Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ptsfc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!ptsfa!ptsfc!rjw
From: rjw@ptsfc.UUCP (Rod Williams)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: 2001: How NOT to make a Movie
Message-ID: <237@ptsfc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Dec-84 20:01:51 EST
Article-I.D.: ptsfc.237
Posted: Wed Dec 12 20:01:51 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Dec-84 06:36:09 EST
References: <2336@ihnss.UUCP>
Reply-To: rjw@ptsfc.UUCP (Rod Williams)
Organization: Pacific Bell, San Francisco
Lines: 19

In article <2336@ihnss.UUCP> knudsen@ihnss.UUCP writes:

>Kubrick was a good enough director and had good enough SFX that he
>brought it off.  But 2001 set some rather damaging precedents:
>
>--Half-hour worth of plot dragged into a 2+ hour movie
>--Wooden, emotionless acting (OK, that's part of Kubrick's story,
>but..)
>--Slooooowwwww pacing, including long special-effects views and what's
>really worse, actors' faces "spacing out" staring at those scenes.
>
>	mike k

  Did you really mean to claim that before '2001' plots didn't drag,
  actors weren't wooden and pacing wasn't slooooowwwww?     (:-))
-- 

Rod Williams
dual!ptsfa!ptsfc!rjw