Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by MadaBidyoni, Jan 4, 2013.
there are only 2 films for the Space Odyssey? 2001+2010?
what about the 3rd & the 4th?
No movies were made for them, and Stanley Kubrick said there shouldn't have been any sequels to the first one at all.
Simpy answer the books have never been made into films.
There have been attempts to film 2061: Odyssey Three, most notably by one Tom Hanks, which I find mind-boggling considering how tedious and unengaging the novel is. Apparently Hanks was also interested in 3001.
Note, however, that just because a book exists does not mean that it should be turned into a motion picture. For my money, there are lots of much more interesting science-fiction books to tackle before the two ugly sisters of the Odyssey family.
Wouldn't mind seeing all 4 books done as a series. Kubrick's film stands alone, but remaking the first 2 with new productions of the second 2 would help them fit into a complete story better. A big-budget HBO or Showtime treatment would work.
A film adaptation of "3001" would be accused of ripping off Independence Day without the inclusion of any butt-hole jokes.
look how grainy the bluray picture is. why is that? hmm
Because it was shot on film?
I would love to see 3001 as a movie. It has the man out of time aspect with loads of chances to wow the audience with great visual effects. Not to mention it has what EVERY scifi move HAS to have these days.... Earth in danger of being destroyed!
I love 2061,and 3001 was good, if a little disappointing (in Clarke terms, anyway). But I don't know if 2061 would make a good movie on its own. Too esoteric. 3001 would be great, though. It's a shame Tom Hanks never got to make it. That guy who played McCoy in nuTrek would make a good Frank Poole.
Well, Independence Day ripped off Childhood's End-- at least in terms of visuals. And the finale of 3001 actually made sense, unlike the impossible shenanigans of ID.
Yes, I agree now you mention it - Karl Urban does look quite a bit like Gary Lockwood - so who will JJ get to play Gary Mitchell if he ever chooses to remake that plot?
The ending in the book of 3001 would seem very anticlimactic and lame when depicted on film, however - no ginormous explosions, no alien invasion fleet of shiny spaceships drifting powerlessly in space at the mercy of our primitive Earth technology - just a host of black monoliths disintegrating unspectacularly. The financial backers might also not be too keen to have any depiction of future religion (deists and theists) discussed onscreen.
^^ Heh. I just made a similar post in the other 2001 thread.
I agree that it would not be very exciting to the contemporary audience. It would also be anticlimactic because it actually was anticlimactic. Far from being the "final" Odyssey, it merely delayed the confrontation for 900 years. Clarke is my favorite writer, but 3001 kind of disappointed me. Not just because of the ending, but because of the various retcons and because of the failure to follow up on the "Trinity." I was pretty psyched by 2061 and 3001 was just a let down.
Blu-Ray is the best quality you can get, but you can't get any better than the original film elements. Some of which are better than others.
But if you want to talk quality, think of this: When you watch 2001 on Blu-Ray, you can actually see that the sky in the Dawn of Man sequence is a film projected screen (because that whole part of the film was shot in a studio, indoors). That's because the quality of BR is so good. Before, you couldn't tell that the sky was projected on a screen. Now you can.
I liked 2061 better than 2010, as a book. Maybe what took me out of 2010 was the continued references to the Soviets. What I liked about 2061 is that we actually get to "see" some pretty exotic science fiction locations... Halley's Comet, Europa, Ganymede. Plus it would be interesting to see a modern CGI depiction of our solar system with the Lucifer sun (as well as whatever gravity effects that would cause, altered orbits of the planets based on the binary star system, etc).
From a science fiction perspective, 2061 was chock full of interesting ideas beyond a killer psycho computer and menacing obelisks.
It was probably my favorite of the books, too, but I just don't think a wide audience would go for it. It is too much a "chapter" in the ongoing storyline. But I loved the Jupiter system, the diamond mountain, the plot twist of the Monolith being damaged, the depiction of Bowman and HAL and, especially, the recruitment of Floyd into the Monolith. One of the reasons I was a bit disappointed with 3001 was the changes in the depiction of Bowman and HAL and abandonment of Floyd.
Agreed. Part of the problem for me with 2010 and to a lesser degree 2061 was that Bradbury got so far outside of the realities of our actual timeline.
The whole notion in 2061 that white Africans would exit the country leaving the black nation to fend for itself and then the search for the big diamond got strange.
To enjoy the entire series the reader/film goer has to completely suspend our disbelief on our real timeline versus the fictional one.
It's interesting with Trek that they kept modifying the Trek timeline to fit [somewhat] what exists today.
I forget - how did they reconcile with the eugenics wars in Trek with TOS having it occurring in 1999 versus Enterprise?
I think you mean Clarke...
The Eugenics Wars haven't been moved. They always took place in the late 90's.
I think you mean Clarke; Bradbury was some other guy who wrote a book with a number in the title.
I actually liked the South African subplot of 2061 (despite it ignoring Apartheid), because it was quite ironic that the Whites left the South Africans to suffer, and the South Africans were able to rebuild their economy relatively quickly and become a world power. Sure, its not true, but it made for good reading.
Enterprise glossed over it entirely. Voyager completely ignored it (in Future's End, which takes place in present day Earth). Even ST:IV ignores it, even though the Eugenics Wars should have been beginning by that point.
Some writers claim that the Eugenics War was actually a type of "Cold War" or underground, fought between nations while the general population was unaware. That accounts for the absence of reliable "records".
EDIT: Damn, sniped.
Also, the USA was not involved in the Eugenics Wars, so it's not surprising that the visits to the past (most of which did indeed involve the US) didn't depict it.
Just like the book.
Separate names with a comma.