"2001 - A Space Odessy"

[iansales]

Excellent film. Can watch it again and again. The book, while good, I don't remember proving so open to repeated viewings/readings...

The sequel, 2010, perversely, I remember as a better book than a film. And the third book, 3001, was terrible.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by iansales

Excellent film. Can watch it again and again. The book, while good, I don't remember proving so open to repeated viewings/readings...

The sequel, 2010, perversely, I remember as a better book than a film. And the third book, 3001, was terrible.

Wasn't the third 2061? It's been a looong time, but that's what I recall... At any rate, as I recall... yes, it was... gawdawful, in fact...

[iansales]

I stand corrected :-) Yes, 3rd was 2061, 4th was 3001.

And if you thought 2061 was bad, 3001 was much worse...

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by iansales

I stand corrected :-) Yes, 3rd was 2061, 4th was 3001.

And if you thought 2061 was bad, 3001 was much worse...

Errr, in that case... I think I'll pass....

[manephelien]

The movie's certainly amazing for its time, although sometimes I wonder what substance Kubrick was on when he invented the ending sequence. That's enough to give epileptics a photosensitive seizure.

Looking back, the thing that jars me most is the 1960s conception of "futuristic" furniture. Looks like leftovers from the early 1970s...

There's quite amazing cinematography in the movie. I especially remember the centrifuge running sequence and the discussion between the two crewmen in the spacepod, with HAL's malevolent red eye looking at them through the porthole.

The book is a good read too, and apparently they were written more or less in tandem, with some modifications made even after scenes were shot. A rather expensive way of writing a novel if you ask me!

There are also some significant differences, in the movie and in the sequels, the events happen in the orbit of Jupiter, with Io being the moon where the Stargate is located. In 2001, Discovery uses the slingshot effect off Jupiter to get to Saturn, and there the moon of choice is the two-faced Iapetus (Japetus), so named after the Roman (or ancient Greek?) god with two faces. On Iapetus, one face is much darker than the other, hence the name.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by manephelien

Looking back, the thing that jars me most is the 1960s conception of "futuristic" furniture. Looks like leftovers from the early 1970s...

Thats nothing, the Kaminoans from 'Star Wars: Attack of the Clones' shop at IKEA! Straight out of the catalogue!

The single most hardest thing about SF for film and TV must be designing the sets and props. Anything that looks futuristic very quickly looks dated. Even letter fonts date; in the late sixties everyone thought those OCR fonts such as those you still get on cheques were futuristic.

Music is another bugbear. All of that early seventies futuristic synthesiser music just seems out of place. I've just been re-watching the 'Planet of the Apes' series and those use it way too much. Much better to go retro and have the characters listen to some old fashioned soul, or rock and roll, or classical music.

One of the reasons that 'Star Trek' the original series (of a similar age) has not dated as much as it could have (compare it with the silver suits in 'Lost in Space') is that the costumes and sets were not built on an extrapolation of the current trends, or made particularly futuristic. Theiss, the costumer designer actually designed those short skirts before the mini-skirt was a fashion icon.

The computers don't have reels of magnetic tape going around, but for memory, instead use a small square disc, long before a floppy disc or CD was imagined. Contrast that with later series of 'Star Trek' when in 'Voyager' Captain Janeway in the 24th Century has this huge enormous PC and monitor on her office desk when you can already get laptops the size of a keyboard now.

That period of the late sixties was one of tremendous change and I find it hard to criticise those things. I think the ending sequence of 2001 still holds up today, even against what could be done with modern graphics.

[iansales]

Originally Posted by Dave

Music is another bugbear. All of that early seventies futuristic synthesiser music just seems out of place.

Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. Nuff said.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by manephelien

The movie's certainly amazing for its time, although sometimes I wonder what substance Kubrick was on when he invented the ending sequence. That's enough to give epileptics a photosensitive seizure.

Looking back, the thing that jars me most is the 1960s conception of "futuristic" furniture. Looks like leftovers from the early 1970s...

There's quite amazing cinematography in the movie. I especially remember the centrifuge running sequence and the discussion between the two crewmen in the spacepod, with HAL's malevolent red eye looking at them through the porthole.

The book is a good read too, and apparently they were written more or less in tandem, with some modifications made even after scenes were shot. A rather expensive way of writing a novel if you ask me!

There are also some significant differences, in the movie and in the sequels, the events happen in the orbit of Jupiter, with Io being the moon where the Stargate is located. In 2001, Discovery uses the slingshot effect off Jupiter to get to Saturn, and there the moon of choice is the two-faced Iapetus (Japetus), so named after the Roman (or ancient Greek?) god with two faces. On Iapetus, one face is much darker than the other, hence the name.

Hard to say whether Kubrick was on anything or not with that. It could simply be an attempt to capture such an alien experience as going through the Stargate and then through the experiences on the other side, and convey it to the viewer in such a way that they'd get a certain amount of disorientation and alienation themselves. That's how it's always struck me, anyway.

Yes, those are among the more interesting differences between the two. It is interesting to read and compare them, as they each complement the other, I think.

One detail, though: Iapetus was not the god of the threshold -- that was the Roman deity Janus (who had two faces: for the rising and setting suns; he was "the doorkeeper of heaven, and patron of the beginning and ending of things"); Iapetus was one of the Titans, and very little is known about his attributes or role, except that he was the "son of Uranus and Ge or Gaia, father of Atlas, Prometheus, Epimetheu, and Menoetius, and that Jupiter threw him into Tartarus" (from Bulfinch, The Age of Fable). So Clarke may have intended a mythological reference here nonetheless; in fact I'd be strongly inclined to agree with you on the intent; the only difference being the identification of the deity.

[manephelien]

Thanks for the correction on the mythos. I do know that Iapetus is brighter on the trailing side and darker on the leading, as it picks up material in orbit.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by manephelien

Thanks for the correction on the mythos. I do know that Iapetus is brighter on the trailing side and darker on the leading, as it picks up material in orbit.

Indeed. Famous for its "two-tone coloration", as Wiki puts it.

[kythe]

I just finished the book, but I haven't yet seen the movie. After reading this thread, I would like to in order to fully grasp the story, since they were written simultaneously. I'm not sure I really understand the ending, so it may help to see the film version.

I found the book a bit slow paced in certain parts, but very philosophical. I don't consider it among the best I have ever read, but it certainly is an intriguing story.

I don't really get what Bowman and Poole's purpose was. They were not informed of the true mission and seem to have the role of "driving" the ship until they reach Saturn. Then they go into hibernation while the other three awake and complete the real mission. Why have Bowman and Poole there at all? It seems easier to just skip the hibernation part and supply enough provisions for the other three for the entire voyage.

[j. d. worthington]

I'd say that they are there as a safety measure. After all, this is a very expensive mission, and HAL is an unknown factor, in some ways... certainly under these conditions. Should there be a mechanical malfunction, or anything of that nature, you'd need human beings to tend to such, and to be able to make judgment calls in emergencies that HAL may not be programmed to handle. And there's still the "Frankenstein complex", as Asimov called it... not entirely trusting the machines without some human supervision. Other reasons, too... publicity for backing -- it'd be much easier to get people excited about such a mission being manned by two live and awake astronauts rather than "corpsicles" and a hunk of cybernetic metal; and that's important to fund future missions. Etc., etc., etc.

[Steve Jordan]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

I'd say that they are there as a safety measure.

Quite so. They were redundant, but sent anyway, as was the attitude at the time about space exploration systems. It increased the mission's chance of success. Makes sense, since if Discovery malfunctioned, you can't pull over and call AAA to fix it.

I read the book before I saw the movie, so I had no trouble understanding the movie when it came out (unlike some others I knew who saw the movie first, I recall). I've always appreciated Clarke's opinion of Man's place in the cosmos, a theme he explored in quite a number of his novels and shorts. His style is certainly less "demonstrative" than a great deal of American SF (sometimes I liken his stories to listening to the old Brigadier General in the drawing room, describing in generous detail his experiences in the Great War), but no less interesting, entertaining, or compelling. I'd recommend the book to everyone, and especially if you have not seen the movie yet.

I consider the movie to be simply beautiful. Kubrick had an incredible vision and a way with cinematography, and 2001 was among his best.

[CBellenis]

Interesting you should say that, because of course he film came first, with so much left to the imagination of the viewer. The book raised more questions again, but I don't think it changed my interpretation of the film in any way.

With respect to the later film versions of books which came first: it was impossible to do them justice as so much of Clarke is about what's going on in people's heads rather than just what they do - and philosophy is where sf excels. Characters are cyphers for the ideas.

[Kostmayer]

I liked the movie version of "2010". Might not have been as big in scope as 2001, but it was good solid SciFi. I always wanted to see a film version of 3001, just to see the big ring around the world and the 4 giant towers.