Of course the graphics were blocky! They were rendered by REAL computers, not hand drawn by artists. In 1984, the computer industry was just starting to explode, and color-CRT displays as small as 12" were readily available! When those set designers sat down to think about what the ship of the future would look like, they rationalized that they would be full of CRT displays in 2010, which was only 27 years in the ACTUAL future! How could they know we'd have low cost high resolution LCD flat-screens after only 17 years? You limit your enjoyment by over-intellectualizing everything with a cynical attitude. The original 2001 scene of the videophone was created by projecting a reel of film against the back of a screen. Most images were hand drawn to resemble possible computer generated images. Did you think that maybe Kubrick didn't use CRTs on his sets was because they did not have color CRTs available in 1968 that were small or cheap enough to build into his sets? All his screens were flat because they used slide projectors to flash static images against the back of semi-transparent screens. Well, you guys are assuming that Kubrick's film has flat panels because of some scientific rationale about the future. A number of reviewers felt that the monitors on the ships (actual CRTs built into the sets) look cheesy due to their pixellated graphics and curved faces. It's like saying all music is of dubious value because it wasn't composed by Beethoven! You're only hurting and embarrassing yourself. Kubrick told the director to make this movie his own, thus the director did! If you go cynically comparing all sci-fi films to rare masterpieces you will only end up ruining your own chance of enjoying them for their own merits. I'm sure the director deliberately avoided copying any of the style of 2001 at the risk of failing miserably and upsetting his own idol. It is, frankly, impossible for ANYONE to produce a film that matches Kubrick's style unless that someone *IS* Kubrick himself! 2010 was not produced to COMPETE with 2001 at all, the director stated that he never would have produced this film without Kubrick's and Clarke's BLESSING. To everyone saying this is a weak film because it doesn't match the depth, mystery, and style of Kubrick's 2001: You guys need to open your minds a bit! It's ridiculously unfair to measure this sequel, or any film, against 2001. I hope someone worthy picks up the remaining 2 Clarke novels for the screen. Finally, this is TRUE science-fiction, not space-opera, and I wish more movies were like this. The effects are excellent even by today's standards, the acting is believable, the characters are well-developed, its pacing is tight, and its plot is well-executed. It carries on the story introduced in Kubrick's "2001", and ties up many loose ends and clarifies what happened in the first film. This is an excellent SCIENCE-fiction film.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |