I love space movies like Moon and 2001. Are there any good books with the same theme?
I love space movies like Moon and 2001. Are there any good books with the same theme?
Mason Morgan
Other urls found in this thread:
visual-memory.co.uk
4umi.com
twitter.com
Caleb Morgan
Did you LIKE 2001, the movie?
If so, you'll like the books. They go farther and describe motivations in the movie.
Did you think the 2001 movie is one of the GREATEST ACHIEVEMENTS OF CINEMA OF ALL TIME?
Do NOT read the books. They spoon feed you things present in the movie to the astute viewer. I never made it past book 1.5.
Can't speak on Moon.
Ayden Thompson
Rendezvous with Rama is good, and it was written by a guy who helped Kubrick write the script of 2001.
Angel Morris
Solaris blyat
David Foster
I've always liked 2001 as a movie (I first saw it when I was a kid of about 8 or 9) and I feel that it gets an appropriate amount of praise as a sacred cow of the cinema. Part of the pleasure of seeing the movie at such a young age was that I was "in on the joke" when, in various other media "open the pod bay doors, hal" was spoofed elsewhere.
When I was in middle school, I read the first novel just once, and I basically remembered that they go to Saturn instead of Jupiter, but apart from that (and certain details) the two treatments are much the same. I was vaguely bored by the novel on my first go-around, however, but I appreciated it more a few months ago.
Recently I've read the Odyssey series in its entirety (I don't read much fiction these days so this was a nice project) and I generally liked it. The really pleasant surprise is that 2010 is easily the best book in the entire series, and so redeems the movie (which had a really tough act to follow, admittedly). In the book, Clarke does not employ the Cold War high tensions story element which is central to the film, and takes the time to humanize his characters. The Soviets are not hostile drones, but human beings (albeit with different culture), and the people of the two countries manage to deliberate rationally. We also see a good deal further into David Bowman's Post-Ascended-Ubermensch experiences, which is only glossed in the film.
3001 is also entertaining. If there's a weak spot, it's pretty easily 2061, which is an improbable romp which also has material mistakes in its published form (a minor character is identified inconsistently by multiple names over the course of a few pages. On my first read, this did not appear to be by-design in the story, but a goof that never got corrected). I seem to remember another flub or three in the text.
The other thing that you realize when you read them all in one go is that Clarke constantly recycles passages, oftenly only very slightly tweaking them, to re-frame his basic story elements for the present iteration. The basic background story of the beings behind the monoliths is given very poetically toward the end of the first book, and re-used at least twice throughout the rest, perhaps more. Clarke in his forewords and afterwords is generally pretty good about being up-front about this recycling. The artistic choice can be valid in the sense of rhythm over the course of your story, but when you read basically the same chapter for the fourth time or so, it does drag a bit by that point.
We never actually, REALLY learn who the beings behind the monoliths, or "the firstborn" really are beyond the speculative glosses. /We never meet them/, or speak with them. Not even David Bowman really knows what they're all about. They remain a mystery which died with Clarke, and I think that's just fine. As the recent Alien movies have proven with regard to the "space jockey" and how they ruined them by explaining them, mystery is valuable
Asher Scott
My nigga, are you me? I read 2001 a space odyssey while listening to MOON OST. Clint Mansell + Arthur C Clarke = Fucking awesome.
Isaac Collins
>Veeky Forums will never be this verbose and well-informed again
Colton Martin
Rendezvous with Rama is exceptional. I could absolutely imagine being there.
It may be super easy, but The Martian has a fair amount of space travel. There are some really corny moments, but it was a free and easy read.
Kevin Jones
I won't dig too deep into this, but lots of what you've said here only furthers my stance that the books are surpufluous.
I think the movie says everything it set out to say. The first book (as before, admittedly the only thing I have experience with (I also didn't see the film 2010) so maybe my response is a little 0th order) had a general feeling of either being a page for shot rendition of the movie, or existing to explicitly explain plot points to less astute viewers. The shortcomings of the future books you've mentioned, plus the fact that they were clearly an afterthought (written 12+ years later) mixes with my distaste for sequels on the grounds of artistic integrity negatively.
I am also aware of the retconning of the Jupiter/Saturn plotpoint and various other differences via many world handwaving, which I find insultingly banal (or lazy w/r/t the writer).
COUNTERPOINT: I've always been a grump towards Sci-Fi lit. It's entirely possible that they're fantastic and I'm too closed minded to give them a fair shot.
Ultimately, I just feel that 2001 (the movie) has the same plot as the book AND an unparalleled aesthetic feel that completely obsoletifies (is that a real word?) the book format. One of the few times movies can do that.
Justin Gutierrez
I think you should gb2reddit