2001: A Space Odyssey - WTH Did I Just Watch?
- Thread starter randelli
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Really??
I thought Christine, The Stand, and Pet Cemetery were all worse than the books. Pet Cemetery was decent enough, but the book was creepy as hell. The Shining is the only movie adaptation of Stephen King that I can remember liking more than the book. I wish they had done something with the bushes from the book, but otherwise good. Shelley Duvall, Jack Nicholson...I love King, and completely understand why he feels that way about his material, but he is nuts.
I hope it was a typo, but the shinning sounds awfully painful on the legs, and the book I am sure is better.
@Al: That's exactly why I said "(for some reason)" in my comments. I wouldn't be surprised if Kubrick's divergences from the novel were for his own specific purposes of conveying some hidden meanings. I've heard of that Room 237 movie...I'll have to get around to watching it.
I can't for the life of me understand why he picked Shelly Duvall as she couldn't act her way out of a paper bag.
I've read quite a few of King's books (not all of course) and they are quite difficult to adapt to a movie as his narrative depends greatly on what is going on through his characters minds and it never seems to convey properly to a movie. Strange as it may seem, a good movie, albeit it was made for television, was Salem's Lot. One of the worse movie adaptations that I saw was 'Cujo'. I believe it was 400 pages plus, but most of it was what was going on through the female characters mind while being trapped in a car by a rabid Saint Bernard dog and obviously completely lost in the film.
I've read quite a few of King's books (not all of course) and they are quite difficult to adapt to a movie as his narrative depends greatly on what is going on through his characters minds and it never seems to convey properly to a movie. Strange as it may seem, a good movie, albeit it was made for television, was Salem's Lot. One of the worse movie adaptations that I saw was 'Cujo'. I believe it was 400 pages plus, but most of it was what was going on through the female characters mind while being trapped in a car by a rabid Saint Bernard dog and obviously completely lost in the film.
Room 237 is definitely worth the time, very !
By far, the best adaptation of a King novel was the recent 11/22/63 8-part mini series, shown on Hulu. I can't remember the director, but James Franco was very good. While still not completely 100% true to the book, they had 10 hours to develop the story, something a movie never allows.
By far, the best adaptation of a King novel was the recent 11/22/63 8-part mini series, shown on Hulu. I can't remember the director, but James Franco was very good. While still not completely 100% true to the book, they had 10 hours to develop the story, something a movie never allows.
Most actors are terrible at any role that does not express their underlying personalities. Like a chromatic scale, S.D. does fear, uncertainty, doubt, confusion and panic very well.
I found this short 4 part video series that explains what Kubrick was potraying throughout the movie http://www.kubrick2001.com It made me appreciate the movie more.
I have read the shining and thought it was better than the movie. The book shows the house workkng to get inside Jack's head to sacrifice his family. In the movie Jack just goes crazy. And the shrub sculptures were much more terrifying than the labyrinth.
When I read 11/22/63, I thought it would make a great movie, all the while praying nobody ever did. How many bad movie renditions have there been of Stephen King movies? 10? I have not read the Colorado Kid so I can't comment on Stand By Me; but I put it with Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, and The Shining as good movies that were not the same as the book.
Of course, rumor has it the they are making The Dark Tower. Who would they cast as Roland?
I have read the shining and thought it was better than the movie. The book shows the house workkng to get inside Jack's head to sacrifice his family. In the movie Jack just goes crazy. And the shrub sculptures were much more terrifying than the labyrinth.
When I read 11/22/63, I thought it would make a great movie, all the while praying nobody ever did. How many bad movie renditions have there been of Stephen King movies? 10? I have not read the Colorado Kid so I can't comment on Stand By Me; but I put it with Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, and The Shining as good movies that were not the same as the book.
Of course, rumor has it the they are making The Dark Tower. Who would they cast as Roland?
Saw 2001 in the theater when it was released. It was a strange and somewhat creepy film. What was it about, who knows exactly, but I took away from it the fear of letting computers run our world. To this day artificial ntelligence and robots scare the crap out of me. Saw the movie Ex Machina, and that put the icing on it for me.
HAL: "Randelli, you sound upset. Perhaps you should step into the air-lock and relax for a few minutes. I promise to let you back in...really. Trust me, Randelli."
The Shining typewriter scene.
Classic.
Name the typewriter.
That sound.
Keys striking keys in endless repetition.
All Jack and no play make typeface the reams of an unfinished opus,
frost.
This shining wide,
sun melts snow.
King is essentially a hack.
Classic.
Name the typewriter.
That sound.
Keys striking keys in endless repetition.
All Jack and no play make typeface the reams of an unfinished opus,
frost.
This shining wide,
sun melts snow.
King is essentially a hack.
Ah yes, I forgot about "Stand by Me", it was a good book and movie (same for Hearts in Atlantis).
Yes, 'Stand by Me' was a very good movie and one that translated well from one of King's short stories called 'The Body'. I've watched it several times and always enjoyed it. In some ways some of the characters reminded me of my childhood friends during the 50's.
As I recall, Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey really was difficult to understand until one read, and then viewed the sequel, 2010: The Year We Make Contact. I understand Clarke originally planned this sequei novel. After that the 2061: Odyssey Three (not made into a movie) and then 3001: The Final Odyssey (also not made into a movie).
The second movie goes a long way in explaining the first. The subsequent two books just conintue the story line. I've not yet read the last one.
The second movie goes a long way in explaining the first. The subsequent two books just conintue the story line. I've not yet read the last one.
Guys,
To appreciate and understand the film, you gotta:
A). Be a sci-fi fan.
B). Helps a lot to have read the book. Because Kubrick is trying to put on film his interpretation of things in the book barely describable in word let alone picture, and does a remarkable job especially considering the date of the film, because the movie is basically about the infinitesimally small mankind meeting up with the immensities of an infinite universe.
Worth noting: A.C.Clarke was a scientist and a visionary. If you didn't notice, many of the things depicted in the movie were shown many years before they were actually created but are in wide use today!
To appreciate and understand the film, you gotta:
A). Be a sci-fi fan.
B). Helps a lot to have read the book. Because Kubrick is trying to put on film his interpretation of things in the book barely describable in word let alone picture, and does a remarkable job especially considering the date of the film, because the movie is basically about the infinitesimally small mankind meeting up with the immensities of an infinite universe.
Worth noting: A.C.Clarke was a scientist and a visionary. If you didn't notice, many of the things depicted in the movie were shown many years before they were actually created but are in wide use today!
- Status