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