Being more “coherent” isn’t necessisarily better. I thought the book deprived the reader of the sense of wonder that the movie provided. It essentially gave you a map and held your hand throughout the entire story.
While I enjoyed the book, it has nothing on the movie.
This is my favorite movie of all time. I especially liked what litost said about this. The wonderful thing about this movie is how thought-provoking it is. I’ve thought about this movie for more than 10 years, and every once in a while, someone says something about it that makes me see it in a new way.
I think the best way to sum up this movie is how Ebert (king of Film Critics) did. He said that watching 2001 is a meditative experience. I totally agree with that, but even for a meditative experience, I find this film very exciting. The tension when Dave has to go in through the airlock is intense. The destruction of HAL is the most drawn out, brutal things murders I have ever seen. And, as Siskel said, HAL is the greatest movie villain ever.
Now I’ve gotten myself worked up. I think I have to see this again now (for the 20th time).
I have never yet seen a cinematic attempt at philosophy which didn’t fall flat on its face, and 2001 is no exception.
It doesn’t matter.
This movie is simply a stunning artistic masterpiece.
I think that was mentioned in the film sequel wasn’t it?
I thought that was the whole point of the sequel; to explain the original.
A brief discourse on the thighbone…
Without knowing of this thread, I just happened to watch this movie last night. When the apeman throws the thighbone up into the air, it does jump-cut to a satelite of some kind, but without Clarke or Kubrick sitting next to you whispering in your ear that it’s a nuclear weapons platform, theres no way of knowing that it’s supposed to be one. No obvious missles or military markings can be made out. Heck, it has a big radio dish and for all we know could be a communications satelite.
That’s where, if it was a point Kubrick wanted to make, he flubbed it.
Magnificent film.
Minor point, I laughed my head off when Dr. Floyd Haywood calls his daughter back on Earth and the 2 minute conversation fron space cost a whopping $1.70! I’ll bet the original audience chuckled at that.
This link is kinda like the movie itself. Takes a very long time to say very little.
No, 2010 was based on the book by Clarke, which both cleaned up the loose ends of Discovery from the viewpoint of Earth, and also showed more of what the aliens intentions were - to culture intelligences. The 2001 novel needed no further explanation.
The biggest problem with the sequels in my book is that Bowman did not live up to the end of 2001. He basically does nothing, while Moonwatcher, after becoming intelligent and technological, conquers his world.
As for the movie - Peter Hyams is not 1/20 the filmmaker as Kubrick. Movies shouldn’t be words on the screen, it should be really images. Kubrick did it, Hyams shot the book, adding very little except the bogus Cold War plot.
Hey, $1.70 was a lot of money back then! 3 paperback books!
Actually, one of Clarke’s successful predictions, in the early '60s, was that all calls would be charged the same. Back then the charge for long distance depended on where you called. No longer. Even if you don’t have long distance bundled in with your wireless plan, calls get routed all over the country based on traffic density, not distance. So it might have been a prediction that ld calls to space would cost the same as calls between cities.
Reading discussions of Internet access in space, he got this one perfect.
[sidebar]Then there’s the 15 second videophone call that Deckard makes to Rachel in Blade Runner that costs him $1.75. Man, prices really must have gone up in the subsequent 18 years![/sidebar]
Stranger
My understanding is that there was some expositionary voice over that was cut. Also, the first thing the Bowman starchild does when he returns to earth is destroy all of the weapons satellites. As is mentioned above, this was cut, too.
IMHO, the implication is still there. The bone, which we just established was the first weapon, is transformed into a satelite, which keeps some of the form of the bone, and thus its function as a weapon as well. It fits into the theme of the double-edged sword of technology. Technology has allowed us to live longer, easier lives and do amazing things like build cities on the moon. But our animal instincts haven’t gone away yet. The first thing we did with technology was use it for violence, and here, in the “utopian” future of 2001, we’re still using technology primarily for violence. Bowman is the first example of the next stage of human evolution as directed by the monolith aliens and he immediately renounces violence.
But, the film argues, technology also robs us of part of what made us human in the first place. HAL is the most “human” character on the Discovery. Even the ship itself has taken on human characteristics. The Discovery has a face–it’s bridge windows form the eyes and the middle pod bay doors the mouth. The Ares, which transports Heywood to the moon base, also has anthropomorphic qualities. So in a way, we have imbued the technology we created with part of our essence, and our own essence has suffered as a result. The movie takes no editorial stance on this–it merely points it out, it does not tell the viewer if it is a good or bad thing. That is for us to decide.
IMHO, most of the ambiguity in the film is good, however I do wish the fact that the satelite is a weapon was more clearly stated, and that the original ending with the nuclear weapons platforms exploding in space had been left in.
So, the scene in 2010 where Dr. Chandra looks directly into the camera and deadpans, “HAL went crazy because he was told to lie”. (Paraphrased) was not a shoutout to everyone that never understood that from the first movie?
