• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

2001: A Space Odyssey is basically 3D

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 22576
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 22576

Unconfirmed Member
I haven't watched this movie in a good five years, probably. Watched it last night at about 2am. Happy coincidence. We sat down to watch a Roland Emmerich movie [seriously! he rules too] we even pulled cushions up on the floor close to the TV and had lots of snacks, etc. Super poppy movie watching time with friends. Well, like 15 minutes into 10,000BC we decided it wasn't worth watching and since there was no internet, we were limited by what physical media there was on the premises. Enter: a shrink wrapped copy of 2001 complete with the weird turn of the century style cardboard sleeve thingamajig.

Well, we put it in.

After being dumbfounded [lol] by the 10 minutes of overture accompanied by nothing but a black screen the film began in all its majesty. And I shit you not you guys, the entire world fell away from me. I ceased all existence and was teleported inside this film, in all its glory. I lost all sense of analytical consciousness and just became this weird pulsating being of experience. And what an experience it was.

I haven't sat down and watched a Truly great film in quite a while. I'm time limited and most of the video content I consume is either stuff like Giantbomb or Poppy TV shows like Game of Thrones and True Blood. Ok, whatever, say what you will about the film. I'm here to talk about the photography and framing.

I've always read the arguments that 3D is unnecessary because film is already an inherently 3D medium. Its an argument I could respect and appreciate, but not necessarily one I understood. In 3D things pop out of the screen and in non-3D they don't. I've seen a lot of movies and consider myself to be a respectable-enough film geek when comes to the amount of film culture I've exposed myself too, but I have never experienced anything like last night. And I've seen this movie like 3 times. Something about it. It was more 3D than Avatar, I'm not even joking. There was so much depth to it, it was like looking through a viewmaster. It was shocking and jaw dropping and most importantly of all, FUCKING GLORIOUS.
 
Many of the spaceship scenes are 2D "sprites" moving in a 3D space, so.... No.

Anyways, sounds like it was great weed
 
Jacobi said:
Many of the spaceship scenes are 2D "sprites" moving in a 3D space, so.... No.
Click to expand...
Those aren't even the parts I'm referring to. The monolith scene was the first time I started to notice it.
 
Sounds like awesome drugs you were on.

2001 is an incredible film though, one of my favorites.
 
Jtwo said:
I've always read the arguments that 3D is unnecessary because film is already an inherently 3D medium. Its an argument I could respect and appreciate, but not necessarily one I understood. In 3D things pop out of the screen and in non-3D they don't. I've seen a lot of movies and consider myself to be a respectable-enough film geek when comes to the amount of film culture I've exposed myself too, but I have never experienced anything like last night. And I've seen this movie like 3 times. Something about it. It was more 3D than Avatar, I'm not even joking. There was so much depth to it, it was like looking through a viewmaster. It was shocking and jaw dropping and most importantly of all, FUCKING GLORIOUS.
Click to expand...
Look, man, it was a great film, but what you're saying makes no sense, and you know it.
 
Jtwo said:
After being dumbfounded [lol] by the 10 minutes of overture accompanied by nothing but a black screen the film began in all its majesty. And I shit you not you guys, the entire world fell away from me. I ceased all existence and was teleported inside this film, in all its glory. I lost all sense of analytical consciousness and just became this weird pulsating being of experience. And what an experience it was.
Click to expand...

I think someone slipped you something.
 
Feep said:
Look, man, it was a great film, but what you're saying makes no sense, and you know it.
Click to expand...


No, I'm being completely sincere. I don't really have the ability or desire to articulate exactly what it is about the techniques Kubrick used to shoot this film but it conveyed a sense of depth thats as good, if not better, than the very BEST of modern 3D. It finally made me understand Eberts arguments. Not that I agree with him, I love modern 3D. It was just something I hadn't experienced before. I swear I'm not intentionally trying to sound like some out there crazy person.
 
what you experienced was being completely really immersed in a movie that has great cinematography. when you are really immersed in something the medium does not matter, it seems real to you because your mind is fully absorbed by it.

this is why 3d is a useless gimmick, you simply do not need it to immerse people. its just a lazy hollywood version of trying to artificially imitate an aspect of good film instead of just making good quality films in the first place.
 
Frank the Great said:
what you experienced was being completely really immersed in a movie that has great cinematography. when you are really immersed in something the medium does not matter, it seems real to you because your mind is fully absorbed by it.

this is why 3d is a useless gimmick, you simply do not need it to immerse people. its just a lazy hollywood version of trying to artificially imitate an aspect of good film instead of just making good quality films in the first place.
Click to expand...
I loved it, because it was actually shot in 3-D, as opposed to shitty post-conversion.

You could make the same arguments about high definition, about color, about sound, hell, about the entire medium of film itself. You don't *need* these things to immerse a person and draw them into the world of the story.

But they're cool.
 
Sounds like Kubrick got it exactly right -
"2001", Kubrick says, "is basically a visual, nonverbal experience" that avoids the spoken word in order to reach the viewer's subconscious in an essentially poetic and philosophic way. The film is a subjective experience which "hits the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does, or painting".
Click to expand...
It's one of my favourite films, a bone-fide classic.
 
Thats exactly what happened to me. I should really watch Barry Lyndon I think thats the only Kubrick film I haven't seen.
 
Jtwo said:
No, I'm being completely sincere. I don't really have the ability or desire to articulate exactly what it is about the techniques Kubrick used to shoot this film but it conveyed a sense of depth thats as good, if not better, than the very BEST of modern 3D. It finally made me understand Eberts arguments. Not that I agree with him, I love modern 3D. It was just something I hadn't experienced before. I swear I'm not intentionally trying to sound like some out there crazy person.
Click to expand...
If it's more 3D to you than actual stereoscopic films then there's a possibility that you may not have depth perception.
 
I think the important word in that paragraph is "conveyed." Thats all a movie does anyhow. 3D movies aren't actually third dimensional. Its an optical illusion. You're still staring at a flat object. My problem with conveying myself on the internet is I'm generally insanely enthusiastic about things so I probably come off wrong. I just am absolutely awestruck at how much depth this film had. I know very intricate, crafted, symmetrical and deep shots are Kubricks calling card. But its one of those things that you read about and are aware of, but seldom actually LIVE for yourself. It was just a great experience.
 
I feel bad for people that never do drugs in their entire life. I think they miss out on a lot of great art and music that way. It just opens your mind in a way that sober living can never begin to match.
 
lol can u see the costumer commit suicide in the background?
 
I'm glad you enjoyed your experience OP, sometimes art is indeed so transcendent.

As for your actual claim of the 3D - ness, it was well known that 2001 was shot using the 'everything in focus' technique, which can really capture size and scope in a way that our normal eyesight, and modern 3D cinema, don't.

For instance:

pod2_jp.jpg
 
Jtwo said:
lol can u see the costumer commit suicide in the background?
Click to expand...

No.

Similar to the Dark Side of the Rainbow effect,[6] at-large rumors suggested that "Echoes" coincidentally synchronizes with Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey, when played concurrently with the final segment (titled "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite").

"Echoes" was released three years after the film's production and is 23 minutes and 31 seconds in length, quite similar to the "Infinite" segment. Sound effects in the middle section of the song convey the feeling of travelling through, or flying over, an alien world. The drone vocalizations heard in the final scenes of 2001 seem to match with the discordant bass vibrations in the middle of "Echoes" as well as the choral glissandos of its finale. Another notable link occurs during a change in scene at precisely the moment when guitar and keyboards crescendo as the lyrics re-enter for the final verse. The early lyrics vaguely convey reference to planets, which seems entirely suitable for the film's depiction of Jupiter and its moons. Adrian Maben re-created this marriage of music and image in his director's cut of Live at Pompeii using CGI.

The members of the band always denied that the synchronization was intentional. Furthermore, the technology to play back film in a recording studio circa 1971 would have been expensive and difficult for the band to acquire(although it is not clear why such equipments would be necessary). However, the band had experience with creating film soundtracks by that point, having created the soundtrack to the French art house film More in 1969. Roger Waters is sometimes quoted as saying that the band's failure to contribute music to 2001's official score was his "greatest regret".[6]

The 1973 George Greenough film Crystal Voyager concludes with a 23-minute segment in which the full version of "Echoes" accompanies a montage of images shot by Greenough from a camera mounted on his back while surfing on his kneeboard.
 
Jtwo said:
I haven't watched this movie in a good five years, probably. Watched it last night at about 2am. Happy coincidence. We sat down to watch a Roland Emmerich movie [seriously! he rules too] we even pulled cushions up on the floor close to the TV and had lots of snacks, etc. Super poppy movie watching time with friends. Well, like 15 minutes into 10,000BC we decided it wasn't worth watching and since there was no internet, we were limited by what physical media there was on the premises. Enter: a shrink wrapped copy of 2001 complete with the weird turn of the century style cardboard sleeve thingamajig.

Well, we put it in.

After being dumbfounded [lol] by the 10 minutes of overture accompanied by nothing but a black screen the film began in all its majesty. And I shit you not you guys, the entire world fell away from me. I ceased all existence and was teleported inside this film, in all its glory. I lost all sense of analytical consciousness and just became this weird pulsating being of experience. And what an experience it was.

I haven't sat down and watched a Truly great film in quite a while. I'm time limited and most of the video content I consume is either stuff like Giantbomb or Poppy TV shows like Game of Thrones and True Blood. Ok, whatever, say what you will about the film. I'm here to talk about the photography and framing.

I've always read the arguments that 3D is unnecessary because film is already an inherently 3D medium. Its an argument I could respect and appreciate, but not necessarily one I understood. In 3D things pop out of the screen and in non-3D they don't. I've seen a lot of movies and consider myself to be a respectable-enough film geek when comes to the amount of film culture I've exposed myself too, but I have never experienced anything like last night. And I've seen this movie like 3 times. Something about it. It was more 3D than Avatar, I'm not even joking. There was so much depth to it, it was like looking through a viewmaster. It was shocking and jaw dropping and most importantly of all, FUCKING GLORIOUS.
Click to expand...

.... Depth and perspective is something that good directors have know how to use for a VERY long time.

3D just takes that and expands the toolset even more. A director that knows how to shoot for depth and perspective, that shoots a film in 3D will achieve a lot more than if they didn't shoot in 3D.

Shame that few directors are as good as Kubrick at, well, honestly everything... As 3D matures and we start getting films that were actually shot in 3D, as opposed to converted to 3D after the fact, I think everyone will start to see what is really going on...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Rewatchables Podcast does 2001: A Space Odyssey and Steven Spielberg is their guest
9
175
DKehoe replied
The Odyssey | Official New Trailer
2
287
Ikutachi replied
New, bizarre ad for Chris Nolan’s The Odyssey
20
643
[Sigma] replied
The Odyssey (2026) Trailer
24 25 26 27 28
1K
8K
Sticks replied
One of the planet’s biggest cities is sinking so rapidly it’s visible from space
12
421
winjer replied
Top Bottom