Ask The Gold Trumpet

[Jeremy Blackman]

To follow that up, do you believe in evil?

[Gold Trumpet]

[2001] made it succeptible for a film like Star Wars to take over.

I still don't see that. Obviously that argument isn't referring to economics (which is the whole reason Star Wars, and Jaws & Rocky before it, changed the industry). So are you just talking about interest in technology? You're saying 2001 opened the door (with, strangely, a 10-year delay) for movies to tackle the subject of humans and technology? Didn't METROPOLIS do that?

If I remember correctly, Metropolis didn't really have a major effect upon release. Made in Germany in 1927, it was made as Hollywood was switching over to talkies and generally ignored foreign films anyways. I think Metropolis garnered a following and appreciation over many years. 2001: A Space Odyssey was huge upon release, breaking many box office records. And yea, after 2001 the studios attempted the same success with other sci fi films, but didn't find the right key til Star Wars.

1. Do u think JB uses as many question marks in real life as he does online?

Naw. I think he's more reserved and likely to give someone an evil look instead of interrogating them.

2. Do u think he likes the Black Eyed Peas "Where is the Love" video more than the average person? Do you like it?

Naw. It would have be by a better artist for him to like it that much. Prolly Radiohead, change of lyrics to include ice age atom bombs and video done in propagandic animation. I don't like the video or song. Too preachy for me.

3. Which is ur favorite room in a house?

Kitchen. Great food and great sex.

Are you really cool, or do you have ghost writers?

Ghost writers.

Do you believe that people are mainly good, or do you believe they are not mainly good?

I believe people are mainly good. Its just their intentions become confused due to personal problems and differences with other people so things flare up.

Do you feel comfortable when you have to trust to people, when you don't have other option but to put your trust in somebody else's hands? And i don't think specifically, i think i general, when you'd have to sum all mankind, all 6 billion in that one person.

I don't feel comfortable at all because we've been repeating the same generic life lessons since as far back as I know.

To follow that up, do you believe in evil?

Though I think the term is greatly overused, yea, I do believe in evil. I just don't go around calling every Middle Eastern nation it like others.

[SHAFTR]

GT has transcended from Message Board Poster > Film Critic > Philosopher

[Jeremy Blackman]

If I remember correctly, Metropolis didn't really have a major effect upon release. Made in Germany in 1927, it was made as Hollywood was switching over to talkies and generally ignored foreign films anyways.

Okay, let's clarify something: There's a difference between economic effects and artistic efects. I'm not saying it had a box office effect on Hollywood, but that the major filmmakers of the 70s and late 60s were influence by it and early German film in general.

And yea, after 2001 the studios attempted the same success with other sci fi films, but didn't find the right key til Star Wars.

What were these "other sci fi films"? You haven't made the connection yet.

[SHAFTR]

And yea, after 2001 the studios attempted the same success with other sci fi films, but didn't find the right key til Star Wars.

What were these "other sci fi films"? You haven't made the connection yet.

I know that during that period many Sci-Fi films were released.  Or to better put it, films that dealt with the future.

All of the following were released between 1968 - 1977:

The Andromeda Strain
Sleeper
Westworld
Logan's Run
The Omega Man
Death Race 2000
Rollerball
THX 1138
Silent Running
Futureworld
Soylent Green

PS> I know I'm not GT and you didn't Ask SHAFTR, but I thought I'd chime in.

[Jeremy Blackman]

2001 and Star Wars are so different from all of those, though...

I don't see the box office connection. Where's the economic strategy?

[SHAFTR]

2001 and Star Wars are so different from all of those, though...

I don't see the box office connection. Where's the economic strategy?

The connection is that the studios saw the success of 2001 and tried to carry it through with more Sci Fi films, most failed until Star Wars.

[Jeremy Blackman]

The connection is that the studios saw the success of 2001 and tried to carry it through with more Sci Fi films, most failed until Star Wars.

I don't get how that list of movies is profound. There were just as many if not more popular science fiction movies throughout the 60s. 2001 didn't make much more domestically than Planet of the Apes (also 1968), which, being a Fox production, has more of a tangible connection to Star Wars.

[SHAFTR]

your Planet of the Apes mention is warranted

----------
by Bruce Eder / Allmovie.com
....
There were some successful big-screen science fiction series during the middle- and late-1960s, the most notable of which were Franklin Schaffner's topical sci-fi/satire Planet of the Apes, and Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Planet of the Apes, loosely based on Pierre Boule's satiric novel, proved that serious stories could be embraced by major actors (Charlton Heston was probably the first major leading man not to compromise his career by doing science fiction) in a science-fiction setting. But science fiction movies really made their entry into the realm of serious cinema with Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, the most ambitious (and some would say pretentious) entry into the genre since Metropolis 40 years earlier. Audiences generally found the film dull and didactic, where it wasn't simply obscure, but were overpowered by its visual splendor and the grandeur of its two million-year time frame. The film doomed the childrens' version of science fiction to extinction and opened up opportunities for other filmmakers. Douglas Trumbull, who had designed many of the special effects for Kubrick's movie, was one of the first to avail himself of the chance to make a movie of his own, with the environmentally conscious science-fiction drama Silent Running (MCA/Universal), which scored a modest hit at the box office.


Serious science fiction became much easier to produce in this new environment, and among the most widely seen of this new crop of films was Robert Wise's The Andromeda Strain, based on the best-seller by Michael Crichton, which was made with meticulous detail but played at a less-than-exciting pace (this movie also ran into a problem in its future-release cycles, as technology caught up with it -- some desktop computers can now do most of the work that the film's huge underground computer is shown doing). By the middle of the 1970s, however, the brand of earnest, issue-oriented science fiction popular at the start of the decade had run out of steam at the box office, a result of too many disappointing big-budget efforts such as Soylent Green and The Omega Man. Among the last of this sub-genre was Logan's Run (MGM/United Artists), an adaptation of a well known book that has aged surprisingly well despite some very dated sensibilities about the future and about how to design and play science fiction (the letterboxed laserdisc of this movie is a treat).


Even as Logan's Run was playing out its string at the box office to modest success, George Lucas was readying the film that would usher in yet another new era in science fiction -- Star Wars.
....
----------

[Jeremy Blackman]

I don't know what we're arguing about anymore.

[SHAFTR]

I don't know what we're arguing about anymore.

I never meant this as an argument.

[Gold Trumpet]

Well, what I think JB means is that after 2001, no sci fi film used technology in the way of recreating space the way Star Wars did....and that very well could be true, but yea, many large efforts at producing sci fi films did happen after 2001 even if it didn't try to recreate the special effects glamor of the film, it surely was trying to recreate the box office success and 2001 was a pinnacle film to suggest to studios that sci fi films can make money.

[Jeremy Blackman]

it surely was trying to recreate the box office success and 2001

I have a hard time believing 2001 was a model for the science fiction blockbuster, though. It was Star Wars, after all, that invented that idea... and it made six times the profit. If they really thought Star Wars was going to be a blockbuster, why did it have a budget of $11 million? Star Wars closely followed blockbusters Jaws and Rocky at a time when science fiction was becoming less and less successful... it hadn't really happened until the late 60s and the first couple years of the 70s. In the late 70s, there was a hunger for fast-paced adventure movies, which might account more for producing Star Wars... and 2001 is as far from that model as you can get.

[modage]

2001 was a pinnacle film to suggest to studios that sci fi films can make money.

the 1950's was all science fiction films, (probably most of which made money or they would've stopped making them).  they were low-budget, but i dont think the studios didnt realize that genre could make money until almost 1970.

also: i'm not sure what this argument is.  are you saying that because 2001 had good special effects, it couldnt have any good effect on movies?

[Jeremy Blackman]

also: i'm not sure what this argument is.  are you saying that because 2001 had good special effects, it couldnt have any good effect on movies?

This is what's annoying me. Star Wars had a bad effect on the box office economy, and 2001 made Star Wars possible, so 2001 is to blame?