Why is 2001: A Space Odyssey such a highly regarded movie?

[Serutan]

Nobody in this thread would say that the cinematography was bad. The problem was that Kubrick sacrificed pacing and a coherent plot on the altar of creating meaningful, awesome-looking shots. The latter is partly Clarke's fault - the man was always much better at creating the feel of a science fiction novel than at writing an actual story arc - but it's hardly as though Kubrick made things any better.

I've always thought that anyone who saw the movie but had not read the book would have a hard time figuring out the plot. The book fills in the many gaps in the movie, especially given that it was written in parallel with the movie. That said, you're right that Clarke's style (which I rather like) does not lend itself very well to Hollywood.

 

[warpus]

The book fills in the many gaps in the movie

That's true for pretty much any book to screen adaptation, the exceptions being.. things like Lord of the Rings.

 

[Dachs]

I've always thought that anyone who saw the movie but had not read the book would have a hard time figuring out the plot. The book fills in the many gaps in the movie, especially given that it was written in parallel with the movie. That said, you're right that Clarke's style (which I rather like) does not lend itself very well to Hollywood.

Oh, I'm a huge fan of a lot of Clarke's work. Rendezvous with Rama is still possibly one of my favorite sci-fi books. (A shame about what happened with the rest of the series.) This is kind of what bemuses me about people who claim I don't like sci-fi because I'm not a fan of the 2001 movie.

 

[luiz]

I also don't think that the earth obelisk caused the apes to evolve. Kubrick and Clarke are too smart to have such a simple idea of evolution. Rather, the obelisk is part of an early warning system to alert whoever put it there that some of the life on earth has started to invent technologies. And then the obelisk on the moon (chapter 2) alerts them that the earthlings have discovered space flight. And then the obelisk orbiting Jupiter alerts them that the earthlings have achieved the required stasis technologies for long-distance space-faring. The last scene shows that humans aren't prepared - biologically and psychologically - for some of the necessities of inter-stellar travel... i think

That's how I interpreted it too. Never thought of the obelisks as causing humans to evolve until this thread. I thought of it as a warning system and a means to stop humans from going too far - the moon monolith sent a signal aimed at Jupiter that messed HAL up.

But then again I'm not a fan of the movie and didn't give it much thought.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

The apes act would not make sense then, becasue just before finding the obelisk the group is near extintion and only after having contact with it they begin to develop the neccesary tools and weapons to survive for hunting the pecaris and defeating predators and other hostil apes groups. The book confirms all this, but I think that the movie hardly leaves room to any other interpretation, even if you have not read the novel.

 

[Dachs]

Clarke's aliens were clearly the original Reapers.

 

[JohannaK]

In Catalonia there is a tiny town with a 2001 monolith in the graveyard...

 

[bhsup]

That's true for pretty much any book to screen adaptation, the exceptions being.. things like Lord of the Rings.

Have you read LOTR? So much was missing I don't know how you could say that! The Battle of Bywater, Tom Bombadil, etc. Really, I love the trilogy movie, but it left out so much.

Clarke's aliens were clearly the original Reapers.

 

[peter grimes]

Please don't bring up the Reapers. Too creepy.

 

[Leoreth]

Have you read LOTR? So much was missing I don't know how you could say that! The Battle of Bywater, Tom Bombadil, etc. Really, I love the trilogy movie, but it left out so much.

His point is that there are no plot holes in the movies that are only explained in the books. Haven't thought it through completely but I'd say you can make that claim for LotR. For example, the plot of LotR makes perfect sense without Tom Bombadil.

 

[NetGear]

IIRC kubrick had more scenes detailing just what the heck is going on, but he cut them out last min to enhance the mystique feeling of the movie.

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

Have you read LOTR? So much was missing I don't know how you could say that! The Battle of Bywater, Tom Bombadil, etc. Really, I love the trilogy movie, but it left out so much.

They didn't need to be in the films though - half of the extra scenes in the extended DVD's are for the book fans, and half of the director/writer commentary on the same DVD is explaining why they changed/left scenes out. As long as they kept to the central story - destroying the ring - there's no need to keep any superfluous stuff like Bombadil or Bywater in it.

A film adaptation should not be literal translation of the book, or it's just boring. It's creating a film version of events that happens to be based on the book.

 

[El_Machinae]

IMO, one of the major plotholes in the book is also in the movie. Namely, the tentacled lake-beast is completely unexplained.

 

[Leoreth]

Random Encounter? Fallen Maia with a grudge?