked the end of the movie. "All these worlds are yours except Europa….use them in peace."Great stuff. You know Darko I think one of the first times you ever came to my blog you left a photo from 2001.
gdare said:
Ah, I`ve forgot that one. But SF is my favourite in both literature and cinematography, no wonder I leave pics all over the Opera 😆
gdare said:
😆 @ plasma monolithI have seen it in middle of 80s for a first time and it is in my collection of DVDs for about 5 years now – along with 2010: Second Odyssey.
I_ArtMan said:
those are some very interesting observations. i'll watch it again the next time it comes around on cable. i know that when i first saw it. i was truly impressed. funny how they missed the evolution of the telephone… good call. :happy:
Aqualion said:
Conclusion: In some ways reality exceeds fiction in other ways reality is still too slow. Which by the way is fine with me.
edwardpiercy said:
@ Scott.It just seemed blantant by its abscence in the thing, especially when if you go out for a walk or to a mall pretty much every other person has a cell pressed to their heads these days. @ Martin.I suppose that if it weren't that way things would get pretty boring.Kinda makes you wonder about the things that are missed, and why.I've wondered what a revolution would happen to culture if we were to develop a pill that gave everybody a photographic memory. Imagine the consequences of that. There would be little in the way of priveledged knowledge — only priviledged skills.
gdare said:
😆
PainterWoman said:
Ouch, that rubberband! Now is that dorky or what? 😆
musickna said:
Great observations, Edward. I love this movie and it is still one of my most watched DVDs. One thing I notice is the giant still camera that one of the lunanauts is carried as they stand around the moon monolith. Each time he photographs he inverts the camera as if it was some giant Polaroid. As you point out, he should be using a cell phone camera!!
edwardpiercy said:
@ Darko.That must be a pretty old cell phone.@ Richard.I remember that scene and seeing the camera. It's like he tilts it to the side or something, right? Still using film? I don't know. Maybe it's one of those crazy European cameras, a Hasselblad or something. :p
gdare said:
They would be happy to have that in 2001: A Space Odyssey 😛
edwardpiercy said:
I don't even think NASA could afford a Hasselblad with a digital back.Especially these days.:lol: