Jump to content

I just finished reading Space Odyssey: 2001

Ydoow

By Ydoow
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Ydoow

Ydoow

Posted
Posted

It's...

um...

David...

The TMAs...

er...

Good book, but I need to reread the last few chapters to really soak in what happened lol.

I kept reading the quotes on the cover "Mind boggling" and 95% of the way through it I kept thinking "I don't see how this is mind boggling"

and then BAM!

Hardly had any idea of what was happening lol

The next thing I want to do, after rereading some chapters, is hopefully make the connections between everything.

It wasn't all about HAL, which surprised me having only seen parts of the movie, so clearly HAL was introduced as some sort of plot device, something to help bring out the underlying point behind the book.

There's a purpose - connection - between HAL, the Ape-Men, David's transformation and all that stuff.

I'm not sure if I should read the rest of the books. I certainly won't consider it until I'm satisfied with analyzing this first book.

Any suggestions for books after this/these?

Doesn't have to be SciFi, anything Sciencey (even factual) is cool. And non-sciencey stuff can be just as good a read.

Although give me a fair warning if it's an emotionally attaching/draining book. The first book of The Hunger Games got me oddly connected and left me depressed for a few days after finishing it; just sucked the life out of me and I could never understand why. There wasn't anything specific out of the book that bothered me, just the story as a whole made me bleh. Still haven't finished that series, and I don't truly intend to. It's too good >_>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ziff

Ziff

Posted
Posted (edited)

From what I remember, HAL actually has nothing to do with the Apemen or David's transformation. Hal basically just had a nervous breakdown. I think those 'mind boggling' comments are old, remember the book was written in 1968.. I also think they might refer to the idea that apes were advanced to humans by some sort of alien device, and then the human David is advanced to a Star Child by the same means. That is kinda nutty.

I have a voracious appetite for books. Some of my favorite sci-fi ones include:

Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card, which is about a futuristic world where children are taken young and trained in the military, but has a ton of awesome stuff going on in it.

Neuromancer by William Gibson, which was written in 1984.. and is responsible for much a lot of vocabulary like Matrix, Cyberspace, Cyberpunk, and is an awesome story that includes things like jacking your brain into a computer. Pure epic awesomeness, well before it's time.

Anything by Isaac Asimov or Neal Stephenson, my favorites being Foundation by Asimov and Cryptonomicon by Stephenson.

I actually also really enjoyed the Rama series by Arthur C. Clarke. Pretty good stuff in those.

Edited by Ziff
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ydoow

Ydoow

Posted
  • Author
Posted
From what I remember, HAL actually has nothing to do with the Apemen or David's transformation. Hal basically just had a nervous breakdown. I think those 'mind boggling' comments are old, remember the book was written in 1968.. I also think they might refer to the idea that apes were advanced to humans by some sort of alien device, and then the human David is advanced to a Star Child by the same means. That is kinda nutty.

I understand it was just a psychological breakdown, but I think that means something. Metaphorically it's there to tell us something. HAL's breakdown wouldn't be in the book just for the sake of being in the book.

I haven't put a lot of thought into it yet, but I have two - unexplored - thoughts

1) It's meant to represent how difficult creating consciousness is. Much like how the Monolith rose the Ape-Men up, the scientists tried to create conscious computers but have more or less failed.

2) Towards the later half of the book HAL's breakdown is compared and likened to human psychosis, and it's accepted that HAL was created much like a human but the psychology of how human he would react wasn't realized.

At the same time, David undergoes incredulous spans of time without companion-ship. Mission control has a 3 hour delay making him feel very isolated.

The final months constantly mention how alone he feels and everything he does to ward it off. It was so consistently brought up there was no way I couldn't notice it.

David himself mentions he isn't sure if he'll psychologically survive the trip to Saturn and himself admits (to the reader) some small cracks.

But overall, he seems to have mental stability beyond regular human. I got the impression he was better than HAL in this respect, better than a machine.

Perhaps this was just foreshadowing that he was the next Moon Watcher, to become transformed into a StarChild.

I like the second idea a bit more, but I'm not totally sold on either.

I would suggest The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and all of its sequels, but as an upstanding member of the community you will have read those already.

*accusatory glare*

*poker face*

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ziff

Ziff

Posted
Posted

Yeah, for reals, even I was looking at the avatar after I read that.

Hal's breakdown is in the book because Hal is the antagonist to drive the story, otherwise it would just be a couple of boring sleeping astronauts waiting to get to Jupiter.

As for 1) I agree with this, Hal has a conflicting problem. He's supposed to track and relay all information accurately, yet he is also supposed to lie to the astronauts about the real mission. What would a human do in this case? Probably just pick the 1 they prefer. Hal comes up with a solution that fits both, kill the astronauts and there is no need to lie to them anymore and he can go about his programming routine as normal.

2) I always thought the way it read was meant to convey the fact that any normal human would probably go crazy being isolated for that long. The fact that Dave see's this too, yet still manages to come through, points to how strong his character is. Making him a shining example of our species, and thus, deserving of his transformation. But I haven't read it in about 15 years so maybe I should go back and see what I find now. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vanamonde

Vanamonde

Posted
Posted

The book is a better story and makes more sense, but the movie is just plain a hell of a movie. A lot of the special effects in it would not look dated in a movie that came out this year, even though it was made 44 years ago. It's also got that nifty Kubrick way of going slow without being boring, and interesting use of camera angles and such. It's a good moody movie to watch in the middle of the night, though the end is confusing and unsatisfying.

As I recall (it's been a while for me, too), the second book 2010 explains what went wrong with HAL. Confirming what Ziff said, Dr. Floyd explains that HAL is a machine designed to convey information accurately, so he went crazy when he was ordered to lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ydoow

Ydoow

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
Should I read the book or watch the movie? Books are nearly always better but I can watch the movie and be done with it all in 2 hours. :sticktongue:

I finished the book with the intent to watch the movie right after. The movie has high critique ratings, especially in terms of cinematography

But yes, as others said, you will be confused by the movie if you don't read the book at some parts.

The movie doesn't really narrate or explain everything that's happening, so without knowing the book, the ending and other parts will be one giant "The hell?..." moment.

The movie also ends about halfway through the book. I don't want to spoil either for you, so I won't describe what the movie focuses on, but the book goes much further than the movie and has a very different "point" to make. The movie is more for drama and ratings, as any movie must do.

It's not so much a "point" as a story.

A little ironic I suppose; the movie being the story

Edited by Ydoow
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Awaras

Awaras

Posted
Posted

*poker face*

I understand it was just a psychological breakdown, but I think that means something. Metaphorically it's there to tell us something. HAL's breakdown wouldn't be in the book just for the sake of being in the book.

I haven't put a lot of thought into it yet, but I have two - unexplored - thoughts

1) It's meant to represent how difficult creating consciousness is. Much like how the Monolith rose the Ape-Men up, the scientists tried to create conscious computers but have more or less failed.

2) Towards the later half of the book HAL's breakdown is compared and likened to human psychosis, and it's accepted that HAL was created much like a human but the psychology of how human he would react wasn't realized.

At the same time, David undergoes incredulous spans of time without companion-ship. Mission control has a 3 hour delay making him feel very isolated.

The final months constantly mention how alone he feels and everything he does to ward it off. It was so consistently brought up there was no way I couldn't notice it.

David himself mentions he isn't sure if he'll psychologically survive the trip to Saturn and himself admits (to the reader) some small cracks.

But overall, he seems to have mental stability beyond regular human. I got the impression he was better than HAL in this respect, better than a machine.

Perhaps this was just foreshadowing that he was the next Moon Watcher, to become transformed into a StarChild.

I like the second idea a bit more, but I'm not totally sold on either.

There is more development in the second book/movie that sheds more light on the issue. Read the sequel(s), watch the movies, it's all good. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ziff

Ziff

Posted
Posted
Why not both togfox? The book has more detail and explains the ending a lot better then the movie does, but seeing the movie helps me visualize the book.

I have to agree with this, as they both really fit well into their media format. The book has some great details and character stuff you don't get in the movie. The movie has several amazing epic cinematography shots that you just can't get from the book.

VySVW.jpgiuxQa.jpgsw52T.jpg

However, the movie pace is kind of slow by today's standards and if you watch it expecting an action packed movie you will be disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valdez

Valdez

Posted
Posted

Yeah I felt 2001 was faintly boring, but you get an indescribable sense of having experienced something exceptional. And for that, it is probably my favourite film.

Also, you should read 2010 as soon a possible, (in my humble opinion) the best in the series and absolutely breathtaking, particularly the characters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Endeavour

Endeavour

Posted
Posted
On the subject of special effects, watch this and remember that the movie was made in 1967-8. (Skip to :54 (Why doesn't anybody edit Youtube videos?!))

I remember watching this for the first time last year, and wondering how on Earth they did that scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vanamonde

Vanamonde

Posted
Posted (edited)

If you really want to know,

[don't look] sometimes the best way to finesse something is brute force. They just built that whole big set on an axis and rotated it. The actor was always at the bottom, and the camera was bolted to the floor and rotated with the set. If you watch, you can see the actor slightly step to the side to go around the camera. [/okay, you can look again]

(Stupid formating.)

Edited by Vanamonde
Link to comment
Share on other sites
togfox

togfox

Posted
Posted
On the subject of special effects, watch this and remember that the movie was made in 1967-8. (Skip to :54 (Why doesn't anybody edit Youtube videos?!))

I watched the clip and I'm missing context of course, but I just watching 2 minutes of nothing. I fear the whole movie is ~10 minutes stretched into ~90 minutes.

Flame away!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vanamonde

Vanamonde

Posted
Posted (edited)
I watched the clip and I'm missing context of course, but I just watching 2 minutes of nothing.
You watched 2 minutes of a spaceship's habitation drum providing artificial gravity through centrifugal acceleration, seemlessly simulated with 1967 movie-making tech.
Flame away!
Neener! (Perhaps I'm not that good at the flaming thing.) Edited by Vanamonde
Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...