"2001 - A Space Odessy"

[Shoegaze99]

“2001: A Space Odyssey” is a pretty good read. Not among Clarke’s best, and certainly not comparable to Kubrick’s incredible vision, yet full of ideas worth mulling over (especially the climax, which is more direct and understandable than the film). What 2001 does well is set up the 2001 universe, which is continued in the very worthy sequels 2010 and 2061. (We’ll pretend 3001 does not exist, thanks). Clarke makes among the very best cases in fiction for life within our own solar system in 2010 and 2061, explores the surface of a comet in 2061, and examines the impact of what a seemingly godlike alien race/being could have on life as we know it in both.

In all the works Clarke grapples with the idea of evolutionary leaps, alien technology, beings greater than us toying with our development, human nature, the birth of life in the universe, and very dramatically copes with the reality of space travel and all the solitude and danger that comes with it.

Because all three are relatively short books by today’s standards, it should be easy to fit then into any reading schedule.

[skbass]

Originally Posted by G-borg

In fact you could argue that Clarke has a more profound reason for not 'caring' about his characters. The book/film is not about persons or characters but about the entire human race. It is about mans place in the entire evolution of the universe.

BINGO...

This could be my all time favorite book. I know I might take some abuse for that statement. But it's to the point, it isn't your typical good vs. evil novel, and it illustrates the feeling that humans just might be one microscopic cog in the machine that is the universe, not the engine itself.

[Stormflame]

I thought the book was cool. It opened doors to alot of things. But, the movie, the older one, if any more have been made, was not very good in my opinion. It was way to old and the effects lacked highly. Certain parts of the movie went on way to long as they tried to 'make' you experience the feeling that they were wanting to get across. Two thumbs down, buddy.

[cyborg_cinema]

Originally Posted by Stormflame

But, the movie...

The movie really dragged on, even during the struggle between Dave and HAL, which was the most suspenseful part of the film. Perhaps the hour long version would be better, but the classic sci fi flick still leaves a lasting impression.

There are parts of the novel that I have never been able to grasp completely, including the cosmic embryo that seems to come back to earth and destroy it.

[Shoegaze99]

Originally Posted by Stormflame

I thought the book was cool. It opened doors to alot of things. But, the movie, the older one, if any more have been made, was not very good in my opinion. It was way to old and the effects lacked highly. Certain parts of the movie went on way to long as they tried to 'make' you experience the feeling that they were wanting to get across. Two thumbs down, buddy.

Kubrick’s film version of 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the most astonishing marriages of sound and visuals ever put to screen, putting together the two elements in a way never before done. The way he uses silence in the film is much like how a photographer might use white space (or “dead” space) in a photograph to enhance the impact of an image or make an artistic statement. Amazingly effective. In 2001, he uses both sound and the visual nature of film in such a way so as to impart the vast loneliness of space, while also engaging in strong symbolism (the match-cut of bone to spaceship, for instance) that underscores the themes present in the story. It was a bold, bold thing.

Couple this with his much-praised use of music, the shrill collages of sound surrounding the finding of the moon monolith, and the dull, deadening hum of the spacecraft (not to mention Hal’s voice) and you have an achievement that is among cinema’s finest.

No, it’s not slam bamn golly gee look at that science fiction. And that’s a good deal of what makes it such a wonderful, important film.

(And I’m absolutely shocked at the statement, “It was way to old and the effects lacked highly”, so much so I can’t even begin to respond.)

[neal]

ideas good kubrick makes it classic other wise just an idea

[neal]

didnt really explain myself the book that is based on the film came after the film before that was just a short story that why film much better

[neal]

i think embryo is just arty directors coblers but the idea that the monoliths multiply adding gravity to a gas giant and then in turn making it collapse fuse and start to shine is a fair idea

[neal]

its as u say like any great film but u have too have the imaginaition to appreciate it just leaving the camera on the red diode after hal says something drastic in a computer matter of fact voice is pure class the guy directed the shining for fucks sake he knows or knew what hes doing

[neal]

i always thought the idea of the monolith half in and half phased out of our reality was a great idea the fact that beings bolt through our galaxy millions of years ago setting up observation posts seems like utter fantasy too most people but where just one planet and space is bigger than our tiny minds could ever comprehend all we know is what we tell our selves in our train track consciousness

[neal]

i know what ur saying but the books are limited because it was a short story that he wrote and then kubrick got hold of it and expanded it until he got the film which wether u like or hate it is a ground breaking peice of cinematogrophy no one had put classic music with anything visual like that before clark has wrote some good sci fi but he is by no stretch of the imagination the best banks reynolds and harrison and wossis name wrote do androids dream of electric sheep got it philip k dick thats how u write sci fi

[Shoegaze99]

Neal, buddy ... great thoughts, certainly a good viewpoint, but use that "Quote" button, man. Your thoughts are posted entirely without context and look like random musings rather than responses to the specific thoughts of others. It's very difficult to follow a discussion that way.

(And as a side note, it's not too difficult to type out "you" and "you're" and "your", is it? That's a habit some people have I'll never understand ...)

[steve12553]

Man, there was a lot in this thread and it left me with three points.
1)I saw the movie a couple of years after it came out, loved it but didn't understand the ending. I read the book and then understood the ending. I saw the movie again and lost the ending.
2)I'd read they were written simultaneously with consultations back and forth but not completely.
3) This movie came out before Star Wars. There had never been special effects of this type before. It may lose some by today's CG standards but considering there were no computeroperated cameras in 1968, it was wonderful. The most impressive part for me was the use of a Strauss waltz in place of rocket noises in a vacuum. Require just a little less suspension of disbelief.

[Serin]

I haven't read the book, but I have seen the film and thought it very good. One question: Did the film differ greatly from the book?

[j. d. worthington]

Yes, there are considerable differences. While the plotline is pretty much the same, there are wide divergences in incident (and even, to some degree, in implications of the action). However, I recommend reading the book, as it is quite a good read, and I must say that I continue to find the film very impressive... it also seems to me to be much more approachable with each viewing... especially the stargate sequence on...