not registered? sign up!  |  forgot password?

Jul 29th, 2005

Man, c'mon, we all know 2001 was just an excuse to go to the movies really stoned.

Jul 29th, 2005

A good insight into the movie, but I have to wonder if it's all worth anything, if it all actually means something or if Kibrick really did just want to create psychedellia.

I can't imagine that Kubrick or Clarke wanted to portray the human race as highly evolved and in need of the next step. I think it was more about how mankind needed to work more on the social side of evolution before moving forward technologically.

Jul 30th, 2005

I'm disappointed. I thought it was going to explain the movie using Kubrick blocks.

Aug 4th, 2005

That was a lame-ass interpretation by anyone's definition.

Aug 13th, 2005

a few interesting notions, but completely incorrect. Clarke's book pretty much explains the movie in very very simple terms.

Whoever created this animation clearly didn't read or didn't comprehend the book.

Aug 13th, 2005

On the other hand, the movie isn't the book.

Aug 13th, 2005

True, the movie isn't the book.

When Kubrick asked Clarke to develop his short story "The Sentinal" into a screenplay & Clark expained he had no idea how to write a screenplay, Kubrick suggested Clark just write a novel & he'd take what he needed for the movie from there.

The movie & the book were written simultaneously, with Kubrick & Clarke sharing & trading ideas.

Clarke & Kubrick share writing credits for the movie. The book is pretty much a perfect guide to the movie. Of course, the only major difference is that Discovery went to Saturn's moon Iapetus, no Jupiter.

Anyway, it doens't matter; the Flash animation in questions is one interpretation of the movie & I feel it's pretty off-base, compared to the movie OR the book.

Post a comment

Please read the FAQ before posting comments.

Some HTML is allowed.