4 ms·

I love this book so much that I couldn't bring myself to watch the film. I raced through the latter chapters consuming/inhaling the passages about Bowman's evol

I love this book so much that I couldn't bring myself to watch the film. I raced through the latter chapters consuming/inhaling the passages about Bowman's evolution into the Monolith. I re-read the book from time-to-time and I am sad I didn't read it sooner.

cryptoz 4y ago
The book is excellent, I also remember the exhilarating read, all the way through. It should be noted that the film isn't just any movie though - it's a rare work of art itself and was done with collaboration by Clarke and Kubrick. It's your choice, but I think the movie does do really well and complements the book nicely. It does leave a lot out, but - that's part of the art of it.
sjm 4y ago
The movie is worth watching purely to be absolutely amazed at the aesthetic vision Kubrick brought. I re-watched it recently and could not stop thinking about how modern, even futuristic, it still looks for a film from 1968.
ProAm 4y ago
Did you read the whole series? I really enjoyed 2061: Odyssey Three, even 3001: The Final Odyssey was good.
- gigatexal 4y ago
  I want to, I bought them, I just have to get my butt into gear and sit down for more than 5 minutes and start reading.
- rbanffy 4y ago
  I think 2010 is the best of the series though. And it hints at a sequel not yet made, "20001". The movie isn't bad, but following on from 2001 is a hopeless task.
- rsstack 4y ago
  I also recommend the three books of A Time Odyssey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Time_Odyssey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Time_Odyssey
  - ProAm 4y ago
    I will check this out, the summary looks interesting. Thanks!
reddog 4y ago
The film — written by Kubrick and Clarke — came first. The book is a novelization of the movie. So watch the movie. It’s unlikely you will be disappointed.
- gigatexal 4y ago
  wait it did?! I did not know that. Amazing. Will do.
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    They were made concurrently, and the movie was released first.
  - acheron 4y ago
    No, the post you're responding to is mistaken. They were both written at the same time. It sounds like Clarke and Kubrick got together to hash out the plot and some of the details, then went off and each made their own version. The film was released first (barely, and apparently to the annoyance of Clarke), but the novel was not based on it at all.
    - reddog 4y ago
      From the Wikipedia link at the top of the thread: “The screenplay was written by Kubrick and science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke, and was inspired by Clarke's 1951 short story "The Sentinel" and other short stories by Clarke. Clarke also published a novelisation of the film, in part written concurrently with the screenplay, after the film's release.”
- hencq 4y ago
  They were written at the same time, but the movie was, indeed, released first. Completely agree that the movie is worth watching. I read the book first, which I felt made the movie more enjoyable for me, since it made the ending a lot more understandable.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
rbanffy 4y ago
You are in for a treat. Everything the book couldn't do, the movie did - from the banal dialog, stiff acting, the monolith reveal, the many ways it tells the audience humans, as they are, do not really belong in space, and the deep time perspective from the prologue with a black screen and music playing, the universe going on without anyone to see it, to the starchild, a newborn god made created from a human looking back to its cradle. It doesn't get old. It's a fine piece you can watch more than once and savour the nearly perfect construction.
- gigatexal 4y ago
  Is there any good fan fiction or other such fiction along the lines of the human->monolith transition? I just can't get enough of the idea. The imagery of Bowman blowing through stars as this uber monolith of pure energy and such is just amazing.
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    I think doing a 2001 sequel is too daunting a task for mere humans to attempt. Even Arthur Clarke himself wasn't able to live up to it in 2061 and 3001.

cryptoz 4y ago

The book is excellent, I also remember the exhilarating read, all the way through. It should be noted that the film isn't just any movie though - it's a rare work of art itself and was done with collaboration by Clarke and Kubrick. It's your choice, but I think the movie does do really well and complements the book nicely. It does leave a lot out, but - that's part of the art of it.

sjm 4y ago

The movie is worth watching purely to be absolutely amazed at the aesthetic vision Kubrick brought. I re-watched it recently and could not stop thinking about how modern, even futuristic, it still looks for a film from 1968.

ProAm 4y ago

Did you read the whole series? I really enjoyed 2061: Odyssey Three, even 3001: The Final Odyssey was good.

gigatexal 4y ago
I want to, I bought them, I just have to get my butt into gear and sit down for more than 5 minutes and start reading.
rbanffy 4y ago
I think 2010 is the best of the series though. And it hints at a sequel not yet made, "20001". The movie isn't bad, but following on from 2001 is a hopeless task.
rsstack 4y ago
I also recommend the three books of A Time Odyssey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Time_Odyssey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Time_Odyssey
- ProAm 4y ago
  I will check this out, the summary looks interesting. Thanks!

reddog 4y ago

The film — written by Kubrick and Clarke — came first. The book is a novelization of the movie. So watch the movie. It’s unlikely you will be disappointed.

gigatexal 4y ago
wait it did?! I did not know that. Amazing. Will do.
- rbanffy 4y ago
  They were made concurrently, and the movie was released first.
- acheron 4y ago
  No, the post you're responding to is mistaken. They were both written at the same time. It sounds like Clarke and Kubrick got together to hash out the plot and some of the details, then went off and each made their own version. The film was released first (barely, and apparently to the annoyance of Clarke), but the novel was not based on it at all.
  - reddog 4y ago
    From the Wikipedia link at the top of the thread: “The screenplay was written by Kubrick and science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke, and was inspired by Clarke's 1951 short story "The Sentinel" and other short stories by Clarke. Clarke also published a novelisation of the film, in part written concurrently with the screenplay, after the film's release.”
hencq 4y ago
They were written at the same time, but the movie was, indeed, released first. Completely agree that the movie is worth watching. I read the book first, which I felt made the movie more enjoyable for me, since it made the ending a lot more understandable.
dredmorbius 4y ago

rbanffy 4y ago

You are in for a treat. Everything the book couldn't do, the movie did - from the banal dialog, stiff acting, the monolith reveal, the many ways it tells the audience humans, as they are, do not really belong in space, and the deep time perspective from the prologue with a black screen and music playing, the universe going on without anyone to see it, to the starchild, a newborn god made created from a human looking back to its cradle. It doesn't get old. It's a fine piece you can watch more than once and savour the nearly perfect construction.

gigatexal 4y ago
Is there any good fan fiction or other such fiction along the lines of the human->monolith transition? I just can't get enough of the idea. The imagery of Bowman blowing through stars as this uber monolith of pure energy and such is just amazing.
- rbanffy 4y ago
  I think doing a 2001 sequel is too daunting a task for mere humans to attempt. Even Arthur Clarke himself wasn't able to live up to it in 2061 and 3001.