Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)

newstatesman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 169 posts

Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)

#91

Post by patrickg_zill »

hetman wrote: post #87
indescions_2018 wrote: post #54

Have revisited 2001 recently. Particularly the scene just before Intermission. Where HAL is reading the lips of the astronauts in the pod. It just really holds up. Apart from the genius editing and sound design. It feels even more a cautionary moment for modern minds on AI. As it must have been to American audiences during the height of the Vietnam War era. Ridley Scott's original Alien and Blade Runner remain immens…

I recently watched the original Blade Runner with a bunch of friends; none of us had seen it before. Immensely watchable was certainly not the general opinion. A few of us decided it was worth watching only because it set the background for the new Blade Runner. We're probably missing some cultural element that meant it didn't elicit quite the same reaction as it did for you and I'm very curious what that might have…

Did you watch the theatrical release (has a lot of background music) or the director's cut (doesn't have much background music)?

Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)

#92

Post by jonhendry18 »

pavlov wrote: post #17
tempagain567i wrote: post #12

I literally had to scroll all the way to the very bottom in order to get to the point. If journalists want us to pay them then they must abandon this cancerous writing style of endless fluff and nonsense.

If you want information delivered in ultra-condensed nuggets, try Twitter? There’s no shortage of TL;DRs on today’s Internet. No one is forcing you to read the “fluff and nonsense” of an award-winning 78-year-old author who was friends with A. C. Clarke.

Oh lord Moorcock is 78. I feel old.

Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)

#93

Post by terminado »

hetman wrote: post #87
indescions_2018 wrote: post #54

Have revisited 2001 recently. Particularly the scene just before Intermission. Where HAL is reading the lips of the astronauts in the pod. It just really holds up. Apart from the genius editing and sound design. It feels even more a cautionary moment for modern minds on AI. As it must have been to American audiences during the height of the Vietnam War era. Ridley Scott's original Alien and Blade Runner remain immens…

I recently watched the original Blade Runner with a bunch of friends; none of us had seen it before. Immensely watchable was certainly not the general opinion. A few of us decided it was worth watching only because it set the background for the new Blade Runner. We're probably missing some cultural element that meant it didn't elicit quite the same reaction as it did for you and I'm very curious what that might have…

Stand Blade Runner next to nearly any action, super hero, or "science fiction" movie made after 1999, and Blade Runner wins or ties, every time. For several reasons.

But it's not enough to just be better than the cotton candy fluff of recent movies, since that's not a real competition. It's a solid movie that stands on its own, even despite some quirky flaws in the delivery and editing of the performances.

It's not Rocky Horror Picture Show, where you and your friends have a party, and participate. It's more of a sleepy, quiet time movie like Taxi Driver. Like Taxi Driver, and any other classic movie, it gets better with repeated viewing, as more details tie together.

It's not a mind blowing movie, but for it's time, it dealt with a lot of new themes in extremely subtle ways, without excessive treatment. The future was cast as a recognizable, ordinary reality, taking on a tone that really only draws a cult following, but warrants substantial appreciation.

Movies like this don't get made anymore because risking a budget on cult appreciation doesn't land well in a pitch, especially amid the modern environment of implicit piracy, if it's fair to label shared viewing as such.

Whether it was the first movie to feel vaguely cyberpunk-ish or not, doesn't matter much anymore, but Blade Runner had a deep gravitational pull that influenced visual concepts of the near future well into the late nineties.

Without a sequel, all of the open-ended background trivia that was never elaborated upon, left open a whole universe to imagine, and this is where the cultural resonance ties in. The people who enjoyed the movie were left free to speculate about what really went on in the off world colonies, given the curiousities revealed by film.

I wish more movies were like Blade Runner. It's a rare item. It's not a movie you watch once. It's not a blockbuster. It's not a movie you turn off, when it finds it's way onto your TV, however that manages to happen.

Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)

#94

Post by anigbrowl »

hetman wrote: post #87
indescions_2018 wrote: post #54

Have revisited 2001 recently. Particularly the scene just before Intermission. Where HAL is reading the lips of the astronauts in the pod. It just really holds up. Apart from the genius editing and sound design. It feels even more a cautionary moment for modern minds on AI. As it must have been to American audiences during the height of the Vietnam War era. Ridley Scott's original Alien and Blade Runner remain immens…

I recently watched the original Blade Runner with a bunch of friends; none of us had seen it before. Immensely watchable was certainly not the general opinion. A few of us decided it was worth watching only because it set the background for the new Blade Runner. We're probably missing some cultural element that meant it didn't elicit quite the same reaction as it did for you and I'm very curious what that might have…

It might be because you've seen so many imitations of its aesthetic at this point that it looks old. When it came out it was shocking in both its violence and its pessimistic vision of the future.

Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)

#95

Post by anigbrowl »

DEFCON28 wrote: post #23

I didn't quite get why Kubrick kicked Moorcock off the set. Anyone care to explain?

Film people hate having non-crew people on set, they get in the way, are a safety risk, and are generally distracting. It's typically intensive work with 12-18 hour workdays, and for all the creativity and artistry it's also a busy industrial environment. People who don't belong or get on with the film crew are generally not made to feel welcome.

Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)

#96

Post by kqr »

ferorus wrote: post #57

This is funny. I read the book before I watched the film and didn't know that the movie was released before the book was published. I was amazed of how well the movie put images to what I had read in the book, and having read it, I didn't find it difficult to understand the movie, I just thought it was one of the best adaptations of a book I'd ever seen!

Yes, having read the book makes a huge difference. I tried watching the film first, but I failed and stopped watching a short way into it. Then at some point I read the book, which I really enjoyed. I thought I'd give the film a second chance and I'm glad I did because it was brilliant, having read the book.

Strongly recommend treating them as two integral parts of one work of art -- consuming either one and not the other will leave you much less satisfied.

I think that may be true for several other longer adaptations including STALKER (from A Roadside Picnic) and Apocalypse Now (from A Heart of Darkness).

Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)

#97

Post by kbenson »

hetman wrote: post #87
indescions_2018 wrote: post #54

Have revisited 2001 recently. Particularly the scene just before Intermission. Where HAL is reading the lips of the astronauts in the pod. It just really holds up. Apart from the genius editing and sound design. It feels even more a cautionary moment for modern minds on AI. As it must have been to American audiences during the height of the Vietnam War era. Ridley Scott's original Alien and Blade Runner remain immens…

I recently watched the original Blade Runner with a bunch of friends; none of us had seen it before. Immensely watchable was certainly not the general opinion. A few of us decided it was worth watching only because it set the background for the new Blade Runner. We're probably missing some cultural element that meant it didn't elicit quite the same reaction as it did for you and I'm very curious what that might have…

As others here have mentioned, there are a few different versions, but that's a vast understatement. There exist seven[1] different versions of this film. The differences range from the removal of Deckard's 13 explanatory narrations to a complete change of the ending.

The real question is, what film called Blade Runner did you see?

1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versions_of_Blade_Runner

Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)

#98

Post by stevekemp »

hypertexthero wrote: post #50
jccooper wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stephen King is publicly critical of Kubrick's treatment of "The Shining", mostly about its unchanging and one-dimensional characters. While I expect "2001" would not have been improved by a lot of explanatory voiceovers, I think "The Shining" would be seriously improved by Jack not being obviously crazy right from the first.

The Shining is a rare case of a film being far better than a the book it is based on precisely because of Kubrick’s reinterpretation of the story. I find [this argument][1] that one of its central themes is a suppressed history of violence and bloodshed convincing. A film masterpiece. [1]: http://www.collativelearning.com/the%20shining%20-%20chap%20...

I couldn't disagree with that at all. I enjoy reading Stephen King books, at times, but there aren't that many of them that have become great films.

Off the top of my head the best King films have been "The Shining", "Misery", "Pet Semetry", "Stand by Me", & "The Shawshank Redemption".

So many more films have been terrible (I've not seen the recent version of "It").

Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)

#99

Post by KozmoNau7 »

rainloft wrote: post #89

I've watched 2001 twice in my life. Once on my laptop screen, and once in a theater. Wildly different experiences. On a laptop, it was maddeningly slow. I couldn't bear that scene where the spaceship docks on the space station while the Blue Danube Waltz played. Excruciating. I wish there was more explanation, as my mind was wandering watching this dull film. In a theater, I experienced a completely different film.On…

I've had the same experience with The Shining.

On my PC, it's a bit plodding and slow, but on the big screen, it's a completely visceral and intense experience like no other film I've seen.

Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)

#100

Post by fsiefken »

terminado wrote: post #27
interfixus wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My God, I think you may be right. By the way, as touched upon in Moorcock's article, Clarke would not have appreciated you calling his novel a novelization.

And 2010, the sequel, is pretty unwatchable. It is a bad movie. The worst part about the movie is Roy Scheider's fatherly internal monologue narration, which tediously explains-like-i'm-five for half the movie. So maybe that gives us a hint, about what Clark's narration would have done to 2001. That little sound bite also chimes in over and over again, sounding forced, poorly performed and with a corny distortion eff…

Unwatchable? I liked 2010 very much, treasured it on VHS for a decade
Post reply on HN