Modern Trailer for 2001: A Space Odyssey

[3113]

What if the trailer for 2001: A Space Odyssey had been made today, in the Hollywood of 2012? Take a look.

I suppose it's telling that I wanna see that movie.

 

[PennLady]

LOL Very well done. Liked that.

 

[emap]

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I think I'm too old.

Watching the trailer it gave me an impression of the opposite of the movie. I mean 2001 is slow and builds the suspense up. The new trailer there gave an impression of it going to fighting in ten minutes.

On a side note, did you know that the masseusse Gunter is posting in the story ideas? I guess ya'll are not exercising him enough. Not kidding there is a Gunter99 I think it was posting in there.

 

[3113]

Watching the trailer it gave me an impression of the opposite of the movie. I mean 2001 is slow and builds the suspense up. The new trailer there gave an impression of it going to fighting in ten minutes.

That's exactly it--the joke. The modern trailer makes the movie look all mysterious and fast and exciting and like laser guns are going to be firing from those ships at any minute. Complete opposite of the movie.

 

[emap]

Actually I think the joke is that if it was released now done exactly as it was written and filmed the first time it would tank worse than John Carter or whatever that one was titled. I loved the movie, but I've only ever watched it once.

Shush we are not talking about how I prefer faster moving movies to watch again.

 

[sun_sea_sky]

I watched the movie a number of times and vowed I would never EVER watch it again. It is mind-numbingly boring after the second or third viewing. I would rather go play with myself. Or anything at all.

The trailer captures the essence of what the movie is not, interesting and fast moving.

 

[Handley_Page]

I watched the movie a number of times and vowed I would never EVER watch it again. It is mind-numbingly boring after the second or third viewing. I would rather go play with myself. Or anything at all.

The trailer captures the essence of what the movie is not, interesting and fast moving.

It's a movie you only NEED to see once (although I have seen it several times).
It's brilliant, beautifully shot and with competent acting; maybe you're too young to see the cleverness of it.

Try reading the original story.

The 'new' trailer was the biggest turn-off imaginable.
The sound track 'music' was the biggest heap of cr#p ever inflicted on the ears.

 

[sun_sea_sky]

maybe you're too young to see the cleverness of it.

Yes, maybe. However I'm not particularly young.

Try reading the original story.

Right. I have the book right here in my hands. Cost 30p in the UK. As the title page says "a novel by Arthur C. Clarke based on the screenplay by Stanley Kubrick & Arthur C. Clarke."

So there is no "original story". The book was written afterwards. (ISBN 0 09 906610 6)

From memory the book at least made some sense.

 

[Handley_Page]

It was my understanding that Arthur C Clark had written a short story setting the foundation for what became the screen-play.

As is often the case in movie appreciation, I feel we must agree to differ.

Salute !

 

[Bramblethorn]

It was my understanding that Arthur C Clark had written a short story setting the foundation for what became the screen-play.

Sort of. "The Sentinel" (published 1951) was the starting point for "2001", but it's only a small part of the story; it only goes about as far as "humans discover monolith on the Moon that sends a signal to Jupiter".

Funny this topic should come up now; I'd just written a scene for my next Lit chapter that uses a small chunk of "2001".

 

[PennLady]

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I think I'm too old.

Watching the trailer it gave me an impression of the opposite of the movie. I mean 2001 is slow and builds the suspense up. The new trailer there gave an impression of it going to fighting in ten minutes.

As others said, that's the point. The joke is that this is how studios wold try to market 2001 if it was made today. No doubt they would emphasize the space and the conflict.

I saw 2001 a bunch of years ago when I was still in high school because I'd heard so much about it. I wasn't into movies then like I am now, but I think I got most of it, I just found it on the dull side and slow. I'd watch it again, though, since now I know more about movies in general and the sf genre and even that movie to some extent.

According to Wiki, on the source:

2001: A Space Odyssey is a 1968 science fiction film produced and directed by Stanley Kubrick. The screenplay was co-written by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, and was partially inspired by Clarke's short story "The Sentinel". Clarke concurrently wrote the novel of the same name which was published soon after the film was released.

 

[ILmonamour]

I have to agree, after watching that I fully expect the film to be fast paced. Or at least moreso than it actually is, which is epically slow. At university we had to watch that film several times to break it down for analysis--to this day I can't watch it anymore

 

[PennLady]

We almost bought this movie last night, found it for about $6. Instead we got Fantastic Voyage and a 5-set of Scorsese films for $20!!

 

[lovecraft68]

My brief critique is it sucked then and it would suck worse now.

However, when I watched this, I noticed a link to the right about Space 1999 still being reto cool, so the geek in me thanks you anyway!

 

[TheeGoatPig]

2001 is a movie about space with a sub plot about a monolith. I don't think I actually like 2001 as a movie. I liked 2010 more.

A question. How do you remake a movie about the future, that takes place in the past?

 

[PennLady]

My brief critique is it sucked then and it would suck worse now.

However, when I watched this, I noticed a link to the right about Space 1999 still being reto cool, so the geek in me thanks you anyway!

Quite possibly, but then everyone likes different things. I was bored stiff by "The English Patient," but I think it won Best Picture. Or at least was nominated.

Anyway, for anyone who might be interested, Roger Ebert (my favorite film critic) has included 2001 in his "Great Movies," this is his essay about it. Even if you don't like it, or think you don't, you may find something to appreciate about it.

 

[lovecraft68]

Quite possibly, but then everyone likes different things. I was bored stiff by "The English Patient," but I think it won Best Picture. Or at least was nominated.

Anyway, for anyone who might be interested, Roger Ebert (my favorite film critic) has included 2001 in his "Great Movies," this is his essay about it. Even if you don't like it, or think you don't, you may find something to appreciate about it.

No doubt it was a good movie. I have strange tastes. Most hyped movies-like English Patient- I am like, "Yeah,...uh....no."

But show me Airplane and I'm like "One of the best ever!"

Guess I'm just "low brow"

 

[TheeGoatPig]

No doubt it was a good movie. I have strange tastes. Most hyped movies-like English Patient- I am like, "Yeah,...uh....no."

But show me Airplane and I'm like "One of the best ever!"

Guess I'm just "low brow"

I just quoted Airplane in another forum

 

[lovecraft68]

I just quoted Airplane in another forum

Awesome!

Airplane, Top Secret, Naked Gun and I'm gonna get you sucka are all time classics in my book.

 

[3113]

Well, this joke trailer isn't about whether 2001 was a good movie--it's only a satirical commentary on how Hollywood makes trailers in the here and now. How such trailers always make the movie look like it's going to be gripping and exciting, even those movies that are slow and cerebral ballets.

 

[topace]

The trailer was interesting, but I doubt I'll be watching 2001 anytime soon from what I've read here.

 

[rjordan]

Judging by the comments, only a few saw it as an original theater release in 1968. Space exploration was in the news every day. An actual moon landing was imminent. The year 2001 was so far in the future as to be unimaginable for us. I would have been surprised at the time to learn that I would actually still be alive in 2001 and 11 years later than that, still thriving; I was 25 at the time it came out. The movie was just stunning at the time. There had been nothing quite like it. Just seeing the space station hotel in such a futuristic setting was jarring and worthy of water cooler conversations for months afterward.

In THAT context, it was not a boring movie. It was a puzzling movie, but not boring (esp. to those in the front row that were stoned beyond recognition). So much has happened in the world since that a movie like that couldn't even be made today. And if it was, you would have to coerce viewers into seeing it with a trailer like the spoof. That, of course, is the point of the spoof. To sell that movie to today's audience, not to sell it to the audience of 1968. It was a different time, and those who weren't there can have absolutely no idea what it was like or what has transpired to change it.

rj

 

[lovecraft68]

Judging by the comments, only a few saw it as an original theater release in 1968. Space exploration was in the news every day. An actual moon landing was imminent. The year 2001 was so far in the future as to be unimaginable for us. I would have been surprised at the time to learn that I would actually still be alive in 2001 and 11 years later than that, still thriving; I was 25 at the time it came out. The movie was just stunning at the time. There had been nothing quite like it. Just seeing the space station hotel in such a futuristic setting was jarring and worthy of water cooler conversations for months afterward.

In THAT context, it was not a boring movie. It was a puzzling movie, but not boring (esp. to those in the front row that were stoned beyond recognition). So much has happened in the world since that a movie like that couldn't even be made today. And if it was, you would have to coerce viewers into seeing it with a trailer like the spoof. That, of course, is the point of the spoof. To sell that movie to today's audience, not to sell it to the audience of 1968. It was a different time, and those who weren't there can have absolutely no idea what it was like or what has transpired to change it.

rj

That's a valid point. I was born in 68 by the time I saw this it was in the 80's.

I see this in the horror genre where I still think the Exorcist is one of the best movies ever, but it came out in 1973 and kids now laugh at it because there's no sex and non stop gore.

But modern does not always make it better. The last house on the left remake left me sick to my stomach, I walked out of the theater and dragged my 19 year old daughter out with me. She was mortified

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Judging by the comments, only a few saw it as an original theater release in 1968. Space exploration was in the news every day. An actual moon landing was imminent. The year 2001 was so far in the future as to be unimaginable for us. I would have been surprised at the time to learn that I would actually still be alive in 2001 and 11 years later than that, still thriving; I was 25 at the time it came out. The movie was just stunning at the time. There had been nothing quite like it. Just seeing the space station hotel in such a futuristic setting was jarring and worthy of water cooler conversations for months afterward.

In THAT context, it was not a boring movie. It was a puzzling movie, but not boring (esp. to those in the front row that were stoned beyond recognition). So much has happened in the world since that a movie like that couldn't even be made today. And if it was, you would have to coerce viewers into seeing it with a trailer like the spoof. That, of course, is the point of the spoof. To sell that movie to today's audience, not to sell it to the audience of 1968. It was a different time, and those who weren't there can have absolutely no idea what it was like or what has transpired to change it.

rj

Oh, I understand why it was made the way it was, what was going on at the time, and how it all ended up the way it was. But space isn't as mysterious as it was back then, the movie doesn't need to focus so much on where it takes place as what is taking place.

That's a valid point. I was born in 68 by the time I saw this it was in the 80's.

I see this in the horror genre where I still think the Exorcist is one of the best movies ever, but it came out in 1973 and kids now laugh at it because there's no sex and non stop gore.

But modern does not always make it better. The last house on the left remake left me sick to my stomach, I walked out of the theater and dragged my 19 year old daughter out with me. She was mortified

I think there needs to be a compromise. Most new movies suck because they focus on the visuals, which is actually my complaint about the original movie. It was so focused on the slow motion movement through space that it almost forgot to tell the story about what was going on. Now, they throw too many fast moving visuals in front of our faces trying to make it look like something exciting is happening, forgetting to tell the story about what is actually happening.

If the movie were to be redone, I would want to see the focus shifted from the visuals toward the actors. Like the movie Moon. Yes, there were special effects, but the focus was on Sam Rockwell's characters, not of what we saw, but what he said and did. I find that movie to be the middle ground between visuals and story, and I loved it for it. Remake 2001 like that, and it could stand to be one of my favorite science fiction movies ever.

 

[emap]

It is an awesome movie and the story they tell is just incredible. Which is the biggest joke of all because the movies they make now are at a level a ten year old can follow it with ease and those are the so called high brow intelligent movies.

I mean seriously, if you want to really get an idea on what I'm talking about, watch the original run of G.I. Joe the cartoon, watch Robotech, in the 80's those were the things children watched, I'm not talking me either they were the subject of conversation at school. They were written well, I mean not quite like 2001 but they were levels above Barney.

Turn on the same cartoons now, they redid them and well I think I'd rather watch Barney. Granted there isn't the whole has to be educational anymore but still, hello. The cartoons are written for toddlers, what about the older kids? Same thing in the movies done now, I mean watch Beverly Hills Cop and then watch a comedy from now. If you don't see the difference go away you are too stupid.