Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls
|
I don't think you've properly read through the discussion; I never claimed that Kubrick and Clarke made both stories independently. My point was that Kubrick, the director of the movie, took liberties that completely changed the theme of the story that they had both come up with, and Clarke later wrote his novel to approach the story from a point of view that he felt was more true to the original subject matter. I think I've already stated my point of view on that subject, and why I think that even though they originally collaborated on the screenplay, both Kubrick and Clarke ended up taking different approaches in the movie and book. And I also think I've made it clear that a movie reviewer shouldn't feel obligated to read background material beyond their own personal discretion; they are, after all, reviewing the movie on it's own merits, not reviewing the canon as a whole. Here are some excerpts from the discussion, if you want to read them:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oriphiel
I disagree. You might think that ignoring the novel is doing the movie a disservice, but I think it's the other way around; that taking the novel into account robs the movie of it's strongest point (the openness to interpretation).
But I'll ask again: Why do you assume that both the movie and the novel have to go together? Kubrick wanted an abstract commentary, and Clarke wanted one that was solid. Because of their different natures, and the different intentions held by the different creators, each has to be examined on it's own. Why? Because reviewing the movie (an abstract effort) as if it were a solid effort is ignoring much of what it has to offer. And reviewing the book (a solid effort) as if it were abstract is trying to go against the way that the author was trying to inform the reader. If you gain enjoyment from combining the two, then that's fine. Go for it. But you have to realize that there are people who enjoy them both seperately, and there's nothing wrong with point of view either.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oriphiel
That's not fair. The movie never leans in favor of the monoliths being strictly literal objects placed by aliens, or metaphors. Again, you're using the novel to try and justify your interpretation of the movie, which is perfectly fine if that's what you enjoy, but you can't demand me to have the same preferences or interpretations. The movie and the novel are two seperate entities, and whether they are to be put together is up to each individual audience member.
I was making a point. The answer to each question asked in this thread so far has been a matter of interpretation, and yet you keep insinuating that there is only one way of looking at the 2001 canon (that aliens were responsible), and that the novel gives concrete answers (when in reality it is simply the elaboration of Clarke's personal take on the story). By that logic, should fans of The Last Airbender be forced to accept Shyamalon's recent movie into the canon? It's up to every fan to decide for themselves.
But there are different versions; the movie and the novel. If both Clarke and Kubrick wanted their collective work to be viewed as a whole, why did they both end up creating different stories altogether? Each was dissatisfied with the other's interpretation; why else would Kubrick feel the need to deviate so far from Clarke's idea of "aliens", as well as Clarke feeling the need to write a novel after the fact clarifying his specific version?
|