"2001 - A Space Odessy"

[kythe]

I just finished the book, but I haven't yet seen the movie. After reading this thread, I would like to in order to fully grasp the story, since they were written simultaneously. I'm not sure I really understand the ending, so it may help to see the film version.

I found the book a bit slow paced in certain parts, but very philosophical. I don't consider it among the best I have ever read, but it certainly is an intriguing story.

I don't really get what Bowman and Poole's purpose was. They were not informed of the true mission and seem to have the role of "driving" the ship until they reach Saturn. Then they go into hibernation while the other three awake and complete the real mission. Why have Bowman and Poole there at all? It seems easier to just skip the hibernation part and supply enough provisions for the other three for the entire voyage.

 

[j d worthington]

I'd say that they are there as a safety measure. After all, this is a very expensive mission, and HAL is an unknown factor, in some ways... certainly under these conditions. Should there be a mechanical malfunction, or anything of that nature, you'd need human beings to tend to such, and to be able to make judgment calls in emergencies that HAL may not be programmed to handle. And there's still the "Frankenstein complex", as Asimov called it... not entirely trusting the machines without some human supervision. Other reasons, too... publicity for backing -- it'd be much easier to get people excited about such a mission being manned by two live and awake astronauts rather than "corpsicles" and a hunk of cybernetic metal; and that's important to fund future missions. Etc., etc., etc.

 

[Steve Jordan]

I'd say that they are there as a safety measure.

Quite so. They were redundant, but sent anyway, as was the attitude at the time about space exploration systems. It increased the mission's chance of success. Makes sense, since if Discovery malfunctioned, you can't pull over and call AAA to fix it.

I read the book before I saw the movie, so I had no trouble understanding the movie when it came out (unlike some others I knew who saw the movie first, I recall). I've always appreciated Clarke's opinion of Man's place in the cosmos, a theme he explored in quite a number of his novels and shorts. His style is certainly less "demonstrative" than a great deal of American SF (sometimes I liken his stories to listening to the old Brigadier General in the drawing room, describing in generous detail his experiences in the Great War), but no less interesting, entertaining, or compelling. I'd recommend the book to everyone, and especially if you have not seen the movie yet.

I consider the movie to be simply beautiful. Kubrick had an incredible vision and a way with cinematography, and 2001 was among his best.

 

[CBellenis]

Interesting you should say that, because of course he film came first, with so much left to the imagination of the viewer. The book raised more questions again, but I don't think it changed my interpretation of the film in any way.

With respect to the later film versions of books which came first: it was impossible to do them justice as so much of Clarke is about what's going on in people's heads rather than just what they do - and philosophy is where sf excels. Characters are cyphers for the ideas.

 

[Kostmayer]

I liked the movie version of "2010". Might not have been as big in scope as 2001, but it was good solid SciFi. I always wanted to see a film version of 3001, just to see the big ring around the world and the 4 giant towers.

 

[kythe]

I finally saw the film for "2001: A Space Odyssey". Now I can see why my brother refers to it as "2001: A Screen Saver". It's a bit drawn out, though I agree with others that it is brilliant when it comes to effective use of visuals and sounds.

I still like the book much better, especially the ending. The book explains things, where the movie really leaves you guessing at what could be going on. I know they were written concurrently, or if anything that the book was written for the movie. But I'm glad to have read the book first, because otherwise I would have been pretty clueless as to the significance of most of the movie.

I still rank the book among the most intriguing, thought-provoking stories I've ever read.

 

[Steve Jordan]

It was also Kubrick's way of showing the audience what space travel in the near-future will really be like, in a manner more realistic than any other movie to-date, with the possible exception of Mission to Mars. "Long and drawn-out" is, I think, an apt description of what going to the planets will be like for Man, and Kubrick illustrated that beautifully.

I agree, reading the book first does help the viewer to understand some of Kubrick's more "subjective" moments better.

 

[iansales]

It was also Kubrick's way of showing the audience what space travel in the near-future will really be like, in a manner more realistic than any other movie to-date, with the possible exception of Mission to Mars.

Oh, I don't know about that. Wasn't Destination Moon suposed to be as accurate and realistic as the science of the time could make it?

 

[j d worthington]

Oh, I don't know about that. Wasn't Destination Moon suposed to be as accurate and realistic as the science of the time could make it?

That was my understanding, too, Ian.

I do think that 2001 did well with capturing the feeling of isolation in space, especially with such a long mission -- this tiny bit of life in a huge can floating in the void. And, of course, if you see it on a big screen, it really isn't particularly slow or boring... it's a heady experience -- absolutely breathtaking (and no, I don't mean one of these metroplexes... I mean a BIG screen, such as it was intended for). I'd also say that Kubrick captured the alien feel of going through the Stargate rather well... not to mention the alienage (and alienation) of a genuine first encounter, which really is likely to be more alien (should it ever happen) than we can quite comprehend....

 

[Steve Jordan]

Oh, I don't know about that. Wasn't Destination Moon suposed to be as accurate and realistic as the science of the time could make it?

Good catch, Ian... Destination Moon was supposed to be as accurate as possible for the time, enlisting some of the top scientists of the day for technical guidance. Only time will tell which movie, 2001, Destination Moon or Mission to Mars, turn out to be more accurate (aside from date references, of course).

Personally, I have my serious doubts that we as a race will ever meet aliens that we can actually communicate with... we are probably more likely to discover an alien species that we can only study, possibly experiment with or manipulate for our own ends, but not relate with... alien microbes or simple life forms well below our level of intelligence or awareness.

And interestingly, 2001 shows us exactly this, but from the aliens' point of view... we are the species that is so far below the aliens as to be incapable of communicating with, or even understanding, them. As a result, they watch us, they experiment, and they manipulate us, while we have no comprehension of what is really going on. Any other movie would have the uber-geek scientist figuring out the alien technology (within 90 minutes) and giving us the upper hand over the aliens... in 2001, we are not likely to gain the upper hand over aliens as far beyond us as we are to bacteria.

That rare but elegantly-executed turnabout is what marks 2001 as so unique, even beyone Kubrick's visualizations or debated accuracy.