Go Back   Home > SciFlicks SQUAD! Forums > Sci-Fi Movies Galleria > Sci-Fi Movie Titles: [ # -- E ] > 2001-2010 [movie series] > 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Welcome to the SciFlicks SQUAD! Forums.

You are currently viewing our community boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free and open-minded sci-fi community you will be able to start and reply to forum discussions, write movie reviews, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or with your account please contact support here.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

The Ultimate Trip. | guide

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 4, 2003, 02:18 AM   #16
Phlub
The Head Hunter
Phlub's Avatar
2,285 flights since Mar 2001
Location: Wisconsin
Re: Book or Movie?

Yes I have read the books. 2 or 3 years ago. But from what I can remember 2001 was the best novelization. And 2010 wasn't that far behind. 3001 and 2061 were good too. But I have preferences.
Phlub is offline Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2004, 05:15 AM   #17
Unregistered
n/a flights since
Re: Book or Movie?

I reckon that neither was "better" than the other, but there were sections where one's take on it was better than the other's. For example, the Discovery mission is better in the movie than the book, but the Star Gate and hotel room sequence is better in the book than the movie.

And there's times when something in one was good, but could've been better from something in the other. For example, The Dawn of Man is better than Primeval Night but it would have been better if it had included the killing of the leopard from Primeval Night. It could have gone between the tribe eating the tapir meat and Moon-Watcher killing One-Ear and would have actually been better for the film because it would've shown that the monolith not only showed the apes how to kill those weaker than you (the tapirs) and of equal strength (One-Ear) but also those stronger than you (the leopard).
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2005, 09:43 AM   #18
toomuchcoffee
Sector Marshall
toomuchcoffee's Avatar
848 flights since Feb 2005
Location: midwest
Re: Book or Movie?

Quote:
Originally posted by SF_not_Sci-Fi
2001: a space odessy is honestly the worst Arthur C. Clarke book that I have ever read.

I am reading it right now and although I am halfway through, I so far see the writing as being good. I am very much getting the sense of being disconnected from humanity, both physically and psychologically.

I have the sense, as they travel farther out into space, that they are not traveling into a Star Wars-like place of fun and excitement, but it is as though they are sinking deeper and deeper into depths from where it will be increasingly hard to return.

I like his mentioning that Bowman read the newspapers differently than he did while living on Earth, not with vague interest or detachment regarding places and people he knew little about, but with careful attention to every article as if each story about anybody, no matter who, is representative of, or emotionally connected to, everything good about humanity and his life that he left behind.

Also, I like Poole's reflection that his birthday video of his family took an hour to reach him, and how his family by now would be separated and miles away from where they were at the time the video was recorded. For some reason, the way it was written made me think that Poole must be experiencing that sense that life is going on without him. That idea is also mentioned when Bowman wonders if during hibernation that the time he spends in suspended hibernation, or whatever it is, is lost or if his time of death has not been extended but simply pushed forward to a later date, which indicated to me a fear of lost time.

I thought Childhood's End was good, but I'm enjoying 2001 better, which, however, might be more for personal reasons than my necessarily believing that the writing is better. Maybe my opinion will change as I read more Clarke, but right now I'd say that this book is well-written, in my humble, layman's opinion.

When I think of it, though, I think I'm enjoying 2001 better because it seems more introspective and more of an exploration of the self, whereas A Childhood's End seems to be directed more to humanity as a whole. The two are probably connected, but I think 2001 might be more on the microcosmic level and Childhood's End was more on the macrocosm in it's dealing with how man's evolution will affect humanity as whole, rather than discussing the details of the effect it will have on the individual.

Also, I've noticed that in 2001 that he describes people in a way to suggest that the majority of people are followers and are given to their habits and that they do not like change.

I wonder also, if for Bowman and Poole, that their travel into space and separation from humanity is, for lack of a better adjective, a spiritual journey that they anticipate, regardless of what actually happens, will allow them to achieve a superior level of connectedness to humanity. They will have traveled to places that no one has seen before, and will return with knowledge that will benefit humanity. Knowing that this experience will make them uniquely important to humanity will allow them to feel that superior form of connectedness that most people do not feel. Then of course, Bowman becomes the star-child, which is another form of being that I don't know anything about, but in Childhood's End the new evolutionary state of being will connect all of humanity into one collective mind.

[EDIT]: When I refer to "connectedness," I have vague feelings of pretentious, new-age transcendental thought, but I think that the sense of connectedness I mean may have largely to do with the will to power rather than the pretentious feelings of a bunch people holding hands in a circle trying to feel connected to each other through some kind of self-denial achieved through transcendental meditation.

Last edited by toomuchcoffee : Sep 14, 2005 at 11:06 AM.
toomuchcoffee is offline Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2005, 09:11 AM   #19
toomuchcoffee
Sector Marshall
toomuchcoffee's Avatar
848 flights since Feb 2005
Location: midwest
Re: Book or Movie?

I just finished the book last night and I really enjoyed it. I even looked at the moon differently last night because of it. I admit that he lost me during parts toward the end, I had some difficulty visualizing some of what he talked about, but it didn't seem terribly obscure to me. I think I was just trying to rush through at that point because I wanted to see what happened at the end, but to me it seems to be a well-written book, something I wouldn't mind reading again at some point. In fact, I would like to just so I can appreciate better what was going on at the end. But the book as a whole seems to me the type of thing you could think about and mill over and come to interesting conclusions if thought about enough.

Last edited by toomuchcoffee : Sep 16, 2005 at 12:04 PM.
toomuchcoffee is offline Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2005, 09:33 AM   #20
toomuchcoffee
Sector Marshall
toomuchcoffee's Avatar
848 flights since Feb 2005
Location: midwest
Re: Book or Movie?

The only innaccuracy I found: Clarke mentioned that the moon was found to have no geological relationship with earth and therefore concluded that the moon did not originate in any way from the earth.

But sometime, in the 80's, I think (or maybe it was after the first moon landing), Moon rocks were found to share some kind of geologic relationship that proves that the earth and the moon were once a part of one another somehow.

[EDIT]: The moon has exactly the same oxygen isotope composition as the Earth, whereas Mars rocks and meteorites from other parts of the solar system have different oxygen isotope compositions. This shows that the moon formed form material formed in Earth's neighborhood. (Taken from below link).

The last theory that I heard is that during earth's infant and most volcanic state a Mars-sized object collided into earth and, although maintaining still a central mass that re-solidified into a planet, but leaving a trail of orbiting debris that eventually coalesced into the moon.

I don't know if there are any other theories being considered.

At first glance, I don't see Phd's next to either of these webpage maker's names, but this is the theory as I saw it explained in a documentary described by the curator of the Hayden Planetarium, Dr. Neil de Grasse Tyson:

Origins of the Moon

Last edited by toomuchcoffee : Sep 19, 2005 at 02:34 PM.
toomuchcoffee is offline Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2006, 07:57 AM   #21
Sonny
Wing Commander
Sonny's Avatar
444 flights since May 2006
Location: The Other Side Of The Rainbow
Re: Book or Movie?

Its difficult to judge as I had seen the film before reading the book.

I think generally decisions like these are easier to make if one has read the book first. There are many movies that don't come any way close in terms of expectation when compared to the books. I had great misgivings, for example when I, Robot and Bicentennial Man were made into movies - and they stank, in the context of having read the book first.

With 2001 I saw the film first, which took time to get to love. And then a few years ago I finally got round to reading the book. now clearly a book has the benefit of being able to offer the reader lots of imaginative detail while a film is rarely given such luxury. But for all that I felt the film was better, more concise and visionary. The book was good but was sometimes hard to follow or absorb oneself into.
Sonny is offline Reply With Quote
Reply

← Previous Thread | Next Thread → Home > SciFlicks SQUAD! Forums > Sci-Fi Movies Galleria > Sci-Fi Movie Titles: [ # -- E ] > 2001-2010 [movie series] > 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
The SciFlicks Golden Donut Movie Awards 2005 - VOTE HERE
Yes, it's that time of year again...no, wait, hang on...we've never done this before. But now we can start! Through PM, send Nexus your votes! (with...
49
replies
Movie based on a book?
I heard from someone that this movie was based on a book, but I can only find two books that seem to be based on the movie not the other way around....
11
replies
NEWS: Colonial Newsletter - 10/07/2003
======================================== The Colonial Newsletter Volume 4 Issue 10 October 2003 Published by: BattlestarGalacticaClub.com
Be the
First to
Reply
super hero movie ideas of 9/2/03
DC and Marvel Comics super hero movies cast suggestions X-Men 3 cast Patrick Stewart (X-Men 1 & 2, Star Trek) as Professor Charles Xavier Hugh...
1
reply
Book vs. Movie
Which do you perfer the book or the movie they are so different. More so than any other book in to movie or movie in to book.
5
replies
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
 

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:18 PM.
SciFlicks cannot be held liable for the opinions expressed in these public forums.
SciFlicks Copyright 1998-2011, Popcorn Studios.
vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.