Oriphiel, let's discuss 2001: A Space Odyssey - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > Media
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-27-2015, 02:40 PM   #1 (permalink)
Toasted Poster
 
Chula Vista's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SoCal by way of Boston
Posts: 11,332
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oriphiel View Post
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.
With all due respect, this is where you keep stumbling. They both did the same story. Kubrick just did it with ambiguity. Clarke didn't.

It's the same story both in the movie and the novel. The same.
__________________

“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.”
Chula Vista is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2015, 02:56 PM   #2 (permalink)
Ask me how!
 
Oriphiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: The States
Posts: 5,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chula Vista View Post
With all due respect, this is where you keep stumbling. They both did the same story. Kubrick just did it with ambiguity. Clarke didn't.

It's the same story both in the movie and the novel. The same.
Of course they're the same story, but they're both told by two different people. I realize that I've said things like "They're both two completely different stories", but I didn't mean that they were literally different, but different thematically and stylistically. After Kubrick started taking his own artistic liberties with the screenplay they wrote, Clarke wrote his novel so that he could publish a version that he was satisfied with. My point was that they're both incredibly different, seeing as how Clarke wanted to tell a linear narrative about aliens, while Kubrick wanted to be much more abstract, and both the movie and the novel are capable as stories of standing on their own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls View Post
.
DwnWthVwls, you seem to think that I believe that Kubrick and Clarke didn't collaborate on the screenplay. However, here's one of the quotes you used to prove that (which you, for some reason, edited off the last half of it, where I make an analogy that wouldn't work at all if I had really believed that neither of them worked together). As you can see, I freely admit that they both began the project together, but because of stylistic differences both decided somewhere along the way that they each wanted to tell the story a different way. Hence, Kubrick directed the movie in an abstract way that never reveals the existence of aliens, and Clarke wrote his book from a point of view where the aliens are very real and their existence is without interpretation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oriphiel View Post
No, they didn't. If that was the case, then Clarke would never have felt compelled to write his own version of the story. The fact that he did only shows that the story he had in mind was different from Kubrick's vision. It's the same as if two friends, one atheistic and one religious, wrote a story together but couldn't finish it and flesh it out in a way that satisfied both, so they decided to just each write their own version and let the readers decide which they preferred.
Now that I've made my stance perfectly clear, I hope that we can stop talking about semantics and choice of wording and get back to the actual discussion.
__________________
----------------------
|---Mic's Albums---|
----------------------
-----------------------------
|---Deafbox Industries---|
-----------------------------
Oriphiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2015, 03:04 PM   #3 (permalink)
Ask me how!
 
Oriphiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: The States
Posts: 5,354
Default

Also, DwnWthVwls, why do you keep going back and editing this insult into and out of the beginning of your first post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls View Post
You could at least do some research before arguing your point as fact.
If you're going to insult me, just do it and stick with it. But I hope you realize that I haven't been passing my opinions off as "point of fact", and in fact have flat out stated that this is a matter of interpretations and opinions. For example:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oriphiel View Post
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.
Honestly, I feel like we've all been very respectful and understanding so far.
__________________
----------------------
|---Mic's Albums---|
----------------------
-----------------------------
|---Deafbox Industries---|
-----------------------------
Oriphiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads



© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.