Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 50

Thread: 2001 or Gravity?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    487

    2001 or Gravity?

    Which film do you think is better? Do you believe Gravity is the next 2001?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,051
    Gravity's not science fiction, so no, it's not the next 2001.

    I'm hoping this year's Interstellar is.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    478
    Quote Originally Posted by SkepticJ View Post
    Gravity's not science fiction, so no, it's not the next 2001.

    I'm hoping this year's Interstellar is.
    I think it is strongly science fiction...it just uses the existing space labs as props. It feels more real that way...it is an effect.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,165
    Quote Originally Posted by cjackson View Post
    Which film do you think is better? Do you believe Gravity is the next 2001?
    I honestly didn't think much of Gravity. I expected way more from the write ups but it didn't, for me, do justice to the themes it was meant to be exploring. The kinematic special effects were good but I didn't think the graphics rendering was very good, mostly of the backgrounds.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Northern Utah
    Posts
    6,213
    It's been a long time since I saw 2001 on TV, and remember practically nothing about it.

    That said, it was probably a better movie than Gravity for the simple reason that Gravity's story was so forced. Gravity worked as a thriller, there just wasn't much depth to anything beyond the effects.
    I'm Not Evil.
    An evil person would do the things that pop into my head.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pontoise France
    Posts
    2,319
    2001 was art , even if I did not like the psychedelic ending. Gravity is just a thriller in space with good special effects. Nothing more.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Florida.
    Posts
    5,896
    Wait and see how much influence Gravity has on filmmaking for the next quarter century.

  8. #8
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    11,311
    Gravity by far. It's not just that I thought 2001 was cinematic anaesthesia. Sure Gravity is a bit vapid itself, though at least there is a story this time, but I thought it did a better job at depicting real space in an important way. 2001 did a decent job portraying a credible Collier future, but Gravity's depiction of mechanics of floating through space really gave the public a much needed dose of realism.

    Of course the movie's realism is far from absolute as already discussed but it is a landmark in the way it shows how gripping more realism can be to a mainstream audience.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,129
    2001. hands down. even with the kooky ending.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    14,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Glom View Post
    Gravity by far. It's not just that I thought 2001 was cinematic anaesthesia. Sure Gravity is a bit vapid itself, though at least there is a story this time, but I thought it did a better job at depicting real space in an important way. 2001 did a decent job portraying a credible Collier future, but Gravity's depiction of mechanics of floating through space really gave the public a much needed dose of realism.

    Of course the movie's realism is far from absolute as already discussed but it is a landmark in the way it shows how gripping more realism can be to a mainstream audience.
    When did you first see 2001? And was it at a theater or on TV? Seeing it as a young college student in the late 1960's, I found it spellbinding, even though I hated the ending.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Glom View Post
    ...Gravity's depiction of mechanics of floating through space really gave the public a much needed dose of realism.

    Of course the movie's realism is far from absolute as already discussed but it is a landmark in the way it shows how gripping more realism can be to a mainstream audience.
    I agree...with 2001 I always knew I was watching a movie, but with Gravity, the lines betwen fantasy and reality were blurred, likely because I saw Gravity in 3D.

    There were times during Gravity when I felt like this is what it would be like to actually be there...almost as if someone had just filmed these events as they happened.

    I can't off hand think of another movie that has had such an effect on me.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,862
    I can't off hand think of another movie that has had such an effect on me.
    Apollo 13 did that for me. Although the film makers weren't able to truly capture the cramped conditions on the Apollo and LM spacecrafts, the movie still gave me a very real sense of how the astronauts worked in that environment. To see the cramped conditions, visit one of the Apollo capsules and LM Mock-ups on display at the Smithsonian or elsewhere. Even weightless and with the seats folded up, I am amazed at how little room the astronauts had in which to live and work in the command module.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    8,844
    Quote Originally Posted by SkepticJ View Post
    Gravity's not science fiction, so no, it's not the next 2001.
    Thank you! I was starting to think I was the only one who thought Gravity wasn't science fiction. I actually got into an argument on another board about it - I obviously wasn't being clear, because the other poster seemed to think I was somehow denigrating science fiction by excluding Gravity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkepticJ View Post
    I'm hoping this year's Interstellar is.
    I hadn't heard about Interstellar before. Looks interesting.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Florida.
    Posts
    5,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
    When did you first see 2001? And was it at a theater or on TV? Seeing it as a young college student in the late 1960's, I found it spellbinding, even though I hated the ending.
    Yeah. I saw it early on and liked it, back when the critics were still ripping it! Told you so!

    I got there late and missed the titles, Upon seeing the apes, I figured that the film hadn't started yet, that this was a "nature" short subject, (as the suits, the makeups and the actors were that good). For several minutes, I kept expecting Marlin Perkins to step in and tell us what was going on.

    When the intermission came up, people sat quietly, then began talking about it. Nobody went out for popcorn for awhile.

    Massive head-scratching at the end, but nobody asked for their money back.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,486
    Apples and oranges!! It's hard to draw a meaningful comparison of today's space movies with one that was groundbreaking 46 years ago.

    I stood in line for hours in 1968 to witness the first showing in Seattle. The psychedelic ending was totally appreciated at the time since a good share of the audience was well prepared to enjoy that aspect.
    "There are powers in this universe beyond anything you know. There is much you have to learn. Go to your homes. Go and give thought to the mysteries of the universe. I will leave you now, in peace." --Galaxy Being

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Luckmeister View Post
    Apples and oranges!! It's hard to draw a meaningful comparison of today's space movies with one that was groundbreaking 46 years ago.
    That is my view as well.
    A lot of "better" relies on the quality of the technology, and the mood and expectations of the public at the time of release. That often gets me into some strange Star Trek discussions.

    Quote Originally Posted by DonM435 View Post
    I got there late and missed the titles, Upon seeing the apes, I figured that the film hadn't started yet, that this was a "nature" short subject, (as the suits, the makeups and the actors were that good). For several minutes, I kept expecting Marlin Perkins to step in and tell us what was going on.
    I remember documentaries about the make-up of Planet of the Apes. It was groundbreaking for it's time (not simply pasted on masks)
    Rumor has it that Planet won an award over 2001 because they didn't realize the ones in 2001 were actors.

    Quote Originally Posted by DonM435 View Post
    The psychedelic ending was totally appreciated at the time since a good share of the audience was well prepared to enjoy that aspect.
    Rumor has it that it was also the reason the re-release of Fantasia was so successful.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,862
    Quote Originally Posted by Luckmeister View Post
    The psychedelic ending was totally appreciated at the time since a good share of the audience was well prepared to enjoy that aspect.
    Which may explain why many saw it again and again and again and again....

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    478
    I think 2001 is based on 60ies technology...Orion as props. Atomic powered space ship..of pure fantasy.

  19. #19
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    11,311
    Back in the days when we used to call it "atomic" rather than "nuclear".

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    2,001
    ...or "nucular"

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    ...or "nucular"
    Nuclear is correct, a derivation from the root of the word nucleus. I know presidents have said nucular but they weren't scientists.
    "There are powers in this universe beyond anything you know. There is much you have to learn. Go to your homes. Go and give thought to the mysteries of the universe. I will leave you now, in peace." --Galaxy Being

  22. #22
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    11,311
    To be fair, scientists have said it wrong as well so I'll give politicians a pass.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    478
    I hear president called it nukelar once or twice.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Florida.
    Posts
    5,896
    You used to hear "new killer" in the 1960s.

    I noted that nobody says "thermonuclear" unless they want to make it sound worse.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,930
    Apples and Oranges. Gravity is character and plot-driven. 2001 is an artistic and philosophical film that borders on closet drama.

    FWIW, if we're talking about truly realistic space films, The Right Stuff still tops my list, though Gravity was an astounding addition what a consider a trio of similar films, rounded out by Apollo 13.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    I agree...with 2001 I always knew I was watching a movie, but with Gravity, the lines betwen fantasy and reality were blurred, likely because I saw Gravity in 3D.

    There were times during Gravity when I felt like this is what it would be like to actually be there...almost as if someone had just filmed these events as they happened.

    I can't off hand think of another movie that has had such an effect on me.
    One of the comments 2001 got when it came out the first time was one of the cosmonauts saying "now I have the feeling I've been up there twice".
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,612
    For all its outlandishness, Gravity is a bit more realistic than 2001. All spacecraft are pretty much as they appear in real life--not just as close together.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,563
    Quote Originally Posted by cjackson View Post
    Which film do you think is better? Do you believe Gravity is the next 2001?
    Gravity is a very high tech rollercoaster ride, 2001 was a sophisticated modern version of The Odyssey, the two don't compare.

    I wish the people who had produced Gravity had taken a little more time with the science to make such beautiful images much more poignant, I kept being pulled up by, "wow, is that far off of reality." The one destroyed satellite taking down all space communications and positioning systems and producing debris that turned up on cue to make the action more intense was just silly in the end.
    "Back off man, I'm a Scientist!"- Peter Venkman, PhD in Psychology and Parapsychology

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Pretty much in the middle, and a little way up.
    Posts
    1,220
    To my own mind; no question.
    Gravity was rather enjoyable; somewhat silly but Sandra Bullock's superb performance made up for it, IMO.

    But 2001 rocked me to the core when I first saw it as a boy. I saw 'real' spaceflight - long hours of boredom drifting silently through the endless cosmos.

    Many people have discussed the ending. In fact; I did not mind it, nor do today. I'd read the book first and had no idea how Kubrik would render Bowman's passage through the Star Gate. I don't mind saying it scared the pants off me. It STILL does. You see; between the magnificent animation there are moments where Dave Bowman's face is seen in part; screaming in terror as he plunges through th Gate.Those sudden flashes - an eye, a profile, etc. - are incredibly frightening to me.

    (Though I still think Mr. Kubrik REALLY missed the boat by not including Bowmans' last words: "My God! It's full of stars!")

    Therefore; no contest at all. Gravity is nice; but will eventually be forgotten (IMO) as another 3D film. 2001 will be remembered as a piece of unique art.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,563
    There was something magical about 2001 at the time and still is when I watch it now, the ending baffled me when I was younger but seems very profound now.

    I wonder if Gravity hits younger viewers the same way today, even if the movie is more limited in scope.
    "Back off man, I'm a Scientist!"- Peter Venkman, PhD in Psychology and Parapsychology

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •