What's so great about A Space Odyssey ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hobold
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Space
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the contrasting perceptions of Stanley Kubrick's film "2001: A Space Odyssey" and Arthur C. Clarke's accompanying novel. Many participants express dissatisfaction with the film's lack of a coherent plot and clarity, while others argue that the book provides essential context and understanding. Notable figures like physicist Freeman Dyson recommend reading the novel to grasp the film's deeper meanings. The conversation highlights the divide between those who appreciate the film's artistic merits and those who find it overrated and confusing.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the science fiction genre and its evolution.
  • Familiarity with the works of Arthur C. Clarke, particularly "2001: A Space Odyssey" and its sequels.
  • Knowledge of film analysis, particularly regarding narrative structure and visual storytelling.
  • Awareness of the cultural impact of "2001: A Space Odyssey" in cinema history.
NEXT STEPS
  • Read "2001: A Space Odyssey" by Arthur C. Clarke to gain insights into the film's narrative.
  • Explore analyses of the monolith's symbolism in both the film and the book.
  • Investigate the evolution of science fiction films post-1968 and their narrative techniques.
  • Examine the critiques of "2001: A Space Odyssey" and its reception over the decades.
USEFUL FOR

Film enthusiasts, science fiction fans, and anyone interested in the intersection of literature and cinema, particularly those analyzing narrative depth and artistic expression in "2001: A Space Odyssey."

  • #61
tfr000 said:
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.
Other than they are both about alien contact, I don't see how the plots are the same, even basically. I agree it is creepier, though.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
paisiello2 said:
Other than they are both about alien contact, I don't see how the plots are the same, even basically. I agree it is creepier, though.
Vastly superior alien life shepherding the development of the human race.
 
  • #63
Loren said:
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...encouraging the reader to stretch his/her imagination, which means you have to think. This is not Star Wars..
To be honest, I felt the whole series more "Independence Day" but without Will Smith.
Aside from the predictive power such as http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24477667 I found that it was rather extreme that the incredibly ancient masterfully advanced alien species could be defeated so readily by a
 
  • #64
tfr000 said:
Vastly superior alien life shepherding the development of the human race.
I guess I never thought about 2001 that way but it seems a reasonable interpretation.
 
  • #65
paisiello2 said:
I guess I never thought about 2001 that way but it seems a reasonable interpretation.
"Interpretation"?

It's the entire plot of 2001... There's no room for other interpretation when it's essentially spelled out that this is why the monolith's are deployed. Although I would not use the word 'shepherding', shepherds are not likely to terminate their whole flock just because they decide they no longer like the sheep...
 
  • #66
I read the book first, then saw the movie.

love the book but find the movie rather boring.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
13K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K