Nothing is sacred anymore in Hollywood.
Do you think 2001 could be remade with a clearer interpretation of Clarke’s work? I realize the book was written alongside the screenplay but there are definite differences.
Hell, they remade The Shining - so the Kubrick barrier has been broken.
What do you think?
Actually I believe that 2001 was based on Clark’s short story The Sentinel which was written before the movie came out.
As for the Shining, I wouldn’t quite say that they remade it, but rather that they made a more faithful adaptation of the novel that Stephen King liked.
But as to the OP, it would be a truly horrible idea, for a number of reasons.
First of all, the original had a cast of relative unknowns, while a remake would need a “Star,” which would neccessitate additional dialogue, and a love interest, etc.
And don’t forget explosions.
Lots and lots of explosions.
And don’t bother throwing out possible directors names, 'cause there is no one living who could even come anywhere close to what Kuberick achieved.
If they can make the novel less boring, by all means do so.
I like science fiction, but IMO, 2001 was a fairly big pile of nothing.
Um…why are you bringing this up? Has someone ANNOUNCED the intention of a remake?
Could it be made with a clearer interpretation of Clarke’s work? No.
All interviews with Clarke I’ve seen regarding “2001” have him stating that if the viewer received a clear interpretation of what he and Kubrick were getting at, then they failed miserably. Their intent was to raise more questions than answer them.
As far as the remake of “The Shining”, it just proves that Stephen King has no clue on turning his work into engaging television or film. Kubrick’s vision, while different from King’s novel, is a classic. The TV version with Steven Weber is dreck.
Just my $2.28 (adjusted for inflation).
No, I haven’t heard of any intentions on a 2001 remake.
We were just discussing movies that Hollywood wouldn’t dare remake (could be its own thread), like Casablanca…
2001 came up in the discussion and we were stumped.
There was a remake of The Shining?
A tv mini-series of the shining was made. It bored me.
That’s half-right… the story of 2001:A Space Odyssey is loosely based on Clarke’s “The Sentinel,” but as the OP indicates, the actual novel Clarke wrote of 2001 was developed pretty much simultaneously with the film script. There are differences, but as I recall the differences between film and book were fine with Clarke.
That said, I think someone could someday have the balls to try to remake 2001, probably with the specific intent of trying to make it more “clear” or “accessible” to a wider audience. If it succeeds in that goal, it will probably be an inferior film. There’s lots of interesting angles to take with the story, but I doubt any of them would be as effective as Kubrick’s version. I don’t necessarily think a remake would necessitate explosions or celebrity power, but I think there would be a compulsion for most directors to spin the story to their own interpretation of it. We saw some of that happen in the film of 2010.
As for The Shining, the glaring problem with Kubrick’s movie is that it really should have been called something else. Kubrick made a very creepy, atmospheric, skillful horror movie, and it’s a great film on its own merits. However, King’s story it ain’t. Kubrick’s film lacks almost everything that made King’s story so powerful. Right off the bat, casting Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance was a mistake… Nicholson’s Torrance is a memorable screen presence and a good actor, but you weren’t supposed to know that Jack Torrance is a psycho two minutes into the story.
Than again, the miniseries version also screwed up in plenty of places, particularly in pussifying the ending and adding in all sorts of unnecessary fluff. In that case, King pretty much did it to himself.
The Shining is one of King’s best books, but the sad truth is that both movie versions missed the mark on it. Kubrick’s is at least a good movie, but it’s also proof to me that a great deal of King’s work is much more difficult to translate well to the screen than people seem to think, and a faithful adaptation takes a very careful hand. I can only think of three King movies that actually were a pretty accurate reflection of the original work, four if you count the short film for “Paranoia: A Chant.” Kubrick’s The Shining isn’t one of them.
The Sentinel was indeed a short story. 2001 expanded the short story without adding more story elements; it was designed to show off the new moviemaking techniques involving opticals.
It’s boring now because the “Ahhh” factor is long removed; opticals have given over to CGI. Just think of The Matrix- it was a visual treat inits time, but is beginning to look dated because everyone imitated it.
A remake would kill the story. Kubrick and Clarke did the best for the time. Besides, it’s 2003 now- we don’t have the capability Clarke assumed we would. Hell, we barely have a space station, let alone a Moon base and manned trips to the outer planets.
I thought it still looked quite good actually. There’s a certain clarity and quality to the sets and models that I don’t think can be reproduced so easily on CGI. Its something Kubrick added to films IMHO
Trivia note: While Clarke was writing the book, he was hanging out with William S. Burroughs. Kind of explains a few things, I think.
Pushkin, I agree, the effects are still virtually flawless and look a lot more realistic than the drivel we’ve been top subjected to in films such as Star Wars: Episode 2, Matrix: Reloaded, etc.
Ssh–don’t give Tim Burton any ideas.
:rolleyes:
I think I’m right in saying that The Sentinel is only one of a number of very similarly-themed short stories that Clarke wrote (some of which seem almost like rewrites of each other) - I had a book that collected them all together, but I think I sold it.
I’ll second that.
Remake 2001? I know I’ll have nightmares about this!
I don’t know of any other Clarke stories similar to the Sentinel. 2001 though does have roots in some of his other stories - for instance ther e is a story in a set of stories about a space station involving a suitless spacewalk, like Bowman did in the movie.
I think the effects hold up fine. In fact, the detail of the moon is so great that my DVD player can’t keep up, and it bleeds those sections.
I got to see it when it first opened in New York, in the Capitol Theater, in Cinerama. I’ve got the program from it, and a first edition of the hardcover. There are at least three books about 2001 - Agel’s The Making of 2001, 2001, Filming the Future, and Clarke’s own “Lost Worlds of 2001.”
As for it being boring - in my book Hal killing the sleeping astronauts is the best murder scene ever made.
2001 is never boring!
Hmm… how horrible could this remake get? 
“Hollywood’s idea of good drama” version:
Lawrence Fishburne … Bowman
Heath Ledger … Poole
Catherine Zeta-Jones … a scientist in hibernation
Malcolm MacDowell … voice of HAL
Comedy/action version:
David Duchovny … Bowman
Chris Rock … Poole
Sandra Bullock … hibernating scientist
Orlando Jones … voice of HAL
Truly abominable version:
Keanu Reeves … Bowman
Ashton Kutcher … Poole
Carmen Electra … hibernating scientist
Gilbert Gottfried … voice of HAL
Well, Stephen King wrote the teleplay for The Shining, so we may assume it’s his version.
Strange as it may look, I’ve always been sympathizer of remakes. Maybe it’s by curiosity, but I always long to see a new version of old stuff, the greater, the better. Sometimes I like them, sometimes not. I’m a loving moviegoer, not a priest.
2001 may be remade with a clearer interpretation. I found the book more interesting and explicit than the movie, this one a supreme excentricity of Kubrick. While s/f writers (Clarke in this case) often tend to gave clear explanations of the enigmatic premises in the very denouement of their works, SK liked to turn good premises into more enigmatic climaxes, which is perhaps the reason of her position as a cult filmaker. Whatever, if he is overrated or underrated, that’s not object of this topic.
I thought that Kubrick and Clarke wrote the screenplay together basing it on The Sentinel. Kubrick then went on to make the movie and Clarke to write the novel, so bascically the book and movie are based on the screenplay, which is based on a short story. Anybody know if this is correct?