Films/DVD Asylum

• Re: You'd feel differently if you saw 2001 in the format it was meant for. Some - David Aiken 13:44:40 01/06/07 (2)
  In Reply to: You'd feel differently if you saw 2001 in the format it was meant for. Some posted by tinear on January 6, 2007 at 10:40:05:

  But I have seen it that way, years ago. Likewise for Solaris which I also saw in the theatre years ago. I've seen them both in the theatre and I've now seen both of them again recently on DVD. The playing field is as level as it could be, given that there's always going to be a time gap between viewings of different films one is comparing.

  I agree that 2001 is an extremely compelling visual experience. If you re-read my original comments you will see that I said "I still think 2001 is spellbinding visually and it's superbly put together". I don't question your view on that.

  For me, however, the visual spectacle of 2001—or of any film—is not the sole criteria that determines my overall opinion of the film. There are other aspects of a movie which receive our critical assessment: plot, acting, pacing, music, technical execution, and no doubt many others.

  My assessment is that Solaris is the better film and the things that make the difference for me in this case relate largely to plot and acting. Bear in mind that I'm giving my personal assessment of which film I prefer and I'm not saying that those factors will always outweigh visual effects for me. I'm simply saying that, for these 2 films, on balance I assess Solaris more highly than I do 2001. I also said "Everyone's mileage is definitely going to vary here" and it obviously does. We are different people with different tastes and interests. I'm not surprised that others feel differently about this matter.

  And I haven't said that 2001 was a bad film. I actually think it's quite a good film, one I have enjoyed each time I saw it, but I don't think it is a great film. That's my personal opinion. I think Solaris is a great film. That's another of my personal opinions. Feel free to disagree, that's OK. We don't all like the same things to the same degree and it's good that we don't. Variety in what people like is probably the only thing that guarantees that we're going to get variety in what filmmakers/composers/musicians/artists offer and we'd all be poorer without that variety.

  
  David Aiken
  
  
  

  ---

  • NO the playing field is not. 2001 is a very different movie, it's predominantly - tinear 17:10:59 01/07/07 (1)
    In Reply to: Re: You'd feel differently if you saw 2001 in the format it was meant for. Some posted by David Aiken on January 6, 2007 at 13:44:40:

    meant to be a visual film... you do know Kubrick was a photographer before turning to film?
    
    

    ---

    • Re: NO the playing field is not. 2001 is a very different movie, it's predominantly - David Aiken 22:23:43 01/07/07 (0)
      In Reply to: NO the playing field is not. 2001 is a very different movie, it's predominantly posted by tinear on January 7, 2007 at 17:10:59:

      When I said the playing field was level, I meant that I had watched both films under similar conditions, ie in the theatre years ago and on DVD recently. I do realise that 2001 is a visual film, but then quite a few parts of Solaris are also quite predominantly visual.

      I don't think I've given one film an advantage over the other by the way in which I've seen it. That is the level playing field. If I could see both of them again in the cinema, I would do so, and I believe that if I did so my opinion would be unchanged.

      The simple fact of the matter is that we have different tastes and preferences. Obviously 2001 really floats your boat and Solaris doesn't. That's fine, but for me that situation is reversed. I appreciate 2001, I enjoy it, and I respect it as a film, but I personally think that Solaris is a better film overall.

      You aren't going to get total agreement on the respective merits of these 2 films. Some people will prefer one and some will prefer the other. It's not a matter of some people being wrong, just the fact that they have different tastes.

      David Aiken
      
      

      ---
• Re: You'd feel differently if you saw 2001 in the format it was meant for. Some - rico 12:34:51 01/06/07 (0)
  In Reply to: You'd feel differently if you saw 2001 in the format it was meant for. Some posted by tinear on January 6, 2007 at 10:40:05:

  The first time I saw it was in 1968 in one lense Cinerama (AKA Ultra Panavision) on a huge curved Cinerama screen. They had the voice of HAL off to the right in a separate speaker all his own. It was mesmerizing. I saw it there a couple of more times and then followed it around for a year, even seeing it in the rain at a drive in! I of course bought the soundtrack lp, the "making of" book (first of its kind, I believe) and, later, every video version that came out until the current anamorphic 5.1 DVD. I have also seen a remastered film version a couple of times. I look forward to seeing it in high definition. It is my favorite movie of all time.
  
  

  ---

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Signature Sound

[ Signature Sound Lounge ]

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---