To measure the importance of Kubrick in the making of the film you only have to compare it to its sequel (2010) made WITHOUT Kubrick's directing. It sucks.
I wouldn't say 2010 Sucks - but perhaps Kubrick wouldn't have put up with the studio interference that Hyams did.
Also the budget for 2001 in 1969 was up to $12million.
The budget for 2010 in 1984 was $28 mil
adjust for inflation and if 2001 was being made 25 years later it would have required a budget of $33.92 million.
It's also very liked at the Kubrick wouldn't have made 2001 he hadn't done it at the tail end of the 1960s and I'm doubtful it would have done as well at box office.