2001: A Space Odyssey

[Reverend]

Well the first probe was obviously destroyed because it got too close to whatever nascent life was developing on Europa. The monolith was protecting it.

As for Max's pod; yeah, the way it was shot that was 100% intended to be Dave's "transmission" to Betty and his mum on Earth. The same burst of energy that kills Max is seen shooting off towards Earth, and then we immediately get the scene of Dave saying goodbye to Betty. The script is even more explicit about it.

Despite being crazily advanced, the monoliths still exist within the physical universe and must obey the laws of physics. The monoliths themselves are stargates and can move about the universe at will, but that thing isn't about to budge from it's post over Europa so Bowman can make a social call. So transmitting himself (or a copy of himself) across the relatively tiny distance between Jupiter and Earth (in three dimensional space) at the speed of light was how he did it. That of course requires energy. A lot of energy by human standards, but an infinitesimally small amount compared to what the monolith can draw on. The build-up and release of that energy is what we saw. Max was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Hell, in the aftermath the script even refers to the monolith's attitude to all of this as "benign indifference".

The lesson there is much the same as G'Kar's little speech about ants; stay out from underfoot or risk being stepped on.

 

[Noname Given]

I don't think so. Dave is so highly evolved that he would never leave behind any visual evidence when journeying from one place to another. He'd simply..."be" there. Instantaneously.

Like in the scene in Discovery's podbay when Dave is talking to Dr. Floyd, constantly shifting forms (normal Dave, old Dave, REALLY old Dave, and Starchild) at random. There's no pyrotechnics, he just changes instantly.

Plus, you'll notice that right before Max's pod is destroyed, the streams of energy on the monolith are converging right below where the pod is. I always took that to mean the monolith was deliberately targetting the pod.

When the Monolith discharges the energy burst it goes directly to Earth, and then we have the scene of Dave Bowman speaking to his dying mother in the hospital. When Dave Bowman interacted with the crew aboard the Discovery, that ship was a couple kilometers from the Monolith itself.

 

[publiusr]

I have to admit, the drastic difference in production design between 2001 and 2010 has always kinda bugged me, it seems like awfully drastic changes for 9 years. I understand it was the difference in the real world time between them, and the differences between the teams that made them, but it still bugs when looking at them purely within the world of the movies.

They do feel as if they came from different works…a timeline force-fit…there’s another tale there. 2001 needs its own Warped9 to emulate the feel.

https://up-ship.com/blog/?p=50941
https://up-ship.com/blog/?p=51080

 

[Nightowl1701]

They do feel as if they came from different works…a timeline force-fit…there’s another tale there. 2001 needs its own Warped9 to emulate the feel.

"The story you are about to read is something much more complex than a straightforward sequel to the earlier novel - or the movie. Where these differ, I have followed the screen version; however, I have been more concerned with making this book self-consistent, and as accurate as possible in the light of current knowledge. Which, of course, will once more be out of date by 2001..." - Arthur C. Clarke, 2010: Odyssey Two Author's Note

"Just as 2010: Odyssey Two was not a direct sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey, so this book is not a linear sequel to 2010. They must all be considered as variations on the same theme, involving many of the same characters and situations, but not necessarily happening in the same universe." - Arthur C. Clarke, 2061: Odyssey Three Author's Note

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

The Lost Worlds of 2001 is the best follow-up to the original novel.

 

[matthunter]

2010 is painfully underrated. It’s a really good movie.

It's good. It has Helen Mirren, who was the perfect choice for the character she plays. But the Cold War bullshit isn't needed - well, back then it wasn't, before Putin re-fucked the situation. The novel had a far more optimistic view of post-Glasnost US/Russian relations (and to be fair, previous and current cosmonauts have been outspoken about Putin's actions in Ukraine).

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

For a movie created in the 80's, with so many Russian characters, it's almost impossible to avoid a heavy Cold War angle. You can't really blame Peter Hyams for including it.

 

[Vger23]

It's good. It has Helen Mirren, who was the perfect choice for the character she plays. But the Cold War bullshit isn't needed - well, back then it wasn't, before Putin re-fucked the situation. The novel had a far more optimistic view of post-Glasnost US/Russian relations (and to be fair, previous and current cosmonauts have been outspoken about Putin's actions in Ukraine).

Despite not aging well, it didn’t bother me in the slightest.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

It's good. It has Helen Mirren, who was the perfect choice for the character she plays. But the Cold War bullshit isn't needed - well, back then it wasn't, before Putin re-fucked the situation. The novel had a far more optimistic view of post-Glasnost US/Russian relations (and to be fair, previous and current cosmonauts have been outspoken about Putin's actions in Ukraine).

The novel was written in 1982 and the film came out in 1984, so, unless Clarke was extraordinarily prescient, he could not predict glasnost and perestroika, which were policies introduced by Gorbachev in 1985-6. The USSR in 1982 to 1984 was run by relative hard-liners: Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko.

 

[Ithekro]

Reagan was still playing hard ball with the Soviets in an effort to break them economicly via massive military spending. The revamped US Navy, "Star Wars" and other space initiatives via the Space Shuttle. Plus probably a bunch of other things.

 

[Set Harth]

Science fiction, despite typically being set in the future, is usually a reflection of the time period in which it's made.

 

[Richard Baker]

The Lost Worlds of 2001 is the best follow-up to the original novel.

I really loved the first contact between a human rover and indigenous martian life- as the rover spproached a boulder it just rose up on some stubby legs snd moved out of the way...

I generally liked 2010 but hated the heavy focus on US-Russian politics. It wasn't in the book and dragged me out of the film's world with contemporary politics (at the time)

 

[Skipper]

And still the all the Russians in the movie seem more peace-loving and reasonable than the current ones.

 

[Noname Given]

It's good. It has Helen Mirren, who was the perfect choice for the character she plays. But the Cold War bullshit isn't needed - well, back then it wasn't, before Putin re-fucked the situation. The novel had a far more optimistic view of post-Glasnost US/Russian relations (and to be fair, previous and current cosmonauts have been outspoken about Putin's actions in Ukraine).

The film was released in 1984 - the Novel released in 1982. <--- In that time, it was a VERY tense time in U.S. <-->U.S.S.R. relations (remember that Reagan was calling the U.S.S.R. "The Evil Empire" and really didn't start backing off from that notion until 1985.)

Yes, there had been a short time of limited concession to Poland in 1981 - but in the end the U.S.S.R. ultimately clamped back down HARD on those dissidents and took back those concessions in short order.

My ultimate point here being: At the time the film was made and released, there was no real hint of the U.S.S.R. dropping the Berlin Wall for a $10 Billion dollar loan (that they never would have to pa back) or it outright dissolving into a bunch of independent states and a 'Russian Republic'.

 

[Richard Baker]

In the world of 2001 the Russians had more of a professional competitive relationship with the USAA space program. It might be because Clarke felt the two nations would 'grow up' and his book series reflected that. 2010 the film seems to take place in our world instead...

 

[Noname Given]

In the world of 2001 the Russians had more of a professional competitive relationship with the USAA space program. It might be because Clarke felt the two nations would 'grow up' and his book series reflected that. 2010 the film seems to take place in our world instead...

Well remember also that the 2001 A Space Odyssey novel was written from the script of the film, not the other way around. As far as U.S.S.R. and U.S. interaction: you just have the meeting between Floyd and some Russian scientists in the Hilton area of the Earth orbiting Space Station; and they were commenting on how the U.S.moon base where the monolith was 'unearthed' (which had a cover story of some unknown space-borne plague affecting the personnel there) denied a Russian moon bus flyer permission to land there even though they were in serious mechanical trouble. The Russians mentioned that it was a violation of a standing International agreement, but Floyd had no further comment beyond saying he couldn't really comment on the situation; and the Russians informed him that the moon bus shuttle had made it back to its base safely. It came across to me as a very sterile interaction between all parties involved.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

The first act of the movie 2001 starts with the ape-men in Africa and ends with TMA-1 emitting its ear-splitting signal. There is no title card for the transition between the killing bone tool and the nuclear-weapon armed satellite. There is no personal human drama and the characters shown interacting with Heyward Floyd are as passionless as he is. Kubrick is treating the ape-men and "modern" men in the same way - dispassionately and remotely as an alien entity might. Kubrick's underlying intention for the movie was to examine how cinema is an art form that can change the audience's mental states though interaction with images projected within a large, dark rectangle - much as the monolith manipulates the ape-men's mental states. The movie is even made as a three-act triptych - analogous to the artwork of many religions.

Peter Hyams' 2010 is a much different movie. We are expected to empathise with its version of Floyd and other characters and be overawed by the godlike powers of strange and unfathomable alien entities. We are expected to feel relief that humanity steps back from the brink of destruction when faced with a demonstration of such power. At the time that the book and movie came out, the Cold War was in danger of turning hot. Following on shortly after the downing of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 and much sabre rattling by the US, there nearly was a nuclear exchange in 1983 - the willingness of one Russian, Stanislav Petrov, to hold back saved us.

1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident - Wikipedia

 

[publiusr]

There is no title card for the transition between the killing bone tool and the nuclear-weapon armed satellite.

There was a disconnect there---the craft did not look like a nuclear weapon platform---I couldn't even tell what it was exactly.

I thought "small space station."

Of course, in 1979's METEOR, there was no doubt:
http://rkilgard.blogs.wesleyan.edu/files/2015/01/Screen-Shot-2015-01-20-at-3.07.12-PM.png
https://cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/14879-meteor-1979/

Some walk-throughs of Discovery

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

What Discovery really needed to look like:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Sadly, the craft that looked most like Discovery--the Enzmann--is in some doubt
https://twitter.com/EnzmannArchiv
https://twitter.com/UnwantedBlog/status/1609957135923699712?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1609988015572619266|twgr^04eeda65c1b72e99991270d2c2f2de9c3db8dbc5|twcon^s2_&ref_url=https://up-ship.com/blog/?p=51362

And so we are left with NTRs---which need hydrogen to work best...which means SLS of course

 

[publiusr]

Ah…the Special edition is out

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Also funny

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[DonIago]

^Finally a solution for those who complain the movie is too slow.