What's so great about A Space Odyssey ?

[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 definitely 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.

 

[Tobias Funke]

I've read 2001 and 2010 and I like them both. Haven't seen the movie because, well, I don't see any reason to after reading the books and it frankly looks boring. The OP probably isn't even around anymore, but the book has my recommendation (which carries quite a bit of weight around these parts!). It's a pretty quick read too, so even if you don't like it, no big deal.

It's amazing how widely varied tastes are when it comes to sci-fi. A lot of people think Childhood's End is one of Clarke's best, but I think towards the end

Spoiler

it just becomes another of the seemingly infinite stories from around that time---the time when the Rhine experiments were still taken seriously---that has humanity taking its place as the godlike, often psychic, race we're destined to become while all the other, sometimes much more advanced, alien races watch in admiration and fear...boring (and, when shrunk to our global scale, vaguely racist too, a claim that would get one laughed off this forum if Asimov himself didn't make the connection with his editor in mind).

Still a pretty good read, but Rendezvous with Rama is much better imo.

 

[paisiello2]

My favorite film of all time by my favorite director of all time.

Beside the sheer beauty of the photography I think it is also very profound. The whole film to me is an exploration of the evolution of human intelligence: from apes learning to use tools to modern man and their AI machines, to the next step which is speculated to come from contact with extra-terrestrial intelligence.

 

[guysensei1]

To tell you the truth, I couldn't stand the slow pace of the movie, the repetitive noises and the silent parts.

I'm too impatient for that kind of stuff :/ Oh well.

 

[paisiello2]

Too bad because a lot of great art a lot of the time requires patience to fully appreciate. Criticism is fine but what are you comparing it to? MIB 2?

 

[Evo]

TBH, it's just a movie. I personally didn't like it that much. To each his own, it's a matter of taste.

 

[tfr000]

Reviving an old thread...
2001 the book was awesome. The Discovery's final destination is Saturn, not Jupiter, in particular the moon Iapetus. Seems Iapetus is bi-color - very bright on one side, very dark on the other. This is true - Iapetus does indeed have a large, bright spot on it. In the book, the monolith is in the center of it. Imagine Discovery among the rings...
The movie... kind of lost it after Bowman went out in the pod to investigate the monolith. In the book, there is a long, long interval of passing through bizarre space-scapes, rather thought-provoking ones, before the pod plunks down into the room for the final couple of scenes. This was all sort of glossed over in the movie with that psychedelic colors/Bowman making scary faces/loud and tense music thing. Must have run out of budget or something.
2010 - yuck. I lost track of it after that.
Someone mentioned Clarke's Childhood's End. I found a copy at the town dump a few years ago. I had never read it. Wow. Same basic sort of plot only much creepier.

 

[Dr Wu]

I'm afraid I couldn't get on with 2061 and 3001. They both ended up at my local Oxfam shop. I was also less than satisfied with 2010 when it first came out. To me it came across as disjointed and I found that long film-script-like dialogue at the start particularly off-putting. I've changed my mind about the novel since then. Clarke's depiction of Jupiter and its Galilean moons, plus several later scenes, I still find captivating. I saw the film version of 2010 so long ago now that I can no longer trust my memories, never mind my critical faculties.

So what's so great about the movie version of 2001: A Space Odyssey? I guess the same question can apply to films like Citizen Kane, Psycho, Pulp Fiction, to name but three - all groundbreaking movies of their day, and doubtless they too had their share of critics. All I can say in defence of 2001 is that a friend of mine who had never seen the film (yes, such people do exist) finally got round to watching it three years ago, initially with some reluctance, I'm bound to say. He was, nonetheless, completely blown away by the film - and this from someone who in his time has sat through Star Wars and its many spin-offs, Close Encounters, ET, the Matrix Trilogy etc etc. Not bad for a film then in its 44th year.

Just one last thing: if 2001 is not among the greatest - if not the very greatest - SF films yet made, all I can say is: compared to what?

 

[Loren]

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?

The problem is you watched the movie. Kubrick was obviously a genius in the film industry, but the film doesn't do the story justice. You have to read the first book!

Aas for the sequels, they explain the story in increasing detail. The last one, 3001 is not as good as its predecessors.

I could explain the whole premise of the series, but that would be spoiling it for you. If after reading the books you still don't get it, then open a new thread and ask specific questions.

Clarke's works are less about entertaining than encouraging the reader to stretch his/her imagination, which means you have to think. This is not Star Wars.

Lastly, films are a great media, but written novels are superior in many regards. If you constrain yourself to film you are missing a more significant means of understanding.

 

[Dr Wu]

One sub-theme about 2001 I've always enjoyed is the irony of human beings journeying to Jupiter (in the film) to seek further evidence of sentient extraterrestrial life, and beyond that shortening the odds of achieving contact with these super-intelligent aliens - only to learn that they don't even understand their own creation: Hal.

 

[Janus]

Reviving an old thread...
2001 the book was awesome. The Discovery's final destination is Saturn, not Jupiter, in particular the moon Iapetus. Seems Iapetus is bi-color - very bright on one side, very dark on the other. This is true - Iapetus does indeed have a large, bright spot on it. In the book, the monolith is in the center of it. Imagine Discovery among the rings...
The movie... kind of lost it after Bowman went out in the pod to investigate the monolith. In the book, there is a long, long interval of passing through bizarre space-scapes, rather thought-provoking ones, before the pod plunks down into the room for the final couple of scenes. This was all sort of glossed over in the movie with that psychedelic colors/Bowman making scary faces/loud and tense music thing. Must have run out of budget or something.

The thing about 2001 is that the movie was not based on the book or the book on the movie, but they were more or less written together. They were two different visions of the story. The change from Saturn in the Book to Jupiter in the movie was due to the fact that, at the time, they did not think they could do justice to Saturn's rings.

As far as the final scenes in the movie go, Carl Sagan once said that he thought that Kubrick got it right in terms of what a meeting with an highly advanced alien race would be like; a series of impressions that we would not be able to make sense of.

2010 - yuck. I lost track of it after that.
Someone mentioned Clarke's Childhood's End. I found a copy at the town dump a few years ago. I had never read it. Wow. Same basic sort of plot only much creepier.