So around lunchtime today, I was rooting around in a cardboard box, and I found a copy of 2001: A Space Odyssey. I’d read it when I was a kid. I thought, “Hey, that might be fun to re-read!” And at the bottom of the box was a copy of 2010: Odyseey Two. That book is one I’ve never read, so I thought it would be fun to read them back-to-back.
I’m about 2/3 of the way through 2010 (to warn you in case the answer to my question requires a spoiler box). What I want to know is: why does the sequel change the story from Saturn to Jupiter?
In 2001, Dave Bowman’s ship uses the gravity of Jupiter to help “slingshot” them towards Saturn. The rest of the book takes place in an orbit sort of between Saturn and its moon Japetus. In 2010, right off they say that all of the action in the previous book took place in an orbit sort of between Jupiter and Io. Why?
There are a couple other minor continuity errors (saying Bowman did something that Frank Poole did), but the Saturn/Jupiter thing seems like a fundamentally big difference. Anyone know what that’s about?
Because both the book and movie versions of 2010 are sequels to the movie version of 2001, and not the novel.
For technological and film running time reasons, the movie version of 2001 cut out Saturn as the final destination, and changed it to Jupiter instead. This also worked out well in 2010’s favor, as…oops, I seriously almost spoiled a major plot point there, as I just remebered you haven’t finished the book yet.
2010 should have an author’s note that explains the reason for moving the locale from Saturn to Jupiter. It’s pretty much what others have already said here.
When I read them, it didn’t bother me that the sequel didn’t follow the book. What bothered me was a few places where he went out of his way to not follow the book, and to be as obvious about it as he possibly could have. Unfortunately (or fortunately, perhaps) I can’t recall the specifics.
Making a believable Saturn for the 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey would have meant first making a believable Jupiter, then adding rings. It was thought that this would have been too expensive, and maybe pushing the 1960s effects technology a bit far.
Actually, the same team that did 2001 had earlier done a Canadian film on the planets, and I think they did do Saturn for that one. But it might have been the money, coupled with Kubrick’s desire to get everything perfect (and not leave in substandard rings) that decided against the rings.
I may be talking out of one of my excretory organs here, but it strikes me that any accurate filmic portrayal of Saturn’s rings would probably look unconvincing to many in the audience. They’re simply too perfect in real life, almost cartoonish; many people would find it unconvincing.
Two more in this line, actually Odyssey Three: 2061 and 3001: The Final Odyssey.
Of course, there are also The Lost Worlds of 2001 and The Sentinel (and Expedition to Earth, if you wanna get technical), all by Arthur C. Clarke. Not to mention Jerome Agel’s The Making of Kubrick’s 2001.
Shortly after posting the thread I thumbed around the front of the book and their is a preface that basically says “Oh, yeah. I just went with Jupiter for this second book because we did Jupiter for the movie”. It’s not all that distracting (certainly no more distracting than have the Americans partnered up with the U.S.S.R. etc.), but you’d kind of think he’d let his books have the integirty the films couldn’t afford.
My copy of the book 2001 says it’s “based on the screenplay” by Kubrick and Clarke. I guess it seems odd to me that they cut Saturn out of the movie, but kept it in the book based on the movie, only to cut it again for the book sequel which also refers to some movie continuity contradicted by the book. It would seem simpler to me to let the books worry about their own continuity.
I’m closer to 3/4 of the way through 2010 now and I don’t particularly see any reason why it makes much of a difference whether it’s Jupiter or Saturn.
:: shrug :: No skin off my nose, really. It just seemed a little weird.
Read a few more chapters. As I recall, the “it could only be Jupiter” bit is quite near the end.
By the way, you should try to catch the movie sometime. It follows the book better than 2001 did, but deviates enough that it’s a new take on the story. And the aerobraking scene is great. Heck, all the space exteriors are great.
From what I understand the delvelopment of 2001 was pretty strange in the first place.
Based on an old thread here, as I understand it both the screenplay and the novel were written concurrently. In the end Clarke made some changes that weren’t inculded in the film mainly because the film was being made while the book was still being written. PRetty odd, but then again, its an odd (but great) movie.-
Good point. Can we at least have space dogfights with a total lack of whooshing sounds, and some zero-g explosions (actually, assume you get a pressurized hull in space, what would the result of nailing it with a missile be? Would it explode? Implode with it’s atmosphere rushing through the big gaping holes the missile’s explosion made?
I think the preface to Odessey 3 mentions that none of the books are “true sequels” to their predecessors, althuogh they draw their central plots from them.
As if in reply to Kubrick’s decision to forgo Saturn because of the difficulty of getting its rings pictured convincingly, special effects master Douglas Trumbull’s next movie, Silent Running (1971), had a fly-through of Saturn’s rings.
There’s no moon like Europa orbiting Saturn. It’s kind of important to the story. There will be a big event in the story that couldn’t work as easily with Saturn.
I believe Clarke said in an interview that he used information from the Voyager probes in writing 2010. I don’t think the probes were at Saturn yet.
He also said he intended to use info from the Galileo probe when writing the next sequel. But the Challenger explosion delayed the Galileo launch so he didn’t wait before writing 2061.