I would add that the novel and the movie each have their own distinct flavors despite how closely they are connected.
That's an understatement. Clarke and Kubrick were a very mismatched pair -- Kubrick explained nothing and left it all mysterious, while Clarke explained everything in great detail. So the book and the film are completely different experiences.
And, yes, there are differences in content as well, like the book's version having the Monolith at Saturn. Originally, the film was going to do the same thing the book did and have Discovery
do a gravity assist around Jupiter to accelerate toward its ultimate destination at Saturn (like the Voyager
probes did), but the filmmakers decided that would confuse the audience, so they simplified it and put the Monolith at Jupiter. (Saving money was probably a consideration too.)
It's worth noting that the novel of 2010
is actually a sequel to the movie version of 2001
rather than the book version, since it puts the Monolith at Jupiter. Presumably Clarke figured the movie version was better known. Also he was never one for inter-novel continuity. The 2001
sequels were the only sequels he ever did as a solo author, and all four of them were in distinct realities, variant takes on the premise rather than a single 4-book continuity.