Oriphiel, let's discuss 2001: A Space Odyssey

DwnWthVwls · 03-27-2015, 03:14 PM

Still trying to figure out where you're getting this info...

Quote:

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.

Sometimes in literature/movies/etc there are parts that are open to interpretation but have also been made clear by the creator(s). I feel this is one of those instances because we know it's a collaborative project but the movie leaves out things the book offers answers to. I'd be happy to concede if you had some sort of evidence that suggests they are intended to be two separate works or inversions of one collaborative idea.

Oriphiel · 03-27-2015, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Still trying to figure out where you're getting this info...

Sometimes in literature/movies/etc there are parts that are open to interpretation but have also been made clear by the creator(s). I feel this is one of those instances because we know it's a collaborative project but the movie leaves out things the book offers answers to. I'd be happy to concede if you had some sort of evidence that suggests they are intended to be two separate works or inversions of one collaborative idea.

I'll elaborate. They both collaborated with the screenplay, however Kubrick wanted (and eventually directed) the movie to be very vague as to whether or not the monoliths were a metaphor, or actual objects that were literally placed around the universe by aliens. Clarke wrote his novel to be clear that the aliens were very much real, and that the monoliths were placed around specifically for the main character (known in the novel as The Moon Child/Star Child). As Chula said, Clarke wrote his book mainly to "fill in all the holes" that he thought were becoming apparent in the movie (which was limited by their budget, and also stylistically to what Kubrick wanted to portray, as he had a habit of preferring ambiguity over solid answers):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

Ok. Before we go any further you need to read the novel by Clarke. It was written while he and Kubrick worked on the screenplay for 2001. In it he fills in all of the holes. Kubrick decided (as he always does) to make the film hugely ambiguous. But Clarke spells it all out in the novel.

So they both decided to let the film be however abstract Kubrick wanted it to be, while Clarke would get as specific as he wanted to get with his novel. Wikipedia sums it up like this:

"The director of the film, Stanley Kubrick, and the writer, Arthur C. Clarke, wanted to leave the film open to philosophical and allegorical interpretation, purposely presenting the final sequences of the film without the underlying thread being apparent" (Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Here is an actual quote from Clarke from the same page:

"You will find my interpretation in the novel; it is not necessarily Kubrick's. Nor is his necessarily the 'right' one – whatever that means."

For more about their differing opinions, and differences between the movie and novel, you can check out the "Differences from the Film" section of the wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A...Odyssey_(novel)

Now, can we all start talking about the movie again? Wasn't that the whole point of this thread in the first place? I feel like Chula and I were doing great, until DwnWthVwls came along and started demanding to know why I don't think the movie needs the book to be reviewed.