# Would "2001: A Space Oddessy" have worked better as pure science fiction?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-2001-a-space-oddessy-have-worked-better-as-pure-science-fiction/265246
**Category:** Cafe Society
**Created:** [September 21, 2004, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-2001-a-space-oddessy-have-worked-better-as-pure-science-fiction/265246 "2004-09-21T02:59:02Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)
#### Post date: [September 21, 2004, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-2001-a-space-oddessy-have-worked-better-as-pure-science-fiction/265246/1 "2004-09-21T02:59:02Z")
By which I mean having someone other than Kubrick direct, and hew it closer to Clarke’s novelization. Have it be more a straight “space adventure”, rather than an almost hallucinatory work of symbolism. I don’t dispute that Kubrick made a masterpiece, but could it/should it have been done differently?
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [September 21, 2004, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-2001-a-space-oddessy-have-worked-better-as-pure-science-fiction/265246/2 "2004-09-21T03:24:22Z")
The movie was pretty close to Clarke’s novel, **lumpy.** Even the ending, although Kubrick could have done a more coherent job of telling that part of the story.
---
### Author:  [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)
#### Post date: [September 21, 2004, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-2001-a-space-oddessy-have-worked-better-as-pure-science-fiction/265246/3 "2004-09-21T03:28:22Z")
In addition to agreeing with **Brain** , I feel that the material cannot be presented as standard Sci Fi fare.
It is by its nature a highly elliptical and cerebral work. It seems to demand a languid gentle layered presentation.
That’s what we got.
---
### Author:  [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)
#### Post date: [September 21, 2004, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-2001-a-space-oddessy-have-worked-better-as-pure-science-fiction/265246/4 "2004-09-21T03:33:30Z")
The movie is close to Clarke’s novel because Clarke worked closely with Kubrick. If Clarke had written the novel o his own it would’ve turned out far differently.
We know this for a fact – see Clarke’s book **The Lost Worlds of 2001** for details. Clarke gives several discarded endings in that book.
Clarke had a bit of mystic in him, but if he’d been clearly dominant over the director, the result would’ve been closer to “pure science fiction”, I think. I probably would’ve liked it better.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [September 21, 2004, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-2001-a-space-oddessy-have-worked-better-as-pure-science-fiction/265246/5 "2004-09-21T03:43:45Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#):
>
> The movie is close to Clarke’s novel because Clarke worked closely with Kubrick. If Clarke had written the novel o his own it would’ve turned out far differently.
As a matter of fact, Clarke’s novel was published **after** the movie was released and was essentially a novelization of it. The original inspiration for the movie was Clarke’s short story “The Sentinel,” which is about the discovery of the alien obelisk on the Moon and includes nothing about the Dawn of Time or the voyage to Jupiter.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [September 21, 2004, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-2001-a-space-oddessy-have-worked-better-as-pure-science-fiction/265246/6 "2004-09-21T03:45:25Z")
Sorry, “Dawn of Man.”
Sexists.
---
### Author:  [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)
#### Post date: [September 21, 2004, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-2001-a-space-oddessy-have-worked-better-as-pure-science-fiction/265246/7 "2004-09-21T03:58:43Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> As a matter of fact, Clarke’s novel was published **after** the movie was released and was essentially a novelization of it. The original inspiration for the movie was Clarke’s short story “The Sentinel,” which is about the discovery of the alien obelisk on the Moon and includes nothing about the Dawn of Time or the voyage to Jupiter.
It was published after the movie, but it was written concurrently with the screenplay. From the IMDB:
> [@](#):
>
> The screenplay was written primarily by Kubrick and the novel primarily by Clarke, each working simultaneously and also providing feedback to the other. As the story went through many revisions, changes in the novel were taken over into the screenplay and vice versa. It was also unclear whether film or novel would be released first; in the end it was the film. Kubrick was to have been credited as second author of the novel, but in the end was not. It is believed that Kubrick deliberately withheld his approval of the novel as to not hurt the release of the film.
---
### Author:  [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)
#### Post date: [September 21, 2004, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-2001-a-space-oddessy-have-worked-better-as-pure-science-fiction/265246/8 "2004-09-21T04:28:31Z")
I think the question has already been answered, simply by comparing Kubrick’s approach to that of Peter Hyams in _2010_. Hyams played it fairly straight, with a dead conventional narrative, and as I recall, followed the plot points of Clarke’s novel closely. Was it a decent movie? I’d say yes. Was it better than, or even as good as, _2001_? I’d say it was nowhere near comparable.
The fact that _2001_ IS a “hallucinatory work of symbolism”, with the bulk of the story told purely via images, music and sound effects, and whilst still getting the science right (at least as things were understood in the mid-'60s) is what makes it one of the greatest films ever made, IMO.
I suppose another way to approach the question would be to ask oneself, is there any reason whatever to remake this movie? I imagine both those like the film and those who despise it, would equally loudly say ‘no’.
---
### Author:  [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)
#### Post date: [September 21, 2004, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-2001-a-space-oddessy-have-worked-better-as-pure-science-fiction/265246/9 "2004-09-21T12:31:38Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> As a matter of fact, Clarke’s novel was published **after** the movie was released and was essentially a novelization of it. The original inspiration for the movie was Clarke’s short story “The Sentinel,” which is about the discovery of the alien obelisk on the Moon and includes nothing about the Dawn of Time or the voyage to Jupiter.
Actually, there were several Clarke short stories which wound up in the movie. “The Sentinel” was the inspiration for the monolith, but the basic plot of an early alien civilization coming into contact with early humanoids was a different story, whose title escapes me at the moment. The ending of the story had the aliens leaving due to some galactic emergency or other, regretting that they couldn’t stay and help the proto-humans develop a civilization… that they would later call “Babelon”
---
### Author:  [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)
#### Post date: [September 21, 2004, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-2001-a-space-oddessy-have-worked-better-as-pure-science-fiction/265246/10 "2004-09-21T12:44:54Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by CalMeacham
> The movie is close to Clarke’s novel because Clarke worked closely with Kubrick. If Clarke had written the novel o his own it would’ve turned out far differently.
> As a matter of fact, Clarke’s novel was published after the movie was released and was essentially a novelization of it. The original inspiration for the movie was Clarke’s short story “The Sentinel,” which is about the discovery of the alien obelisk on the Moon and includes nothing about the Dawn of Time or the voyage to Jupiter.
I’m afraid even this part isn’t true. I was around at the time, and I recall the novel appearing in hardcover well before the release of the film.
---
### Author:  [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)
#### Post date: [September 21, 2004, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-2001-a-space-oddessy-have-worked-better-as-pure-science-fiction/265246/11 "2004-09-21T16:23:29Z")
Your memories are probably wrong.
_The Making of Kubrick’s 2001,_ edited by Jerome Agel, is the must-have book on the subject. Interviews, dozens of contemporary reviews, stills with explanatory captions, letters from viewers, everything.
The movie was first screened for Life magazine on March 29, 1968. After several other press screenings and a “world premiere” Kubrick cut a few minutes and the final cut went into New York theaters on April 6.
The book doesn’t give an exact date for the book release, but does have a newspaper quote:
> [@](#):
>
> An interesting thing accompanying the book and which the general public won’t see is the press release announcing its publication. The publisher says the release is the first produced for it by a computer. The computer makes some wonderful goofs. Such as setting publication for the book on “June 34” and then announcing “the year 1002 is only a short time away.”
This makes a June date likely for the release. The New American Library U.S. edition is the true first, BTW, over the Hutchinson London edition.
I remember seeing it with my college friends when it first came into town that fall. Yes, it really took months for movies to make it across country in those days. This may be why you remember the book coming out first.
As for writing the novel, there are two quotes, not completely compatible with one another.
> [@](#):
>
> p. 256.
> Arthur Clarke remembers that the novel was written simultaneously with the script “with feedback in both directions.”
>
> p. 61. from a New Yorker profile of Kubrick by Jeremy Bernstein.
> In addition to writing a novel with Clarke, which was to be the basis of the script for 2001…
>
> Clarke and Kubrick spent two years transforming ["The Sentinel’] into a novel and then into a script for 2001…
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [September 21, 2004, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-2001-a-space-oddessy-have-worked-better-as-pure-science-fiction/265246/12 "2004-09-21T16:53:21Z")
> [@Exapno Mapcase](#):
>
> After several other press screenings and a “world premiere” Kubrick cut a few minutes and the final cut went into New York theaters on April 6.
I don’t suppose there’s a director’s cut available on DVD?
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [September 21, 2004, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-2001-a-space-oddessy-have-worked-better-as-pure-science-fiction/265246/13 "2004-09-21T18:15:36Z")
In Clarke’s biography it was mentioned that the book was ready long before the movie, but was held until the release, much to Clarke’s annoyance. (He needed the money.)
I think I wrote down the date I bought it, which was very close to its publication date. BTW, the Life Magazine interview resulted in an extensive 2001 feature with lots of pictures, and a very clear explanation of what was going on.
Anyone who has read **Childhood’s End** shouldn’t be surprised at the ending of 2001. One of the reasons the movie works for me is that the hard sf in the beginning validates the “mystical” stuff at the end. However I have never thought of it as mystical, but as a concrete example of Clarke’s Third Law.
---
### Author:  [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)
#### Post date: [September 21, 2004, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-2001-a-space-oddessy-have-worked-better-as-pure-science-fiction/265246/14 "2004-09-21T19:02:35Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Your memories are probably wrong.
I don’t think so.
My friend’s parents had the book sitting in their house, and I recall trhinking that it looked interesting, and why hadn’t I heard about it. The release of 2001, of course, was widely heralded.
It’s irrrelevant to the initial point, though, which is that the book was co-written with the film, and its plotting was influenced by the film, (although Clarke obviously influenced the film, as well). It’s not like those film novelizations where the author has nothing to do with the film, and is simply handed a script and materials. The only other case I can think of that’s like this is Orson Scott Card’s novel for **The Abyss** , where card’s early chapters and notes were given to the actors during filming to help them establish their characters and backstory.
---
### Author:  [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)
#### Post date: [September 21, 2004, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-2001-a-space-oddessy-have-worked-better-as-pure-science-fiction/265246/15 "2004-09-21T19:12:36Z")
> [@Expano](#):
>
> The movie was first screened for Life magazine on March 29, 1968. After several other press screenings and a “world premiere” Kubrick cut a few minutes and the final cut went into New York theaters on April 6.
April 6! That’s my birthday! Hoo-ray! Now I can actually cite something cool that happened on my birthday. Before, all I had was [America’s entry into World War I](http://www.worldhistory.com/worldwari.htm), while my best friend growing up shared a birthday with Thomas Edison.
---
### Author:  [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)
#### Post date: [September 21, 2004, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-2001-a-space-oddessy-have-worked-better-as-pure-science-fiction/265246/16 "2004-09-21T23:38:44Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> I don’t suppose there’s a director’s cut available on DVD?
IIRC, the cuts Kubrick made after the initial screenings amounted to about 15 minutes in total and were done because he felt that the film was running slightly sluggishly. I’ve never seen a detailed breakdown of what he snipped, but it was apparently mainly stuff like extraneous shots of pods manoeuvering. What resulted is the cut that Kubrick later approved of for re-releases and the like in the remainder of his life. By any standards, that’s the definitive version.
It’s possible that some future DVD might include the snippets as an extra, but it’s not as if what’s currently available is a mutilated version of what Kubrick wanted.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [September 21, 2004, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-2001-a-space-oddessy-have-worked-better-as-pure-science-fiction/265246/17 "2004-09-21T23:42:49Z")
IIRC, there was also more of Dullea running around the Discovery’s ring.
Another thing cut, much earlier, was an introduction with interviews with noted scientists. Agel’s book has a lot about this.
Was anything that Kubrick did not a director’s cut - except for Spartacus, of course.
---
### Author:  [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)
#### Post date: [September 21, 2004, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-2001-a-space-oddessy-have-worked-better-as-pure-science-fiction/265246/18 "2004-09-21T23:49:13Z")
I still don’t understand why Clarke just didn’t have the _Discovery_ go to Warp 1 in order to get to Jupiter. It’d make SO much more sense that way.
And where are the laser guns? Can’t have the future without the laser guns.
Stupid movie.
[/facetiousness]
---
### Author:  [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)
#### Post date: [September 22, 2004, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-2001-a-space-oddessy-have-worked-better-as-pure-science-fiction/265246/19 "2004-09-22T00:13:23Z")
One of the scenes cut shwed the astronauts playing “Petominoes” with HAL. In fact, they marketed the game as a 2001 tie-in, but got rooked because the scene was cut. There’s a picture of it in Agel’s book. Clarke ater used pentominoes as a theme (and as chapter headers) in one of his later books.
There were other scenes they considered, but didn’t show (Extraterrestrials, envisioned as light patterns actually generated by video feedback, a “City of Light” during the “Space Trip” at the end. The Star Child detonating those satelites you see at the beginning – which were supposed to be SDI-style orbiting weapons). Many weren’t even filmed.
---
### Author:  [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)
#### Post date: [September 22, 2004, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-2001-a-space-oddessy-have-worked-better-as-pure-science-fiction/265246/20 "2004-09-22T02:36:31Z")
> [@Voyager](#):
>
> Was anything that Kubrick did not a director’s cut - except for Spartacus, of course.
Just so. Everything after Spartacus was wholly owned by Kubrick in all aspects. There wouldn’t have been a “Director’s Cut” of any of his works because he edited them. Sometimes sat next to someone else who did the scraping and glueing but he cut his movies, had complete control.
I got hired to do some test shots for “Eyes Wide Shut” in NYC while the film was in pre-production. Didn’t get to speak to him, but had to fax my resume ( :eek: :eek: :eek: ) over to London, along with references…
Stanley Kubrick was such a control freak, that he even owned his own camera bodies and lenses, tripods dollies and such. Incredible.
Cartooniverse