2 ms·
That’s not the meaning of the end. If it was, Kubrick could have said so. Clarkes book is NOT the film, Kubrick wanted more ambiguity, because the film and topi
by valuearb 9y ago
That’s not the meaning of the end. If it was, Kubrick could have said so. Clarkes book is NOT the film, Kubrick wanted more ambiguity, because the film and topic deserves it.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Asimovs book is NOT the film Asimov wrote a lot of books [0], but none of them have been associated with the film in this thread. I think you mean “Clarke” rather than “Asimov”. [0] like, a truly stupendous quantity of them that is hard to believe a single person could put out in a lifetime.
- valuearb 9y agoArrgggg! i’ve written Asimov three times by mistake. I’m ashamed:(