Hmmm. From the thread Guidelines and Etiquette on the Straight Dope Message Boards (Post #2) and also from the thread Cafe Society Forum Rules (Post #3):
I don’t know that we’ve ever had to deal with whether telling someone to shut up is a “personal insult,” but it’s cerainly a violation of good manners and common courtesy. Fiver, you know better. Please don’t do it again.
I apologize to you for breaking the rules, C K Dexter Haven. But I will counter that reviving a horrible, debunked rumor about Dr. Clarke for the sake of a cheap punchline is much further into the realm of jerkhood.
I don’t remember hearing this at all, but I wouldn’t put anything past those elements of fandom who hated 2001. I remember quite a negagive review of it from, I think, Lester del Rey - I’d have to check my old F&SFs to see for sure. Still, people who write novelizations rarely get credit as writers of the screenplay, so it shouldn’t have been an issue. (Clarke was also featured prominently in the 2001 road show program, and an article about him in the NY Times magazine from 1964 mentions 2001, which didn’t have a title yet.) My point is that only a complete idiot wouldn’t know that Clarke did more than just write a novelization - which doesn’t mean there weren’t lots of idiots around.
And I don’t know why Asimov did Fantastic Voyage. He hadn’t gotten divorced yet, so he shouldn’t have needed the money that badly. It was pretty pitiful.
I agree with all of this except the title of Dr.
Clarke only has a standard undergraduate degree.
He is entitled to be called Sir, however, since he was made a Knight Bachelor after those allegations were formally retracted.
True, but the monolith’s talking asshole survived much further into pre-production.
Arthur Clarke and William Burroughs does sound like an odd pairing. Wish I could have heard their conversations. (I really can’t imagine what a collaboration of Burroughs and Kubrick would be like.)
And Dropzone, this board is for fighting ignorance, not reviving debunked libelous falsehoods. I know you were joking, but others might not.
This thread makes me realize, there hasn’t been a great space movie in a long time. (I haven’t seen the new movie Sunshine, but it doesn’t sound great.) With modern special effects, I’d love to see somebody set a movie in Saturn’s neighborhood and make it as accurate as possible.
ETA: And thanks to JPL, we know a heck of a lot more about the gas giants than we did in 1968.
The Lost Worlds of 2001* also points out that the movie credits (at the premeir, at least) read “Based on a novel/story by ACC” and the first edition book had a credit “Based on the film by SK” (not exact quotes). According to this book, Kubrik and Clarke brainstormed each other quite a bit as the project went on.
Apparently, they spent a lot of time using Clarke’s telescope to spy on people.
Everyone needs a hobby.
This just shows that a typewriter (or word processing program) is a far more important factor in the quality of a movie than all the CGI in the world. The effects in 2001 are great, thanks to Kubrick being a perfectionist. Look how well he did in Dr. Strangelove without the cooperation of the military. But the reason 2001 is a classic movie is the ideas in it, not the pretty pictures.