"3001: The Final Odyssey"... a SyFy Original Miniseries

[Relayer1]

...and disregard the stupidity of '2001 actualy didn't happen in 2001 !'

Well, technically, it didn't, at least not entirely. It takes years to travel from Earth to Jupiter (or Saturn), after all. In the book, the Heywood Floyd/Lunar portion of the story happens in 1999.

Anyway, as I said, Clarke made a deliberate choice to make each book a different variation on the theme rather than attempt to maintain a consistent continuity. As he explained in his forewords, this was partly because the advance of science had rendered certain ideas in the earlier books obsolete. It's not "stupid," it's just the creative choice of a writer who valued accuracy over serialization. Remember, as a rule, Clarke never wrote sequels to anything, never built continuous universes. It was his creative choice to start over afresh with every work. That's not stupid, it's just different from the tendency of authors like Asimov and Niven to build large connected universes. Making each work independent had its own benefits, like the freedom to tell stories that totally transformed humanity (e.g. Childhood's End) and couldn't possibly fit together with his other books.

The only reason Clarke ever did sequels to 2001 at all was because there had been so much fan pressure, and because his publisher knew they would sell. But in a sense, he was selling out by doing the sequels at all. I can't blame him for choosing to do them in his own distinctive way and make them each separate takes on the theme. It would've been a worse sellout if he hadn't.

I have no problems with his setting of most of his novels in 'fresh' continuities rather than one coherent universe. That's his creative choice. I do find it problematic with a series of connected novels though.

As technology and knowledge progress and real time catches up with the story, retcons, revisions and explanations are the norm for most continuities. Clarke chose not to do that, and given the grounded nature of the series, an honest 'it didn't fit, I've changed it' was probably better than a fanciful or hand waving fix.

I'd still say that it's less than sensible to change the date of the 'main event' in a franchise known as '2001'.

 

[Christopher]

Well, I'd say it's risky to name science fiction stories after years in the first place. Consider the dilemma of anyone trying to do a revival of Space: 1999.

 

[Relayer1]

Well, I'd say it's risky to name science fiction stories after years in the first place. Consider the dilemma of anyone trying to do a revival of Space: 1999.

I quite agree.

It's best to be vague with dates where possible, a little like Marvel's sliding timeline policy.

What would you do with a Space : 1999 reboot ?

 

[BillJ]

Well, I'd say it's risky to name science fiction stories after years in the first place. Consider the dilemma of anyone trying to do a revival of Space: 1999.

I don't. I don't understand why people have such a hard time with the concept of "this is how people in the past saw the future". I think naming it 2001 was perfect. It had people imagining what life would be like in that seemingly far away future.

With all the reconstruction that would have to be done with the premise, a name change wouldn't pose a problem for Space: 1999. Any new version would likely bare little resemblance to the 1970's TV show.

 

[arch101]

Well, I'd say it's risky to name science fiction stories after years in the first place. Consider the dilemma of anyone trying to do a revival of Space: 1999.

I quite agree.

It's best to be vague with dates where possible, a little like Marvel's sliding timeline policy.

What would you do with a Space : 1999 reboot ?

I'd call it "Moonbase Alpha", "Runaway Moon" or "Alan Carter!" and make a mint on internet viewings

 

[Christopher]

I think Moonbase Alpha would probably be the best title option.

Just in general, I think that calling a space show Space: Something is pretty silly, like referring to an Earthbound show as Earth. I had the same problem with Space: Above and Beyond. That's just an awful title. We did have Earth: Final Conflict, but that was also a pretty bad title. Roddenberry's original pilot script was called Battleground: Earth, but they changed it to avoid confusion with Hubbard's Battlefield Earth. Oh, and well before that, Roddenberry did a pilot called Planet Earth. Not much better. Just in general, Roddenberry was pretty bad with titles. (And, yes, I am including Star Trek. That's just a weird title.)

 

[Hartzilla2007]

With all the reconstruction that would have to be done with the premise, a name change wouldn't pose a problem for Space: 1999. Any new version would likely bare little resemblance to the 1970's TV show.

No the biggest problem is likely figuring out how to get the Moon blown out into space without destroying it.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The reboot of Space: 1999 that's in the works is called Space: 2099.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

Well, I'd say it's risky to name science fiction stories after years in the first place. Consider the dilemma of anyone trying to do a revival of Space: 1999.

I don't. I don't understand why people have such a hard time with the concept of "this is how people in the past saw the future". I think naming it 2001 was perfect. It had people imagining what life would be like in that seemingly far away future.

With all the reconstruction that would have to be done with the premise, a name change wouldn't pose a problem for Space: 1999. Any new version would likely bare little resemblance to the 1970's TV show.

With all the reconstruction that would have to be done with the premise, a name change wouldn't pose a problem for Space: 1999. Any new version would likely bare little resemblance to the 1970's TV show.

No the biggest problem is likely figuring out how to get the Moon blown out into space without destroying it.

Well, they could still call the forever-in-development remake/reboot/re-something "Space:1999," and have the 1999 refer to an area of space or something 'out there' rather than a year.

The moon blowing itself out of orbit can be attributed to some alien thingy that is the cause of them going on course to wherever.

 

[BillJ]

Well, they could still call the forever-in-development remake/reboot/re-something "Space:1999," and have the 1999 refer to an area of space or something 'out there' rather than a year.

Actually a pretty solid idea if someone is intent on keeping the name.

 

[Candlelight]

I just hope the 3001 series brings some attention to Rendezvous with Rama. Been so wanting something done with that, either big or small screen.

 

[Reverend]

I just hope the 3001 series brings some attention to Rendezvous with Rama. Been so wanting something done with that, either big or small screen.

As much as I'd love to see 'Rendezvous with Rama' just for the visuals, I have a hard time seeing how one would go about directly adapting a book that has such a thin plot and next to no characterization.

Perhaps a mocumentary or found footage approach?

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Easy. Just make the characters corrupt and gritty and reveal that the Ramans are on a mission to destroy the Earth.

Ugh, that was the worst. Very contrived. I understood why he did though. I mean, two iconic characters , something people would identify from the previous stories, into somewhat of a super-being. It probably sounded good on paper, but I felt it took away from two great characters.

Yes, and Floyd disappeared altogether. Very disappointing.

I think the difference here is that he set his hooks deep into 2001 for this story, and so those differences are more noticeable. Essentially what he tried to do was come full-circle to 2001, and so the references are a lot more direct and sometimes awkward.

Indeed. I loved the stuff that made it all come full circle, like the discovery of the original Monolith at Olduvai.

I'd still say that it's less than sensible to change the date of the 'main event' in a franchise known as '2001'.

Exactly. Especially since it was not a randomly chosen year. It was the first year of the 21st century, which, in the 60s, represented The Future in a big way. Change. The dawning of the Age of Aquarius. The ultimate trip. Utopia.

 

[Stoo]

It's been years since I read 3001, but I recall about half the book being just a tour of the the marvels of the 31st century. Then it belatedly kicks off into some plot about the monolith turning against earth, which is resolved in a really half-assed way.

So yeah it was a sequel for the sake of a sequel, with lots of admittedly interesting world building but not enough decent storytelling. I'm not exactly full of anticipation for this.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

It's been years since I read 3001, but I recall about half the book being just a tour of the the marvels of the 31st century. Then it belatedly kicks off into some plot about the monolith turning against earth, which is resolved in a really half-assed way.

So yeah it was a sequel for the sake of a sequel, with lots of admittedly interesting world building but not enough decent storytelling. I'm not exactly full of anticipation for this.

I never really thought of Clarke as a particularly strong novelist, and his late work, in my opinion, felt like a string of vignettes, with theme or characters in common, that may or may not have much of a plot. A particularly good example of this is a chapter I like in 2010, the flashback chapter to Dave Bowman's childhood about a boy who drowned in a watering hole. I liked that chapter because it was vivid, but I'll be damned if I have any idea what it meant.

I much prefer Clarke as a short story writer, and I prefer early Clarke (say, to about 1968) to later Clarke.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Which is perhaps why his Martian Chronicles worked so well, as they were essentially short stories loosely connected via a common thread.

It's been years since I read 3001, but I recall about half the book being just a tour of the the marvels of the 31st century. Then it belatedly kicks off into some plot about the monolith turning against earth, which is resolved in a really half-assed way.

So yeah it was a sequel for the sake of a sequel, with lots of admittedly interesting world building but not enough decent storytelling. I'm not exactly full of anticipation for this.

Yeah, I remember enjoying the first half of the book much more than the latter half. His visions of the future and Frank Pool's reactions to his surroundings were good. Then it took a nosedive. I also remember the ending feeling rather rushed.

 

[Christopher]

^Ray Bradbury wrote The Martian Chronicles, not Arthur C. Clarke. You'd be hard-pressed to find two SF authors more diametrically opposite in their writing styles.

Not to mention that The Martian Chronicles was, in fact, a collection of previously published stories, loosely tied together into a "fix-up" novel.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Duh, you're right. I had a brain fart Not sure why I attributed that to him.

 

[RandyS]

With all the reconstruction that would have to be done with the premise, a name change wouldn't pose a problem for Space: 1999. Any new version would likely bare little resemblance to the 1970's TV show.

No the biggest problem is likely figuring out how to get the Moon blown out into space without destroying it.

It's called "suspension of disbelief". At least it used to be. I think it's unfortunate that we've lost that in favor of "realism".

 

[Christopher]

^Actually it's called "willing suspension of disbelief," and it doesn't mean the audience is required to accept any bit of random nonsense; on the contrary, it means that the storyteller has an obligation to respect the audience's skepticism and sell the idea to them in a way that makes it feel credible, so that they will be willing to voluntarily suspend their disbelief. It's not the opposite of realism; if anything, they're two facets of the same principle, since realism is about presenting something unreal in a way that makes it feel as though it could be real. It is entirely possible to tell a fantastic story in a realistic way -- indeed, there's an entire genre called magic realism.

However, Space: 1999 never made any pretense at realism. Rather, in its first season it was consciously surreal, painting outer space as a profoundly alien and philosophically challenging realm in which our conventional expectations about the universe break down completely and anything is possible. The fact that we didn't understand why and how the Moon's journey happened was the whole point, and it was implied that there was some cosmic force of destiny driving their journey. Another way to solicit the willing suspension of disbelief is to make the mystery and inexplicability part of the thematic point and message of the story rather than simply an oversight.