What's so great about A Space Odyssey ?

[Hobold]

What's so great about "A Space Odyssey"?

Ok, here we go (may contain spoilers)...

I'm quite a fan of scientific fiction. I watched 2001 a few years ago when I was still young and wasn't really a great thinker: I hated it. A few days ago, I watched it again because all the hype and "the best movie ever" people kept telling me and I kept reading in reviews over and over. Yeah, ok, I re-watched it and it sucked even more than the first time. Then I thought: yeah, ok, maybe I'm just too dumb to get it... I should probably get to the next part. And I did, I just finished reading 2010 and I found nothing exceptionally good in it, in fact, I found it quite boring.

About 2001: yeah, effects are pretty cool, the exhibitionism is also fantastic, graphics are very immersive and stuff. But where is the plot? People go to Jupiter, people die, the astronaut "allucinates", people die, the supercomputer gets crazy, the monolit is really powerful, yeah, yeah, yeah, where is the plot? Where is the explanation? Where's the cause? What can I take from the movie? Is it all because of the special effects?

So went to the next book waiting for some plausible explanations and possibly a plot. People get in a new vehicle and try to salve the old ship from 2001. The travel is pretty boring, they find a new monolit, it's pretty amazing, they find the ship, they run into usual orbital mechanics problems, the chinese astronaut says they have found ET life (how does this matter, anyway?), they reprogram the old crazy supercomputer, they simply TURN BACK and the monolit fuses Jupiter into a new star.

Seriously? Explanations, anyone? From what I have read so far, there are simply no explanations to what happened, there is no thrilling story, there is absolutely nothing that keeps you reading, there is absolutely nothing I can take from what I have read. There is no plot (Clarke sure has some good insights, but from what I've seen, he is incapable of using them).

If it's supposed to continue in the next book, he should've put it into a single book, because it's pretty stupid to have a full book without a proper ending.

What have you found attractive in this series that I can't find?

 

[Evo]

No argument from me. I didn't like 2001 either.

 

[D H]

Sans the Von Danikeneque nonsense, I loved it, and I still do. So nyah!

 

[Evo]

Sans the Von Danikeneque nonsense, I loved it, and I still do. So nyah!

I liked Hal. The monkeys had good rythm.

 

[NobodySpecial]

It was the 60s, nothing made sense !

It was the first SF movie that went beyond monsters in rubber suits and had impressive visuals and sound for the time. But like tolkein it has suffered from over-analysing

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hobold, if you think the astronaut hallucinates, then I would guess that you didn't understand most of it. As for the "Von Danikeneque nonsense", like it or not, it was at the heart of the film. 2001 wouldn't be 2001 without it.

Physicist Freeman Dyson urged those baffled by the film to read Clarke's novel:

"After seeing Space Odyssey, I read Arthur Clarke's book. I found the book gripping and intellectually satisfying, full of the tension and clarity which the movie lacks. All the parts of the movie that are vague and unintelligible, especially the beginning and the end, become clear and convincing in the book. So I recommend to my middle-aged friends who find the movie bewildering that they should read the book; their teenage kids don't need to."[2]

Clarke himself used to recommend reading the book, saying "I always used to tell people, 'Read the book, see the film, and repeat the dose as often as necessary', although, as his biographer Neil McAleer points out, he was promoting sales of his book at the time.[2] Elsewhere he said, "You will find my interpretation in the novel; it is not necessarily Kubrick's. Nor is his necessarily the 'right' one – whatever that means."[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_2001:_A_Space_Odyssey

 

[Hobold]

Yeah, at first I really thought he was hallucinating when I watched the movie, but 2010 book makes sure everyone gets that's not what happened.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yeah, at first I really thought he was hallucinating when I watched the movie, but 2010 book makes sure everyone gets that's not what happened.

I must confess that I never read 2001. I read 2010 and 2061, but only watched 2001, so I can't speak to the book specifically. What I have read suggests that Clarke esp likes to write mysteries that challenge the reader to figure it out. In this case, the first thing to understand is the function of the monolith.

If you take a look at the wiki page I linked, you can find analyses and links.

 

[lisab]

The apes were awesome.

 

[waht]

Yeah, at first I really thought he was hallucinating when I watched the movie, but 2010 book makes sure everyone gets that's not what happened.

Did you read 2001?

I agree with Dyson, and I've been saying it as well. Read 2001. It's a fine story, there is no mumbo-jumbo mysteries of the monolith like in the movie. 2001 book makes you think about how rare highly intelligent life in the universe could be. It explains what the monolith is for. It's a cool idea.

2010 is a sequel. The movie sucks except the part where Arthur C. Clarke was sitting on a bench in Washington DC. The book is a pretty good sequel if you've liked 2001.

 

[Hobold]

Ok, thanks for the reply. I'll give it a last shot to 2001 book. Another question: if I eventually like the book, is it worth reading 2061 and 3001?

 

[NobodySpecial]

is it worth reading 2061 and 3001?

2061 is less philosophical - more like Tom Clancy in space, I rather lost the thread by 3001

Rendevous with Rama is a better Clarke novel in a similar theme

 

[Proton Soup]

this is kinda fun

http://2001.a-false-flag-odyssey.com/

 

[Alienjoey]

I read the book and loved it. In fact, I think I'll reread it sometime soon. But the movie wasn't amazing. It was certainly groundbreaking for its time, but it is very dull at times. I haven't read any of the sequels though.

 

[Janus]

I must confess that I never read 2001. I read 2010 and 2061, but only watched 2001, so I can't speak to the book specifically. What I have read suggests that Clarke esp likes to write mysteries that challenge the reader to figure it out. In this case, the first thing to understand is the function of the monolith.

If you take a look at the wiki page I linked, you can find analyses and links.

I read 2001, the short story which inspired it, the book on the writing of 2001, and the book on the making of the movie before I ever saw the movie. My first chance to see the film was when it was broadcast on TV. A group of us watched it on the dorm hall TV. Afterward, I had to explain what it was all about to just about everyone else.

 

[alt]

I loved 2001 when I first saw it - way back then. I thought it was very philosophical.

2010 however, was a real let down, I thought. Kind of like "we must have a sequel to make more money out of this (nothing wrong with wanting to make more money, mind, but it was bereft of any deep meaning).

I didn't even know there was a 2061 and a 3001. Are they movies or just books, and they couldn't have been written by ACC, could they ?

 

[skeptic2]

I too read the book about the making of 2001, about 35 years ago, and this is what I remember from it. It seems it was based on an Isaac Asimov short story "The Sentinel" about finding a crystal on the moon that alerted ETs that humans had achieved space flight. The movie implied that the ETs had taught the apes how to use weapons. (The book mentioned that 2001 came out the same year as Planet of the Apes but Planet of the Apes got the best costume Oscar for its apes.)

The problem with 2001 came about because they started filming before they had decided on an ending. They had decided they didn't want to show ETs as any kind of deformed human and eventually decided that they had evolved beyond bodies and existed only as spirits, thus the reason no aliens are ever shown. The astronaut is taken to their planet and is aged and reborn. His ultimate mission became to care for and guide the earth. The movie utterly failed to convey these ideas to the audience.

Afterthought: Perhaps the movie's success is due to not explaining those ideas which admittedly are a little hokey.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The docking sequence. It should have gotten an R rating just for that.

 

[cobalt124]

2001 is one of my favourite films, what it's about is left for the individual to decide, meanwhile enjoy the special effects (the Monolith being the first use of CGI in a film?), and the accompanying music (e.g. the Blue Danube sequence). It's more of an experience than a film with a beginning middle and end. It was the 60's, it was a "trip".

 

[Borek]

I would lie stating I understand the movie, nonetheless I like it. In a way it reminds me of a first Alien - you don't see the monster, but you know something hides in the dark.

I doubt books explanation is correct. That's what Clarke had on mind, but IMHO he is in a way simpleminded, 2*2=4 and when it doesn't there is a good reason for/logic behind that. Kubrick doesn't care how much is 2*2 - movie is not a multiplication table. Whatever conclusions you draw they are yours.

 

[dkotschessaa]

I think there are two factors here. One is that, yes, you should read the books, in order, or the movie will not make a lot of sense. The other has to do with appreciating something for the time it was done, and if you're below a certain age or if you've just waited till now to see the movie, the odds are you've been saturated by so many fast paced Hollywood 3-second per shot films created for the general attention deficit public that films like 2001, and 2010 will seem interminable to you.

The pacing of 2001 is not really that slow for a 1968 film, but it's exaggerated by the starkness of the shots. 2010 was shot in the 80s when the movie viewing publics attention span was already starting to shrink, but the pacing is similar to 2001. The films fall somewhat into the genre of "hard" sci-fi and are somewhat more "scientific" and "realistic" in the sense that you don't have people zipping around with warp drives and teleporting and so forth, but having to deal with the clunky, awkward and inconvenient realities of space travel and micro gravity situations.

If you don't find the concepts in the books (especially the first) fascinating then I am not sure what the problem is. Arthur C. Clarke touches on some pretty mind blowing ideas - again, maybe more mind blowing for the time they were written. If you've grown up reading or watching modern sci-fi then you might not find it all that new. It is for this reason I can't really read anything by Asimov, as much as I love sci-fi. Since I grew up with more modern fare there wouldn't be anything "new" for me in older sci fi, though it's likely the modern stuff I read was influenced by him.

-DaveKA

 

[chaoseverlasting]

Its a nice series, but it does tend to be a little over rated. Sort of like 'The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy'.

 

[lisab]

Meh, I'm sure reading 2001 would be a waste of time. I didn't read 1 thru 2000, so I wouldn't be able to follow it.

 

[stevenb]

What have you found attractive in this series that I can't find?

It's very difficult to justify art. We all have different tastes. Our receptiveness to art also depends on our state of mind at the time of observing, and tastes may change as you age as well.

I saw the movie 2001 while in college in the 1980s. It was playing at the campus small theater for the students. I was blown away by the movie, but did not understand it at all. It just affected me, as good art should do. I can't explain why.

I then read the book, which then made the story understandable. I think it's a good story. It's actually a very simple story and plot, but many great stories are very simple once you analyze them.

But, if you don't like the story and the scope of the movie doesn't reach you as a work of art, then no one can fault you. Many far greater works of art are also not appreciated by all people.

 

[Evo]

Meh, I'm sure reading 2001 would be a waste of time. I didn't read 1 thru 2000, so I wouldn't be able to follow it.

 

[Janus]

I too read the book about the making of 2001, about 35 years ago, and this is what I remember from it. It seems it was based on an Isaac Asimov short story "The Sentinel" about finding a crystal on the moon that alerted ETs that humans had achieved space flight.

The Sentinel was indeed the basis of 2001, however, the story was written by Clarke. Kubrick, after going through Clarke's earlier works decided that this idea was the one best suited to making a film about.

 

[dimensional]

I think there are two factors here. One is that, yes, you should read the books, in order, or the movie will not make a lot of sense.

I'm not so sure about that... the movie and the book were sort of written simultaneously and mostly as a collaborative effort. I have indeed read the book but only after I watched the movie. While I appreciated both mediums, I don't really think that the novelization of the story helped me to grasp the ideas in a better way, but the different perspective is certainly refreshing. Clarke is also a great writer so that definitely helped me to enjoy it.

 

[dkotschessaa]

I'm not so sure about that... the movie and the book were sort of written simultaneously and mostly as a collaborative effort.

That may be so, but for me it doesn't really change the fact that the movie makes no sense if you haven't read the book.

-DaveKA

 

[Janus]

I would lie stating I understand the movie, nonetheless I like it. In a way it reminds me of a first Alien - you don't see the monster, but you know something hides in the dark.

I doubt books explanation is correct. That's what Clarke had on mind, but IMHO he is in a way simpleminded, 2*2=4 and when it doesn't there is a good reason for/logic behind that. Kubrick doesn't care how much is 2*2 - movie is not a multiplication table. Whatever conclusions you draw they are yours.

The whole idea was that the book and movie were to be different interpretations of the same basic story.

That being said, A couple of years ago, My daughter took a history of film class. I was leafing through her test for the class and came across the section on 2001. The author was discussing the scene where the early primate tosses the bone with which he killed his rival into the air, and it cuts to a spacecraft in orbit.

He interpreted this as a transformation from savagery and brutality to civilization and cooperation symbolized by space exploration. In this he completely missed the point. The spacecraft shown was one of a number of orbital nuclear weapon platforms. It was a cut from one weapon to another.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The whole idea was that the book and movie were to be different interpretations of the same basic story.

That being said, A couple of years ago, My daughter took a history of film class. I was leafing through her test for the class and came across the section on 2001. The author was discussing the scene where the early primate tosses the bone with which he killed his rival into the air, and it cuts to a spacecraft in orbit.

He interpreted this as a transformation from savagery and brutality to civilization and cooperation symbolized by space exploration. In this he completely missed the point. The spacecraft shown was one of a number of orbital nuclear weapon platforms. It was a cut from one weapon to another.

Hmmm, I took it to be the first use of a tool. The cutaway to space exploration made sense in that context.

The idea that the first tool was a weapon, was no surprise. I didn't realize that the orbiting platform was a weapons station, but that would still work.

 

[turbo]

Meh, I'm sure reading 2001 would be a waste of time. I didn't read 1 thru 2000, so I wouldn't be able to follow it.

Already jockeying for the PF humor award, basil?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Someone necroed a seven+ year old thread on this.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=1022

 

[aquitaine]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/05/08/whence-nasa/

Somewhat related, even though it was written in 2008 it was just as relavent then as it is now unfortunately.EDIT: I'll also throw this in about the movie. What's so great about it? Back when it was made it presented us with an ambitious but doable future where we followed up on the success of Project Apollo with an expanding and thriving permanant settlement on the moon and an exploration program for the outer planets. In reality none of that happened, and future generations are going to look back at this as our lost opportunity to ensure we get first dibs on the vast resources of this star system, in other words a collosal mistake.

 

[theneedtoknow]

2001 is my single favourite film of all that I have seen (and I've seen thousands ...I'm a bit obsessed). I don't really know what to say in its defense to people who don't like it, since I can completely understand them (I'm not oblivious to the aspects of the film that usually put people off). However, for me, everything works. I love the basic concept of the monoliths, the open-ended story which gives much opportunity for personal interpretation, the beautiful framing of the shots (pause the film at random and it'll usually look like a picture worth framing), the spaceship waltz, etc.

 

[ImaLooser]

Ok, here we go (may contain spoilers)...



What have you found attractive in this series that I can't find?

It was way ahead of its time. People just didn't make movies like that then, that told a story without words. The message about humanity going to a higher stage of evolution was timely, and it was trippy. There was a big CG Jung influence too, which was pretty hot stuff in the day.

Kubrick likes slow moving things. You can see it stately grandeur or as boring. In the first cut there was a ten-minute scene of an astronaut running on a centrifuge to show the boredom of travel in space. Arthur C. Clarke hated it. I always suspected that Arthur called up Stanley afterward and threatened him with death if he didn't cut that.

I like the movie but I don't think I will ever sit through it again. The books aren't all that impressive either. Try Childhood's End. That was the movie that Kubrick originally wanted to make but someone else owned it.

Star Wars I was also a very big deal when it came out. Lucas's innovation was realizing that lots of things in the future would look old and worn out, and maybe not even work very well. It seems pretty obvious now but no one had thought of it. Stuff in the future was always brand new.

So these films look dated because they've been imitated so much and improved upon.

 

[EBENEZR]

Kubrick likes slow moving things. You can see it stately grandeur or as boring. In the first cut there was a ten-minute scene of an astronaut running on a centrifuge to show the boredom of travel in space. Arthur C. Clarke hated it. I always suspected that Arthur called up Stanley afterward and threatened him with death if he didn't cut that.

I really liked this scene!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there is a reason why you should read the novels first. Not out of literary superiority, but because the book can go into grand detail that a movie cannot. A book is a sole adventure, whereas movies, generally, are a shared experience. You cannot share a heavily detailed experience like being immersed in a novel because you will go at different rates and a movie that consists of people just sitting and talking (could you imagine if LOTR films actually consisted of half of what was written in them? They would have to be a series and a particularly inactive one at that. The reason so much detail in a book is acceptable where it isn't in a movie is because you are forced to imagine. This involves you mentally engaging and thus it is not boring. With a film, it has already been imagined, you are now just observing someone else's interpretation which takes the joy out of an immersive, detailed story.

As such, movies that are adapted from books, particularly ones that are confusing without the detail of the novel, are really for people who have read the novel first and can be appreciated to a greater degree in a group if the members have all read the book. Of course, in the case of LOTR they managed to execute it in a way that you didn't need to know all the details, but the same cannot be said for 2001: A Space Odyssey. You really do have to read the book for it to make sense. I haven't read it all, in fact only read a few of the first chapters, but having done so a lot of it started making sense.

Anyway, it's not what I'd call the best film of all time, but come on... the moment where there is nothing but his heavy breathing must be one of the tensest moments in film history!

 

[ImaLooser]

I really liked this scene!

!

But in the final cut it isn't ten minutes long.

 

[EBENEZR]

But in the final cut it isn't ten minutes long.

Did the director's cut? Because I think I saw that one.

If that one was shorter too, that's probably why I liked it. Either 10 mins passed quickly or I am glad it didn't last that long haha.

 

[BWV]

Ligeti's music, for one

 

[H2Bro]

2001 is still one of my favorite sci fi novels. Why? Because it shows that at the pinnacle of human achievement we are tiny flecks of dust compared to the larger intelligences out there. Plus, at the end, the transition of a human into a semi omnipotent omniscient god is left me wondering.

I didn't get nearly as much from 2001 the movie. It was really more about breakthrough effects and maybe conveying the static, silent, slow pace of life in space.

2010 is a good book. 2061 is a bit worse. 3001 must have been published to make quick cash. The best parts are passages taken from the previous books, and the book skips over the parts readers would find most interesting. Maybe ACC lost some of his writing vigor by that time.

I watched the movie before reading the novel, and watched the directors cut after the novel. I liked the directors cut more, but maybe this was because it was just providing visual candy for the story I had already digested.

 

[BWV]

The screenplay for 2001 preceded the book, so the movie is the original work

 

[LPV man]

The screenplay for 2001 preceded the book, so the movie is the original work

Well the screenplay and novel were written at the same time. Where the differences come in is after the novels publication the screenplay continued it's development. I don't know if either the budget or techniques could have handled it, but I wish they'd filmed ACC version of the stargate transitions.

Lost Worlds of 2001 does cover some of the evolution behind the screenplay and if I recall correctly has a number of alternate endings for the film included

 

[lpetrich]

I also like that movie, and not just the psychedelic parts.

Some of it I find a bit difficult to interpret, I must say.

There are interesting differences between then and now.

Space travel is MUCH less advanced than what the movie pictured. Humanity has not left low Earth orbit since the early 1970's, and the three space stations sent up so far have looked more like collections of tin cans than that big wheel. Cramped ones that do not spin to make artificial gravity. Skylab, Mir, and the ISS.

However, automated spacecraft have been sent to every planet and several smaller objects.

Computers are very different. While the movie followed the Intimidating Big Machine model, what we have is lots of small computers in addition to the big ones.

But despite all the software we have created, artificial intelligence lags FAR behind the movie, something that's one of the great disappointments of my life.

A more serious issue is a major plot point of the movie. HAL's erroneous behavior was a major issue, while erroneous behavior has been all too common among the more common sorts of computers.


I remember Isaac Asimov saying about a certain part of that movie "They're breaking the First Law! They're breaking the First Law!" One of his Three Laws of Robotics, or more generally, AI programming. Someone calmed him down by saying "Isaac, why don't you strike them with lightning?"

 

[EagleNebula]

I saw the movie back when I was, I think, 12 years old. I was just in awe after I saw it. I thought the visuals were very impressive and I also found the story to be deep and existential. I can't say I understood a lot from it by watching it the first time but it definately stuck with me. 10/10 IMHO.

 

[Crikey]

I've seen 2001 ASO about a dozen times over the years and I still don't understand the ending!
One of my favourite scenes is where the computer mutinies and locks them out in space, but one crewman outwits it to get back in via the airlock, then systematically sets about pulling its memory chips one by one to disable it, ha ha..:)

 

[OCR]

then systematically sets about pulling its memory chips one by one to disable it, ha ha..:)

Odd I guess, but I never saw a bit of humor in...

HAL: Dave, stop. Stop, will you? Stop, Dave. Will you stop, Dave? Stop, Dave. I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a...fraid.

OCR

 

[Borek]

The greatest scene of the movie if you ask me.

 

[brucemitchell]

I read the book. I don't know why, but I liked it. I read 2001 and then skipped all the way over to 3001, so...

 

[HallsofIvy]

You are correct that it was based on the short story "The Sentinel" but that story was written by Arthur Clark, not Isaac Asimov. That's why they got Clark to write the screen play!

 

[mpresic]

I did not read the book. I did not like the last half-hour of the movie when everything stopped making sense.

One thing though for comparison. This movie came out in 1968. The idea that everyone would have a computer or cell-phone would have been literally incomprehensible. Our sensibilities were different. On TV, people were laughing at the grunting pig on Green Acres. Or laughing at the skipper slapping Gilligan with the hat after he said something stupid. Look at the old situation comedies to appreciate how desperate we were for any hoots we could get after a hard day's work.

Panavision was cool. I expect we were not used to the special effects that permeate all modern movies.