It explains everything, the main cave man even has a name. There's a reason Dr. Poole is flying virtually alone to the moon. It's amazing what the monolith on the moon does when they uncover it. Just a perfect book to read before watching 2001!
shareThe book is not a novelization. It's not meant to be a guide. It is Clarke's story. The movie is Kubrick's
shareClarke worked with Kubrick as an adviser for the film.
shareClarke and Kubrick disagreed a lot on how to tell the story. That's why he wrote his own version. One example is Clarke wanted a narrator. He wanted everything explained in detail just as he does as an author. Kubrick wanted more of a visual story.
Damn good thing Clarke didn't have the last say.
Absolutely agree. Clarke was a fine, thoughtful writer & I still love most of his books. But in this case, Kubrick's 2001 is the masterpiece; Clarke's novel, while thoroughly enjoyable & smart in the Clarke style, doesn't come close to Kubrick's film.
shareThey both contributed to make a great movie, but as great as the 2001 visuals are(and they are fantastic) you still need to tell a story. I watched the movie several times and it was very difficult to understand what was going on, reading the book and then going back and watching the movie again then, and only then, did many pieces fit together.
In short, Kubrick excelled in making an excellent movie with great visuals and soundtrack, but ultimately fell short with the foggy way he told the story.
I always felt that the film does tell a story, and a very clear & direct one … albeit in purely visual terms. To me, 2001 has always been something of a tone-poem, a symphony, as well as a film. It had that powerful an effect on the 14-year old me in 1968! :)
shareYes. While I haven't read the book (though, I'd like to), Clarke was coming at it from an author's standpoint, not a filmmaker's standpoint. I think this is why The Shining worked when Kubrick did it, but not when King created his own version: Kubrick understands film.
This is the reverse of Alan Moore's point about why Hollywood keeps buggering up his comics.
I highly recommend your read the book, as a standalone it's great, as a companion piece to the film it's perfect/fantastic.
shareThe biggest difference between the movie and book "2001" is the Discovery goes to Saturn in the book and to Jupiter in the movie. We had a lot better imagery of Jupiter back then and so they used that planet for the film.
Both the movie and the book for "2010" use Jupiter for the planet.
ok, the switch in planets is the biggest difference between the book and movie?
shareThe first half of the film is practically a silent movie, maybe by suggesting a narration Clarke wanted to keep the audience up with the story.
share[deleted]