MovieChat Forums > 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Discussion > If there was a good writer and director ...

If there was a good writer and director out there, 2001 would be ripe for a remake

posted 4 years ago by brux (14729)
24 replies | jump to latest

I have to admit, as a kid 2001, which I saw in the theater when it came out, was my favorite movie for decades. When I see it now I see it is so slow, and doesn't wrap up very well at the end - which is both good and bad. Good because it allows everyone to have their own ideas, but bad because it leaves a lot of people confused and on different pages so to speak.

I bet they could remake this as "2101: A Spacetime Odyssey", and tell the same or a similar story and put in all the stuff that vexed and amazed people in the original. But knowing Hollywood they would put in children and a lot of pandering to products and car crashes and violence ... but, I think it could be done and it would be amazing if done right.

Because God know if there is one thing we need it is a super-advanced and wise Starchild to come to Earth and fix the mess we have made of it and ourselves.

[–] old3eyes (331) 4 years ago

3001. The Final Odyssey is under development according to IMDB.

[–] brux (14729) 4 years ago

The sequels are interesting, but they have never hit the mark or had the same theme as 2001. The basic story and plot of 2001 is ... for want of a better word, religious. The sequels were action movies mostly.

[–] Owlwise (1535) 4 years ago

Definitely agree with you on that!

[–] wearsalan (5554) 4 years ago

SequelS????
I thought there was only one movie sequel, 2010, have I missed something?

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

There has been only one sequel. And it definitely took the approach of popular mainstream cinema instead of aspiring to artistry. If 3001 gets made, I want to see it return to the original approach.

[–] Owlwise (1535) 4 years ago

While I don't really see 2010 as a true sequel to 2001, as I don't think there could be one or that it needs one, I thoroughly enjoy 2010 on its own terms.

[–] brux (14729) 4 years ago

I think there were two sequels, 2010 and another one I cannot recall now ... but I may be thinking of the book 2061.

News I have seen is that Ridley Scott is or was going to oversee production of a sequel mini-series, but in my opinion Ridley Scott is either an idiot or has dementia considering what he has done with Prometheus and Covenant on his own Science Fiction series of movies.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I believe you are thinking of the books. 2010 is the only movie sequel.

[–] huwdj (4567) 4 years ago

Agreed. Four books and two films - so far.

[–] huwdj (4567) 4 years ago

Arthur C Clark wrote about the making of 2001. As I remember Kubrick took The Sentinel short story and together they developed the story for the film and the book. There was also a couple of alternative endings tagged on there somewhere. The next three books were all Clark. I always liked 2010, especially the story about the Chinese expedition that didn't make it in to the film. The can't really remember the third book but the fourth had a nice twist when they bought back Poole.

[–] Owlwise (1535) 4 years ago

I really don't think it could or should be remade, because no contemporary remake could possibly do it justice. Any remake would pale in comparison. As I've posted before, I don't find it slow, I find it carefully, deliberately, knowingly paced & measured, conveying the vastness of time & space. And the end works beautifully for me, a genuinely philosophical & aesthetic conclusion that I still find deeply moving & thought-provoking decades later.

However, that phrase "for me" is the key part of my opinion & quite subjective, of course. :)

[–] strntz (12454) 4 years ago

I really don't think it could or should be remade, because no contemporary remake could possibly do it justice. Any remake would pale in comparison. As I've posted before, I don't find it slow, I find it carefully, deliberately, knowingly paced & measured, conveying the vastness of time & space.

Agree. Besides, CGI is nowhere near ready to replicate the physical sets on 2001, and I don't think any studio will try building models anymore.

And the end works beautifully for me, a genuinely philosophical & aesthetic conclusion that I still find deeply moving & thought-provoking decades later.

LOL, that's where we diverge. I love this film - the pacing, the acting, the story, the effects.. right until it gets to the last 20 minutes when I switch the channel to something deeper and with more meaning, like Blazing Saddles.

[–] Owlwise (1535) 4 years ago

That's a fair & valid reaction. :)

[–] brux (14729) 4 years ago

> because no contemporary remake could possibly do it justice.

I am not saying it should be remade ... just that it could be, and it could be done as well as Kubrick did it in the 60's. Now ... realistically, would Hollywood be able to do it without screwing it up totally ... mmmm, probably not.

I am just as cynical as you on that score, but I don't think it is impossible. I think it would be great and really only because when I watch the movie now it is just far too slow to bear, and I am big fan of this movie - one of my top 10 in my life. The audiences have changed, and their ability to absorb information from a movie, but you are right, if they put contemporary music in it and sex it up it would be ruined.

Loving this movie so much I have tried showing it to numerous friends, and they all get too bored to finish it. I appreciate you like it, but you are not representative of the audiences of today. I have the same problem with "Citizen Kane" when I saw this for the first time in High School long ago I thought it was great, but today it is so dated and cliche I cannot watch it.

Not so for real classics like Casablanca, or some of the old pre-code movies.

I mostly hate the output of Hollywood today. I can't think of a single movie in the last years that I even want to see let along see again. They are terrible because they are produced as money-making product. Profit is the killer of art.

[–] Owlwise (1535) 4 years ago

I appreciate you like it, but you are not representative of the audiences of today.

Well, this is quite true. :)

For me, it's probably because as a boy in the early 1960s, older films were on TV constantly, even some silent films, so they seemed as new to me as the then-contemporary films in theaters. And so I had my horizons expanded quite naturally, before I was even old enough to comprehend the full meaning of the phrase. I'm glad to have had that particular introduction to film!

You know, I recently re-watched 2001 & didn't find it slow at all. But as you say, that's very much a minority reaction these days, especially for those raised with faster-paced films. I'm afraid that something precious is being lost, the slower contemplation of any work of art ... and as you so wisely point out, films today are more a matter of cranking out product than making art.

[–] brux (14729) 4 years ago

I read a book a long while ago now by Steven Johnson called "Everything Bad is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter". There is a NYT article on it titled "Watching Television Makes You Smarter" and this YouTube video:

https://youtu.be/vORDFQgoS5w?t=1632

What I am saying about 2001 is also true of the original Star Trek series, and we must be close to the same age so I imagine you were a fan.

Today's TV centers on multiple characters, not just one Capt. Kirk, and has multiple threads, faster action and plots that extend even through seasons. That was never true of TV back in the day. It is a lot of stimulation, and back then they TV networks were skeptical that the average TV viewer would be able to watch these new shows. Now it is like they are on steroids.

I agree with this theory, since I have experienced it in my own media consumption. I do enjoy slow contemplative movies if they are done well, but I like the new media format.

That said, what I find repulsive and problematic about today's media is the subliminal content, the programming of people, and the subordination of the art and morals, remember how each TV show and movie used to have a moral - they used to actually try to mean something, for just consumer product advertising.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8755) 4 years ago

It could be interesting to see a highly-skilled filmmaker (Denis Villeneuve comes to mind) make an adaptation that is a little more conventional and that stays closer to the book.

I'd watch it.

[–] Owlwise (1535) 4 years ago

If it were attempted, he'd be a good choice as director, I agree.

I do think that the book & the film are two entirely different entities. And as much as I've always loved Arthur C. Clarke's work, in this case I think that the film is the true work of art.

[–] pazuzu9 (384) 4 years ago

"I do think that the book & the film are two entirely different entities. And as much as I've always loved Arthur C. Clarke's work, in this case I think that the film is the true work of art".

You're right, Owlwise.

The movie is not based on the book and the book is not a novelization.

They are very different.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8755) 4 years ago

I watched the movie for the first time in 2013 and it had a significant impact on me. For two or three days afterward it floated around in my mind and I ended up buying the Blu-Ray.

Sometime soon after, I picked up the book and read it. The book is certainly different. It presents the story as a more conventional narrative and certain plot points that are ambiguous and obscure in the film are much more clear in the book.

I enjoyed both and I think that you could justify a second film version if the explicit goal was to make it as an adaptation of the novel instead of a remake of Kubrick's vision. I doubt it will ever be attempted though. Comparisons would be inevitable and I think there would be a backlash from many people just on the principle that "You can't remake Kubrick!" or whatever.

[–] pazuzu9 (384) 4 years ago

I wouldn't mind seeing a Clarke version. That would be interesting.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Agreed.

[–] TheArgentinian (7106) 4 years ago

You are why the Lion King remake made a billion dollars at the box office.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

LOL!