MGM and the "2001: A Space Odyssey" franchise

[PSU442]

with MGM looking into to their film library to find new franchise tentpoles, how long do you think it'll be before they end up making another sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey? Clarke wrote some halfway decent follow ups (well, 2061 wasn't bad --- 3001 was kind of a sell out & lame, IMO.)

 

[Shuley]

2001 was boring as hell...good special effects for it's time though.

 

[matrix_ghost]

It depends on whether they're interested in making a smart SCi-FI film like the original was , or some fast action driven movie like so many of today's SCi-FI movies.

Movies like The Fountain will show whether the days of the old SCI-FI , where special effects can be used for dramatic purposes rather then for an action spectacle , will return.

 

[PSU442]

2001 was boring as hell...good special effects for it's time though.

ha... an opinion held by most. I think the movie is brilliant; the directing, incredible.

 

[Cyrusbales]

the 2010 movie was.........well BORING!!! Can't people just leave thigs alone, 2001 was near perfect, we don't need more of the story!

 

[Shuley]

ha... an opinion held by most. I think the movie is brilliant; the directing, incredible.

still boring...men dressed in ape suits for 25 minutes is boring.

 

[Cyrusbales]

2001 is a very high brow film, I fully understand why people don't like it, It's like a three hour long peice of pure blissful art, not everyone's cup of tea tho! (I LOVE IT)

 

[matrix_ghost]

I remember watching 2001 here in the cinema , when they were showing the classics again .

I swear it's one of those movie experiences where you just shut down you're mind and not try to think. Just watch it. I left the theatre with a "WTF did i just watch look".
'The light show was just astounding.

And it's a great movie where there isn't really an answer and you just have to make you're own interpretation really. Awesome , awesome movie. But definately not something i'd watch over and over again

But to be honest , post 2001 where the stories any good
I haven't read any of the books , so i don't know whether the stories are crap or not.
2010 was okay but definately not as good as 2001

 

[Cyrusbales]

I remember watching 2001 here in the cinema , when they were showing the classics again .

I swear it's one of those movie experiences where you just shut down you're mind and not try to think. Just watch it. I left the theatre with a "WTF did i just watch look".
'The light show was just astounding.

And it's a great movie where there isn't really an answer and you just have to make you're own interpretation really. Awesome , awesome movie. But definately not something i'd watch over and over again

But to be honest , post 2001 where the stories any good
I haven't read any of the books , so i don't know whether the stories are crap or not.
2010 was okay but definately not as good as 2001

2010 was wubbish!

 

[JLBats]

I have a friend who watches 2001 on fast forward. He says it's a great film.

In all seriousness, I don't mind films that are insanely long and slow, if they have intelligent, interesting themes and visuals. 2001 falls under the category.

 

[Cyrusbales]

I have a friend who watches 2001 on fast forward. He says it's a great film.

In all seriousness, I don't mind films that are insanely long and slow, if they have intelligent, interesting themes and visuals. 2001 falls under the category.

Once again, right on the money mon petit lapin!

 

[Hunter Rider]

Tentpole movies are designed to appeal to ppl and be exciting summer fare,2001 is not a movie for that so no sequel would make sense with the tentpole intention

 

[Jochimus]

For some reason I always found 2010 more watchable than 2001. I don't know why. Although having Chief Brody and Dick Solomon in it and that whole 'Dave Bowman's ghost' subplot probably had something to do with it.

 

[tinister]

Franchises nowadays is all about Box Office take. So they will only bank on material with mass appeal. The themes and material in the 2001 books are great, but flies above the heads of the mass audience.

So the studio will leave it alone. Which for fans like me - is a good thing. They almost killed the franchise with 2010.

I actually think the next big franchise movie revival will be Battlestar Galatica (with the new series cast). It's only a matter of time.

 

[tinister]

I remember watching 2001 here in the cinema , when they were showing the classics again .

I swear it's one of those movie experiences where you just shut down you're mind and not try to think. Just watch it. I left the theatre with a "WTF did i just watch look".
'The light show was just astounding.

And it's a great movie where there isn't really an answer and you just have to make you're own interpretation really. Awesome , awesome movie. But definately not something i'd watch over and over again

But to be honest , post 2001 where the stories any good
I haven't read any of the books , so i don't know whether the stories are crap or not.
2010 was okay but definately not as good as 2001

I agree with you. You can't sit down to watch 2001 with any pre-conceived expectations - or else you will not enjoy the experience. If you disengage your thought process - the movie starts to literally become an experience - and you find your mind start to make connections with what's happening on screen. Every time I watch that movie - I get a slightly different impression. It's pretty cool.

If you read up on Kubrick's vision for the film - he specifically set out to create this kind of an experience. And the movie was made during a time when both the studios and the viewing public were much more open minded about movies.

This is the main reason I don't think a relaunched 2001 franchise would work with the audience today. Audiences today expect everything to be literally laid out for them. With movies now - I can always figure out exactly what will happen 30 minutes into every movie nowadays. The modern audience simply lack the attention span to enjoy a movie like that.

So if the studio decided to make a sequel - I think it will be a much more conventional approach. Which I feel won't really capture the spirit of the original movie - or the material and subject matter of the books.

 

[tinister]

I'll put it this way. Take 2001 storyline and film it as a conventional movie - and you'll get crap like "Mission to Mars". A movie that can't even be considered art, and is still incoherent.

Kubrick's film did a great job of visualizing complex concepts about the universe.

 

[PSU442]

I agree that, unless you're in the mood, 2010 is an easier film to sit down and watch. The studio did what they had to do to make the film more appealing and (I think) it was considered a success. It wasn't great film, in my opinion, but it wasn't terrible. With that being said, I think a talented director could take the material found in 2061 & 3001 and turn it into something worth while. The film could easily be hyped (the monolith, the discovery, and Hal are that iconic -- imagine the trailer!) and would make a perfect holiday release. You know, after thinking about it, a good director for the job would be Bryan Singer. I know some of you will flip out at that suggestion after SR.... but did anybody else notice the handful of 2001 references found in Returns??? I was shocked!

 

[PSU442]

It's been a long time since i read 2061 and 3001. I remember not being crazy about 2061 but thought it was enjoyable. It follows Heywood Floyd (the guy from the second one) and his grandson as they go back to Europa. The plot, for the most part, centered around a rescue mission.... the cool thing I liked was that Floyd joined Dave and Hal in monolith heaven in the end. 3001 was sucked... it was nothing more than "Independence Day" with the monolith being the bad guy. In the end Dave and Hal turn against the monolith and save mandkind. It might be an interesting premise but the ending would have to be more creative. What i did like about that one was that the main character was Frank Poole.... the guy Hal killed (or attempted to kill) outside the Discovery in 2001. The book opens with his frozen body being discovered floating in space.... science brings him back to life.


Interesting tidbit I found on Wikipedia..... Tom Hanks was very interested in making 2061 himself (staring, at least.) The project was announced but, obvously, fell through..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2061:_Odyssey_Three

Like I said before, the more I think about it, the more potential a new movie could have... and Singer would be perfect. He can take the original material and make it his (like Superman.) He could give Hal a kid!! haha.

 

[PSU442]

bump

 

[matrix_ghost]

I agree with you. You can't sit down to watch 2001 with any pre-conceived expectations - or else you will not enjoy the experience. If you disengage your thought process - the movie starts to literally become an experience - and you find your mind start to make connections with what's happening on screen. Every time I watch that movie - I get a slightly different impression. It's pretty cool.

If you read up on Kubrick's vision for the film - he specifically set out to create this kind of an experience. And the movie was made during a time when both the studios and the viewing public were much more open minded about movies.

This is the main reason I don't think a relaunched 2001 franchise would work with the audience today. Audiences today expect everything to be literally laid out for them. With movies now - I can always figure out exactly what will happen 30 minutes into every movie nowadays. The modern audience simply lack the attention span to enjoy a movie like that.

So if the studio decided to make a sequel - I think it will be a much more conventional approach. Which I feel won't really capture the spirit of the original movie - or the material and subject matter of the books.

I hate that fact
But even so , i think that a sequel can be made. But not to the point of making it a franchise. These movies are just movies where you need to sit down and really think things thru.
From a commercial POV , making this movie movie would be a one time affair as the risk of not breaking even and/or losing money is too big. You're budget obviously shouldn't be massive but sufficient enough that you can make a quality flick. The obvious Lucas approach come to mind to make this movie.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I liked 2001 well enough but I'll never watch it again.

 

[Cyrusbales]

I liked 2001 well enough but I'll never watch it again.

I thought it was the kinda film you can watch all over again right away! , although there have been movies so good, I didn't wana watch them again for ages, because of the immense impression it left, it would be too much to watch it again maybe, but still...

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I thought it was the kinda film you can watch all over again right away! , although there have been movies so good, I didn't wana watch them again for ages, because of the immense impression it left, it would be too much to watch it again maybe, but still...

lol Sorry, I'm not trying to rock your boat or anything, I'm just saying that it was a one time deal for me. I respect it greatly and what the director did but at the end of the day it's not very re-watchble IMVHO.

 

[PSU442]

i totally forgot about this thread.... so i dug it up...

Matrix_ghost-- do you think the material for another movie is in Clarke's books or does it need to be completely original? I wonder if material could be taken from Clarke's non-2001 books.