20

I love the film but still haven't read the book. They say it answers all the questions we ask while watching the film (and can't be answered without reading the book).

SQB
  • 38,680
  • 33
  • 212
  • 350
dzambaska
  • 742
  • 1
  • 6
  • 13

1 Answers1

25

AFAIK the book, which was written simultaneously with the screenplay, expands the description of the ending, which is where the vast majority of the questions come from.

The book explains what happened much better than the film, and gives more details. It's also less likely to induce a seizure.

Jeff
  • 105,749
  • 30
  • 342
  • 417
  • 9
    Agreed - I defy any rational adult that is not under the influence of any kind of mind-altering substance and has not read the book to watch the end of the movie (from the point where Bowman enters the Monolith) and give me a coherent explanation of what the blue blazes went on. – TechParadox May 18 '11 at 19:19
  • 2
    @TechParadox Does Pop-Corn count as a mind-altering substance? – DavRob60 May 18 '11 at 19:24
  • 4
    @DavRob60: Depends on what you put on it. – Jeff May 18 '11 at 19:34
  • 1
    it does, no matter what you put in it. – dzambaska May 18 '11 at 19:44
  • @Jeff well, the ending is the part that raises most of the questions. planning on reading it soon. googling for plot-answers is for losers. – dzambaska May 18 '11 at 19:46
  • I felt the same way about 2010. The movie made almost no sense, if you had not read the book. – geoffc May 18 '11 at 21:52
  • 2
    They wrote the book and the screenplay at the same time and went to different planets? How'd that happen? – Neth May 19 '11 at 03:46
  • 3
    The book "The Lost Worlds of 2001", also by A.C.C., delves into the making of the book, the movie, and the changes between the two. It's worth hunting down a copy if you're interested in the trivia of the making of both. – TechParadox May 19 '11 at 13:09
  • 1
    @Neth - Clarke originally sent the discovery to Saturn, but the SFX department couldn't give Kubrick a realistic looking Saturn so he opted for Jupiter instead. Clarke's sequels pretty much pretend that Kubrick's version is the correct one and ignore poor Saturn :) – System Down May 19 '11 at 16:30
  • @System Down one of the most interesting infos i got about the movie. Thanks! Clarke shouldnt have corrected it, gives the story a bit of a trashy feeling i like. – dzambaska May 20 '11 at 01:03
  • 1
    @System Down: It's not really true they couldn't give Kubrick a realistic Saturn. It just couldn't be done within the budget and time allowed. He did create a Saturn, but finished it after production. (Doing Saturn meant doing Jupiter AND the rings, which was double the work.) Douglas Trumbull (who did the FX for 2001) created a full Saturn for "Silent Running," a VERY low budget (less than $1 million) film a few years later. Considering FX tech and how slowly it advanced in that era, such a low budget film would not have been able to to use new tech that wasn't around for 2001. – Tango May 20 '11 at 08:00
  • 1
    Keep in mind that "explains much better" != "IS much better". I liked the book's explanation when I was younger and needed answers to everything, but in growing older I prefer the ambiguity of the film. I think the two approaches reflect the mindset of Kubrick and Clarke, respectively. – Chris B. Behrens Sep 19 '14 at 15:47
  • 1
    It's been a while, and I don't have a source for it, but I recall reading the Clarke said that even he didn't know what Kubrick was doing at the end of the movie. As for Clarke's sequels, there were plot reasons for using Jupiter rather than Saturn, at least in 2010. – GreenMatt Aug 06 '15 at 19:22