Re: Old A. C. Clarke Essay

[Kevin Willoughby]

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" > said:
> Boring claptrap. And the whole "solution" to the monolith just seemed
> faked.
>
> He (and other authors) should never write sequels. They end up taking the
> beautiful mystery out of the initial books and end up making them mundane.

Let's not forget that 2001 was a product of not a single genius, but of
both Clarke and Kubrick.

To see Clarke without Kubrick, rent the movie 2010. It is a decent
Hollywood sci-fi flick (way better than Star Wars, Matrix, etc), but
lacks the grandeur and mystery of 2001. 2010 gets caught up in both
plot exposition and technology exposition, just like Clarke's prose and
very unlike the Kubrickian 2001.

Or compare the movie 2001 to the book 2001. Again, Kubrick's influence
is the difference between a decent sci-fi novel and the best motion
picture ever made.


> > ...On the other hand, it could have been worse. He could have written
> > the book with Gentry Lee :-P
>
> True.

The only ACC book I couldn't finish reading was Cradle. Lee is lousy
writer!
--
Kevin Willoughby

We'd spend the remaining time trying to fix the engine.
-- Neil Armstrong

[Kevin Willoughby]

rk said:
> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
> > Actually he's been upfront that none of the books are strict
> > sequels.
> A mistake in my opinion. Science fiction books should be written with
> as much accuracy to detail as is reasonable for a science fiction book.
> Having inconsistencies between them is something I don't like.

Why? Exploring different alterative seems to be the raison-d'etre of
science fiction.


> Heck,
> just switching between Jupiter and Saturn was something I didn't like.

Blame this one on Kubrick, not Clarke. Creating the visualization of
Jupiter wasn't easy in the mid-1960s. Creating the visualization of
Saturn would have required visualizing Jupiter and then adding rings.
Kubrick vetoed the idea. (Reminder: in the mid-1960s, we though
Saturn's rings were unique. Jupiter's ring is a recent discovery.)


> > He (and other authors) should never write sequels. They end up
> > taking the beautiful mystery out of the initial books and end up
> > making them mundane.
>
> I like a good number of the Asimov ones

I saw Matrix Reloaded last weekend. (Stipulated: it is fantasy rather
than sci-fi.) It was much better than the first Matrix movie. Less time
was spent on plot exposition. CGI is more sophisticated today than it
was back then. Seeing it on an IMAX screen helped a lot, too. (If
you've seen 2001 presented in both 70mm and 35mm, you know what I
mean.)

This isn't unique to sci-fi/fantasy. Which "great American novel"
shouldn't have been written: Huck Fin and Tom Sawyer?
--
Kevin Willoughby

We'd spend the remaining time trying to fix the engine.
-- Neil Armstrong

[Kevin Willoughby]

Christopher M. Jones said:
> "rk" > wrote:
> > Kevin Willoughby wrote:
> > > Why? Exploring different alterative seems to be the raison-d'etre
> > > of science fiction.
> > I find a set of books (or movie or sequels/prequels/whatever) that are
> > not consistent to be disconcerting.
> It's like a book adapted to a movie that's nothing like the
> book.

Kubrick is notorious for this. Compare, e.g., Lolita. Kubrick's film is
quite different from the book. The more recent Adrian Lyne Lolita movie
is much more true to the book.


> If you're gonna freestyle it then go all the way,
> let it stand alone on its own merits as an individual work.

Amen, brother. Kubrick's 2001 and Lolita each are capable of standing
on their own, despite being based on extraordinary books. Lyne's Lolita
is merely ordinary in comparison.
--
Kevin Willoughby

We'd spend the remaining time trying to fix the engine.
-- Neil Armstrong

[Mike Speegle]

In news:Kevin Willoughby > typed:
> Christopher M. Jones said:
> > "rk" > wrote:
> > > Kevin Willoughby wrote:
> > > > Why? Exploring different alterative seems to be the
> > > > raison-d'etre of science fiction.
> > > I find a set of books (or movie or sequels/prequels/whatever)
> > > that are not consistent to be disconcerting.
> > It's like a book adapted to a movie that's nothing like the
> > book.
>
> Kubrick is notorious for this. Compare, e.g., Lolita. Kubrick's film
> is quite different from the book. The more recent Adrian Lyne Lolita
> movie is much more true to the book.
>
>
> > If you're gonna freestyle it then go all the way,
> > let it stand alone on its own merits as an individual work.
>
> Amen, brother. Kubrick's 2001 and Lolita each are capable of standing
> on their own, despite being based on extraordinary books. Lyne's
> Lolita is merely ordinary in comparison.

I feel exactly the same way about "The Shining." Read the book
after the movie and both stand up quite well despite the variations. I
recently saw a poor copy of 2001 at a theater last fall and despite the
cracks and stuff, it's still an excellent piece of work.
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.

[OM]

On 13 Jul 2003 11:10:02 GMT, rk >
wrote:

>Thirdly, the hand to hand combat was important. Shatner insisted on it.
>Heck, I think he even tore the shirts himself.

....Nope. That was Bill Theiss, who because he had a wardrobe budget
for the entire season that was less than what Irwin Allen paid for an
episode of "Lost in Space", he had to recycle torn tunics that he cut
himself.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Kent Betts]

"Christopher M. Jones> Part of the problem with Star Trek though is that they
made
> the tech too uber, so they have to have it break in
> non-sensical ways in order for there to be a plot at all.
> It's the same thing with Superman and Kryptonite.

Another thing is that after the first season, every star trek series (take your
pick) starts to center the plots around the sick bay. This sucks really bad.
If I see the plot going in this direction I switch it off.

[Kent Betts]

"Christopher M. Jones"
> I cut Kubrick a vast amount of slack because 2001 and The
> Shining were much more his than the authors', and quite the
> better for it. And the movies were still enough like the
> books to wear their labels.

The Shining is word for word accurate in the movie....the most accurate film
adaptation I can think of. It was also possibly S King's best novel.

Clockwork Orange was an example of a passable book transformed into a complete
vision. But in THe Shining...the quality of the book must have made Kubrick's
job a little easier.

Trivia note: The bartender in The Shining was also in The Killing and he was
one of the condemned prisoners in Paths of Glory.

[Kent Betts]

"OM"
> ...Old news, Kent. This book got ripped apart a while back around
> here.

Oh heck.

> Biggest complaints were:

> 2) It's yet another one of Sir Art's "why religion will eventually
> evolve itself either into obsolescence or something that's just there
> for comfort and not for dogmatic vehemence against one's neighbors."

3001:
"This week's lesson will start with a reading from the Book of Pee Wee Herman."

[Mike Speegle]

In news:Kent Betts > typed:
> "Christopher M. Jones"
> > I cut Kubrick a vast amount of slack because 2001 and The
> > Shining were much more his than the authors', and quite the
> > better for it. And the movies were still enough like the
> > books to wear their labels.
>
> The Shining is word for word accurate in the movie....the most
> accurate film adaptation I can think of. It was also possibly S
> King's best novel.

Then you're missing the parts where the topiary animals are involved
in various attacks. And the book did not have the maze that was in the
movie. And I agree about the book. I had it with me on a trip to an
electronics show at the Anaheim Convention Center. About three that
afternoon I was back in my room resting my back and feet and picked up
the book. About 8 I went out to dinner having finished the final 400
pages at a sitting. Couldn't leave the room until I had reached the
last page. ;-)
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.

[Andre Lieven]

"Kent Betts" ) writes:
> "Christopher M. Jones"
>> I cut Kubrick a vast amount of slack because 2001 and The
>> Shining were much more his than the authors', and quite the
>> better for it. And the movies were still enough like the
>> books to wear their labels.
>
> The Shining is word for word accurate in the movie....the most accurate
> film adaptation I can think of. It was also possibly S King's best novel.
>
> Clockwork Orange was an example of a passable book transformed into a
> complete vision. But in THe Shining...the quality of the book must have
> made Kubrick's job a little easier.
>
> Trivia note: The bartender in The Shining was also in The Killing and
> he was one of the condemned prisoners in Paths of Glory.

Further trivia note: One actor seen in 2001, the film, connects the
world of Gerry Anderson to the works of Kubrick & Clarke.

That fella is Edward Bishop, the voice of Captain Blue, and the actor
who played Ed Straker, who also played a ship's officer, who spoke to
Haywood Floyd while en passage to the Moon on the Ares shuttle.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

[Rick DeNatale]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:43:54 +0000, Andre Lieven wrote:

> Further trivia note: One actor seen in 2001, the film, connects the
> world of Gerry Anderson to the works of Kubrick & Clarke.

But my favorite connection between 2001 and British Tele is Reginald
Perrin* (as in "The Fall and Rise of") playing one of the Russian
Scientists who try to grill Floyd during his layover on the space station.

*aka Leonard Rossiter

[Jonathan Silverlight]

In message >, Kent Betts
> writes
>"Christopher M. Jones"
>> I cut Kubrick a vast amount of slack because 2001 and The
>> Shining were much more his than the authors', and quite the
>> better for it. And the movies were still enough like the
>> books to wear their labels.
>
>The Shining is word for word accurate in the movie....the most accurate film
>adaptation I can think of.

Variety saw it differently.
"With everything to work with, director SK has teamed with jumpy Jack
Nicholson to destroy all that was so terrifying about SK's
best-seller... Kubrick sees things his own way, throwing 90% of King's
creation out".
Including the "shining" - the boy's clairvoyance.
--
"Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with
relativity"
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk

[Christopher M. Jones]

"Kent Betts" > wrote:
> "Christopher M. Jones"
> > I cut Kubrick a vast amount of slack because 2001 and The
> > Shining were much more his than the authors', and quite the
> > better for it. And the movies were still enough like the
> > books to wear their labels.
>
> The Shining is word for word accurate in the movie....the most accurate film
> adaptation I can think of. It was also possibly S King's best novel.

The most telling data point I can think of is the difference
between Kubrick's The Shining and the made for TV movie
that King had a lot more control over. 'Nuff said.


> Clockwork Orange was an example of a passable book transformed into a complete
> vision. But in THe Shining...the quality of the book must have made Kubrick's
> job a little easier.

The generally high quality of various King books adapted to
movies by various directors and producers would seem to
indicate that abundantly. I'll let others draw their own
conclusions on the same subject with regard to A.C. Clarke's
works and their movie versions...

[Christopher M. Jones]

"Kent Betts" > wrote:
> The Shining is word for word accurate in the movie....the most accurate film
> adaptation I can think of. It was also possibly S King's best novel.

P.S. In my view the original Harry Potter movie is the
most accurate and honest translation of book to movie I've
ever seen. If you've read the book and watched the movie
you'll know what I mean. Not only is the vast majority of
the material in the book kept intact in the movie, but the
tone and personality is maintained as well with
unbelievable accuracy.