|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 (permalink) | |
Ask me how!
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: The States
Posts: 5,354
|
![]() Quote:
![]() 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.
__________________
---------------------- |---Mic's Albums---| ---------------------- ----------------------------- |---Deafbox Industries---| ----------------------------- ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 (permalink) | |
Toasted Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SoCal by way of Boston
Posts: 11,332
|
![]() Quote:
(2) 2001 was a joint collaboration between Kubrick and Clarke. It's not an assumption. They did that project as a team. ![]()
__________________
“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.” |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|