4 ms·

> I watch the thing in awe up till and including "My God, it's full of stars" Interestingly, this isn't actually said in 2001. It is in the novelization but i

> I watch the thing in awe up till and including "My God, it's full of stars" Interestingly, this isn't actually said in 2001. It is in the novelization but its only said in the sequel 2010. It surprised me re-watching 2001 in the cinema a few years ago to not see it said, so I thought I might be watching a weird recut, but no. How the mind plays tricks.

interfixus 9y ago
My God, I think you may be right. By the way, as touched upon in Moorcock's article, Clarke would not have appreciated you calling his novel a novelization.
- terminado 9y ago
  And 2010, the sequel, is pretty unwatchable. It is a bad movie. The worst part about the movie is Roy Scheider's fatherly internal monologue narration, which tediously explains-like-i'm-five for half the movie. So maybe that gives us a hint, about what Clark's narration would have done to 2001. That little sound bite also chimes in over and over again, sounding forced, poorly performed and with a corny distortion effect layered on top, in some presumptive attempt to resonate an idea with the audience. Maybe to remind you once more that the movie is supposed to be a sequel, despite an almost total discontinuity with 2001. It draws a lot of parallels with Stephen King and The Shining, which had provoked Stephen King to exert more creative control over movie adaptations, often with laughable (or maybe unintentionally comedic) b-movie results.
  - duncanawoods 9y ago
    For sure its no 2001 but I don't find it bad - it has many quality scifi moments I enjoy e.g. Heywood and Russian comforting each other during aerobraking, the brutally tense traversal between the spacecraft and the interactions between Chandra and Hal are interesting if uncomfortable.
  - newnewpdro 9y ago
    It's cheesy, has more of a B-movie feel to it - but I get the impression that the budget was a fraction of Kubrick's. I still enjoyed it though, and rewatch it occasionally.
  - fsiefken 9y ago
    Unwatchable? I liked 2010 very much, treasured it on VHS for a decade

interfixus 9y ago

My God, I think you may be right. By the way, as touched upon in Moorcock's article, Clarke would not have appreciated you calling his novel a novelization.

terminado 9y ago
And 2010, the sequel, is pretty unwatchable. It is a bad movie. The worst part about the movie is Roy Scheider's fatherly internal monologue narration, which tediously explains-like-i'm-five for half the movie. So maybe that gives us a hint, about what Clark's narration would have done to 2001. That little sound bite also chimes in over and over again, sounding forced, poorly performed and with a corny distortion effect layered on top, in some presumptive attempt to resonate an idea with the audience. Maybe to remind you once more that the movie is supposed to be a sequel, despite an almost total discontinuity with 2001. It draws a lot of parallels with Stephen King and The Shining, which had provoked Stephen King to exert more creative control over movie adaptations, often with laughable (or maybe unintentionally comedic) b-movie results.
- duncanawoods 9y ago
  For sure its no 2001 but I don't find it bad - it has many quality scifi moments I enjoy e.g. Heywood and Russian comforting each other during aerobraking, the brutally tense traversal between the spacecraft and the interactions between Chandra and Hal are interesting if uncomfortable.
- newnewpdro 9y ago
  It's cheesy, has more of a B-movie feel to it - but I get the impression that the budget was a fraction of Kubrick's. I still enjoyed it though, and rewatch it occasionally.
- fsiefken 9y ago
  Unwatchable? I liked 2010 very much, treasured it on VHS for a decade