50 years 2001: A Space Odyssey

[BlackBat242]

It seems that there is a common misconception here.

Clarke wrote the novel WHILE Kubrick was making the movie - (to accompany the movie).
The novel was released after the movie.

What Kubrick started off with was a short story (written in 1948 and published in 1951) by Clarke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sentinel_(short_story), along with others (this for one, published in 1953: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encounter_in_the_Dawn) - then he got with Clarke to develop the story further (and in the process changing a lot of the details of The Sentinel and Encounter, taking things in a different direction).

This (despite being Wiki) gives a pretty good synopsis of the development of both movie and novel (which matches what has been known in the Sci-Fi community since the 1970s & 80s, when Clarke would speak on the subject at Sci-Fi conventions):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)#Production

 

[publiusr]

The novel actually explains everything in a very meticulous, detailed manner which is to be expected since Clarke is a hard sci-fi writer. A lot of the people I know who loathes the film really liked the book.

I would like a miniseries based on his book.
I would take some liberties.

Show the crystal monolith playing videos….seeing it toppled and smashed during the burning at Alexandria.

The Great Daylight Fireball recovered by Shuttle, with Shuttle-C lunar mission in 2001…but everything set in huge lunar caves…no Jupiter.

 

[siegecrossbow]

What's depressing is that we are now in the second decade of the 21st century and the maximum number of people orbiting the planet simultaneously is under 20.

 

[Justo Miranda]

What's depressing is that we are now in the second decade of the 21st century and the maximum number of people orbiting the planet simultaneously is under 20.

Ascending in a Russian rocket, not being able to wash or wear clean clothes for months, living among bags of excrement and cancerous radiation, returning to earth with half muscle and bone mass and a completely altered circulatory system ... Who would want to live up there more than necessary?

How a year in space affected Scott Kelly's health

Nearly a year in space changed Scott Kelly’s genes, brain function and more, NASA’s Twin Study shows.

www.snexplores.org

 

[robunos]

cheers,
Robin.

 

[siegecrossbow]

View attachment 700642

cheers,
Robin.

Microwave meals too.

 

[Richard N]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1674172846933954560

View: https://twitter.com/tvaziri/status/1674172846933954560?s=20

 

[Richard N]

An incredible vision of the future from 1968!

 

[TMA1]

Great series of books, too. Got my handle from the anomaly. Clarke was a brilliant guy, though very odd. Highly suggest all four novels in the series and one or two of his other books. Not all hold up imo.

Movie is obviously very good. Always struck by how little dialogue is in it for it's length. Still get chills down my spine when right before intermission you get fpv of HAL reading the lips back and forth between the two crew members. Many memorable scenes.

 

[martinbayer]

Great series of books, too. Got my handle from the anomaly. Clarke was a brilliant guy, though very odd. Highly suggest all four novels in the series and one or two of his other books. Not all hold up imo.

Movie is obviously very good. Always struck by how little dialogue is in it for it's length. Still get chills down my spine when right before intermission you get fpv of HAL reading the lips back and forth between the two crew members. Many memorable scenes.

Silence is golden. Compare though that Discovery pod scene to the pre-fight Coliseum conversation scene of Spartacus - same setup and outcome; one lives, one dies (I haven't done a deliberate comparison of whether the survivors were on the same side of the screen in either pic, but I wouldn't be surprised if the victims were on the same [wrong] side in both). Kubrick sure had his idiosyncracies, and I dearly miss him.

 

[Richard N]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1696228263411204261

View: https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1696228263411204261?s=20

 

[Richard N]

https://x.com/TheSpaceshipper/status/1701366892550570384?s=20

 

[publiusr]

I say old chap—be a good fellow and open the pod bay doors

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=BATdb9zcuEMKInEK&v=_3WW31B2rjI&feature=youtu.be

 

[Deleted member 4286]

On 2 april, 1968 premier Stanley Kubrick masterpiece

4 years earlier he decided to make The "Perfect" Movie and he succeeded
50 years later 2001: A Space Odyssey has nothing lost of its Magic, its mysteries
Its Space Hardware still looks realistic, even timeless

Allot of Sci-Fi Movies made after 2001 were caught up by reality
Not for 2001: A Space Odyssey, its seems timeless

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHjIqQBsPjk




If you want more how Kubrick made this Masterpiece
look the seven Part Series by Cinema Tyler on You Tube (highly recommended)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgNyCluIRhA&list=PLGciYgiR4atGcBOIuOmLQBXUj692TV6R0

More on Stanley Kubrick way to work, here (highly recommended)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45dcNbKztMM&list=PLGciYgiR4atFDGlCa-peL7gzx7jZU4LIT

An interesting article about the technical credibility of that site; probably posted elsewhere (?)

)http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot....ges in the Film and Novel 2001 Really Happen?

 

[Deleted member 4286]

From the Taschen book "The making of the 2001: a space odyssey"

 

[Deleted member 4286]

Another space station project for the film

 

[Deleted member 4286]

And the cutting-edge instrument panel of he shuttle Orion arriving at the space station

 

[Rhinocrates]

A detailed analysis and reconstruction of the spaces of Discovery and commentary on what it would be like to spend years trapped inside.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DptJmJGcHvk

 

[F-2]

I’ve always had a love hate relationship with 2001. I think it like a lot of Kubrick movies (but not all) are technically stunning and visually brilliant but also often very shallow and superficial in terms of story. 2001 is one of these films. But boy in terms of visual story telling it’s pretty unmatched and 56 years later it’s stunning to look at. Arguably the best visual story telling in an American movie and the best Space movie of all time.

 

[martinbayer]

I’ve always had a love hate relationship with 2001. I think it like a lot of Kubrick movies (but not all) are technically stunning and visually brilliant but also often very shallow and superficial in terms of story. 2001 is one of these films. But boy in terms of visual story telling it’s pretty unmatched and 56 years later it’s stunning to look at. Arguably the best visual story telling in an American movie and the best Space movie of all time.

I think it very much depends on what you expect(ed) 2001 to be. It is a true hardcore science fiction movie, with no aspirations whatsoever to in addition be a love story, caper/heist movie, comedy, western, thriller, horror/slasher flic, action romp, or any other of the various and sundry stereotypical genres. But I am truly stunned by your characterization as a "very shallow and superficial" work. What exactly makes you claim that? It deals with the fundamental idea of mankind encountering extraterrestrial intelligence, and it does so without resorting to any rubber-suited stuntmen or similar cheap gimmicks. I first watched it when I was 12 in 1973, and it left a lasting and deep impression on me that was part of shaping my career trajectory as an aerospace engineer. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you're at least a generation younger that me and watched a lot of more recent fast paced scify movies before 2001, and therefore are just maybe a tad jaded. There is nothing superficial about an intelligent (and maybe a tad long/slow, but that's Kubrick for you) story of humans exploring space and discovering extraterrestrial artifacts.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I think it very much depends on what you expect(ed) 2001 to be. It is a true hardcore science fiction movie, with no aspirations whatsoever to be a l... horror/slasher flic,

"2001" is very much a horror flick, almost the perfect Lovecraftian cosmic horror. Humanity is faced with an incomprehensible immensity; characters are driven mad; humanity is reaching out almost completely blindly into a situation that simply doesn't notice or care about humans and is almost immediately fatal if extreme measures are not taken at all times; and in the end a near-godlike eldritch horror comes to Earth and brings an civilization-staggering apocalypse. The true genius of it is that you don't immediately notice just what it is.

 

[martinbayer]

"2001" is very much a horror flick, almost the perfect Lovecraftian cosmic horror. Humanity is faced with an incomprehensible immensity; characters are driven mad; humanity is reaching out almost completely blindly into a situation that simply doesn't notice or care about humans and is almost immediately fatal if extreme measures are not taken at all times; and in the end a near-godlike eldritch horror comes to Earth and brings an civilization-staggering apocalypse. The true genius of it is that you don't immediately notice just what it is.

The only "character" that goes bonkers in 2001 is HAL, which is simply just an *extremely* prescient warning of the dangers of AI (thanks, Stan - sorry we didn't pay enough attention in time!). Otherwise, humans are just doing what we naturally do: We discover something that is off or novel in our own little corner of the universe, so we get nosy and mount a campaign to investigate. There is however no indication whatsoever that the monolith planting aliens are hostile - to the contrary, from the very get go they are clearly portrayed as trying to nudge human evolution along towards increased intelligence (though the jury is still *very* much out with respect to how successful that particular endeavor might have ultimately turned out). And, considering the fairly recent (how quickly we forget!) Musk orbital Tesla and Chinese spy balloon stunts, putting a giant embryo facsimile into orbit would probably not exactly cause a civilization-staggering apocalypse, though it for sure would make the breathless evening news - most people might actually assume it's just a public announcement of Elon's most recent progeny! But Scott, as a dear longtime online frenemy, I am truly sorry for the imaginary lovy-crafty existential horrors you appear to be fearing/enduring/suffering from, but please know that professional help *is* available (assuming it is covered by your particular healthcare provider, so YMMV these days, of course)...

 

[Orionblamblam]

The only "character" that goes bonkers in 2001 is HAL,

Yes, by far the most "human" of the crew of the Discovery. HAL is far less robotic than Dave or Frank.

putting a giant embryo facsimile into orbit would probably not exactly cause a civilization-staggering apocalypse,

Ahem:

There before him, a glittering toy no Star-Child could resist, floated the planet Earth with all its peoples. He had returned in time. Down there on that crowded globe, the alarms would be flashing across the radar screens, the great tracking telescopes would be searching the skies – and history as men knew it would be drawing to a close. A thousand miles below, he became aware that a slumbering cargo of death had awoken, and was stirring sluggishly in its orbit. The feeble energies it contained were no possible menace to him; but he preferred a cleaner sky. He put forth his will, and the circling megatons flowered in a silent detonation that brought a brief, false dawn to half the sleeping globe. Then he waited, marshaling his thoughts and brooding over his still untested powers. For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next.

The "Star-Child" came to Earth and detonated all the orbiting nukes, or at least those over the nearest hemisphere. Having dozen to hundreds of orbital nukes all go off at once will have a couple consequences:
1) The USSR, USA, UK, France, China, etc. will all go ape and let loose their nuclear arsenals
2) At least half the planet just lost their power grids and electronics due to the massive and unavoidable EMPs.

In any event, "history drew to a close."

I am truly sorry for the imaginary lovy-crafty existential horrors you appear to be fearing/enduring/suffering from,

See, now that's just, in a word, *stupid.* I don't "fear" Lovecraftian cosmic horror, I enjoy the hell out of it. I've written a hell of a lot of it, though I have no illusions that it's any good. Do you fear everything you enjoy? Or just the stuff you recognize?

but please know that professional help *is* available (assuming it is covered by your particular healthcare provider, so YMMV these days, of course)...

 

[martinbayer]

Dude, you're dragging the Clarke book (which was published *after* the movie) into the discussion of the Kubrick *film*. I call a retconning foul...

 

[Orionblamblam]

Dude, you're dragging the Clarke book (which was published *after* the movie) into the discussion of the Kubrick *film*. I call a retconning foul...

Dude, the book was written *with* the film *by* the guy who created the plot and characters in the film. It explains further what happens in the confusing bits of the flick.

And the "2001/2010/2061/3001" series is *all* about retconning. Each book and movie is set in a different timeline.

 

[martinbayer]

Yes, by far the most "human" of the crew of the Discovery. HAL is far less robotic than Dave or Frank.



Ahem:

There before him, a glittering toy no Star-Child could resist, floated the planet Earth with all its peoples. He had returned in time. Down there on that crowded globe, the alarms would be flashing across the radar screens, the great tracking telescopes would be searching the skies – and history as men knew it would be drawing to a close. A thousand miles below, he became aware that a slumbering cargo of death had awoken, and was stirring sluggishly in its orbit. The feeble energies it contained were no possible menace to him; but he preferred a cleaner sky. He put forth his will, and the circling megatons flowered in a silent detonation that brought a brief, false dawn to half the sleeping globe. Then he waited, marshaling his thoughts and brooding over his still untested powers. For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next.

The "Star-Child" came to Earth and detonated all the orbiting nukes, or at least those over the nearest hemisphere. Having dozen to hundreds of orbital nukes all go off at once will have a couple consequences:
1) The USSR, USA, UK, France, China, etc. will all go ape and let loose their nuclear arsenals
2) At least half the planet just lost their power grids and electronics due to the massive and unavoidable EMPs.

In any event, "history drew to a close."





See, now that's just, in a word, *stupid.* I don't "fear" Lovecraftian cosmic horror, I enjoy the hell out of it. I've written a hell of a lot of it, though I have no illusions that it's any good. Do you fear everything you enjoy? Or just the stuff you recognize?


View attachment 734133

Putting your cavalier declaration of actual humans as less human than a runaway computer, you spoke of "characters" (plural), so even for the sake of the argument accepting HAL as a *character*, who else is driven mad? An inquiring mind really would like to know...

 

[Orionblamblam]

Putting your cavalier declaration of actual humans as less human than a runaway computer

This is common consensus of critics and fans of the film:

https://screenrant.com/2001-space-odyssey-interpretations-stanley-kubrick-sci-fi-classic/

Roger Ebert posited that HAL is the most human character in 2001; more human than the humans he murders. HAL was designed to be the perfect computer, but he malfunctions and turns evil.

When Bowman is about to shut off HAL for good by ripping up his circuits, HAL has an emotional crisis and begs for his life, even admitting that he’s scared.

Neither Bowman nor Poole emote much at all.

, you spoke of "characters" (plural), so even for the sake of the argument accepting HAL as a *character*, who else is driven mad?

Arguably Dave Bowman. The trip through the Stargate drives him kinda buggo.

 

[martinbayer]

Dude, the book was written *with* the film *by* the guy who created the plot and characters in the film. It explains further what happens in the confusing bits of the flick.

And the "2001/2010/2061/3001" series is *all* about retconning. Each book and movie is set in a different timeline.

Once again, this thread is not a discussion of books (which may always differ from associated movies) or sequels, but of the underlying original film. As documented for example at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey, the cinematic oeuvre came first.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Once again, this thread is not a discussion of books (which may always differ from associated movies) or sequels, but of the underlying original film.

Which in this case, cannot be separated from the book. The book was not some secondhand adaptation; it's written by the author of the movie and explains the movie.

 

[martinbayer]

This is common consensus of critics and fans of the film:

https://screenrant.com/2001-space-odyssey-interpretations-stanley-kubrick-sci-fi-classic/

Roger Ebert posited that HAL is the most human character in 2001; more human than the humans he murders. HAL was designed to be the perfect computer, but he malfunctions and turns evil.

When Bowman is about to shut off HAL for good by ripping up his circuits, HAL has an emotional crisis and begs for his life, even admitting that he’s scared.

Neither Bowman nor Poole emote much at all.


Arguably Dave Bowman. The trip through the Stargate drives him kinda buggo.

View attachment 734134
View attachment 734135

Once again, YMMV, but my takeaway is that Bowman's mind was *enhanced* (which may not always be a pleasant experience) rather than driven "buggo". If the aliens would have had dumbing down as their objective for mankind, why wouldn't they have plastered Earth with mind numbing monoliths (kinda similar to cell towers, coming to think of it) instead? Too bad we can't ask Clarke or Kubrick anymore...

 

[martinbayer]

Which in this case, cannot be separated from the book. The book was not some secondhand adaptation; it's written by the author of the movie and explains the movie.

And it was published *AFTER* the film premiere. The movie comes first. No separation, just clarifying priority. Both the film and the book are standalone works. You can enjoy either one without enjoying the other, but the movie takes precedence.

 

[southwestforests]

Dude, you're dragging the Clarke book (which was published *after* the movie) into the discussion of the Kubrick *film*. I call a retconning foul...

Nice try, but, No.
Movie release date: April 2, 1968
Book first publishing date: April 28, 1968
In order for book to be written and edited and all the process, to be published same month as movie released it had to be written at least concurrently with the production of movie.

Movie:

Orionblamblam is very much correct,

Which in this case, cannot be separated from the book. The book was not some secondhand adaptation; it's written by the author of the movie and explains the movie.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) - IMDb

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) cast and crew credits, including actors, actresses, directors, writers and more.

www.imdb.com

Writing Credits
Stanley Kubrick ... (screenplay by) and
Arthur C. Clarke ... (screenplay by)
Arthur C. Clarke ... (short story "The Sentinel") (uncredited)

"The Sentinel"

is a 1948, published in 1951 short story by Clarke which at least in part inspired the 2001 story.

http://future-lives.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/TheSentinel.pdf

 

[publiusr]

The Star Child is a higher order of being than what survived in "The Moon-Lens"

But our astronaut was a captive of sorts...even if not of the Mi-Go.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Once again, YMMV, but my takeaway is that Bowman's mind was *enhanced* (which may not always be a pleasant experience) rather than driven "buggo". If the aliens would have had dumbing down as their objective for mankind,

Being driven insane while being enhanced is not the same as being dumbed down. See:

why wouldn't they have plastered Earth with mind numbing monoliths (kinda similar to cell towers, coming to think of it) instead? Too bad we can't ask Clarke or Kubrick anymore...

Since the book and it's clear explanations of things left vague or unexplored in the movie are of no interest to you, why would you want to ask Clark *anything*?

 

[martinbayer]

Nice try, but, No.
Movie release date: April 2, 1968
Book first publishing date: April 28, 1968

You know, I live in a world where the release dates matter, so the film still came out first after principal photography began on 29 December 1965, no?

 

[martinbayer]

Being driven insane while being enhanced is not the same as being dumbed down. See:

View attachment 734136


Since the book and it's clear explanations of things left vague or unexplored in the movie are of no interest to you, why would you want to ask Clark *anything*?

You know, posting a star trek (I assume?) screen grab really doesn't have as much evidentiary value in the actual universe as you might hope...

 

[Orionblamblam]

You know, posting a star trek (I assume?) screen grab really doesn't have as much evidentiary value in the actual universe as you might hope...

Given that not only does it feature Frank Poole his own self AND is sci-fi just like the movie being discussed, it seemed quite relevant and useful.

 

[Michel Van]

A typical letter by Stanley Kubrick...
...it unknow if Aubrey had that dislodge after movie 2010

 

[Michel Van]

KUBRICK, YOU...!!!

 

[Justo Miranda]

Perhaps in an alternate universe, when the hominid throws the bone into the sky in an act of defiance and victory, bad luck causes the bone to fall on his head causing cerebral edema... and thus the new technology would be lost.