Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Cool. I'm about 10% into the second now. Hopefully I'll get through all 4.

Rumour has it that computerized voices are mostly female now because of HAL in the movie. I wonder how much truth there is in that?

Hmmm. That's a great rumour. Siri is female by default, but has an equal male to female ratio in differing dialects. But I chose female. That may have more to do with Star Trek always using a female computer voice though.

I love that! Star Trek influences real life again!

Beth, I've gotten over most of it. I'm about 25% the way through. I just hated how 2010 book is a sequel to the details in 2001 movie and not the 2001 book.

Under the weather :/ well I hope it's not leading into a cold.

Love them both.. movie and book! Great review Brendon. Cheers.

Brendon, nice intro. I loved the 2001 reference in Zoolander, it's part of the lexicon.
Interested to hear your take on the 2010 book AND movie. I remember thinking the Peter Hyams film wasn't that bad, just more conventional than the Kubrick classic.

Thanks Maria and Stuart.

I've never watched Zoolander Stuart. It doesn't really appeal too much.

I watched 2010 a few years ago and it was not too bad. All I can remember is Roy Schnieder and a radio telescope, so the book is proving full of surprises.

Oh no. Mine doesn't have that intro. I'll try to find that online. I want and need to know!

Glad you're feeling better.

Beth, I found it in a preview on Google Books. My copy digital copy of 2001 has nearly the same into.

But yeah, exactly what you said. The new Voyager info coming in made Jupiter's moons more exciting so he carried on with that.

I understand his reasoning, I just don't understand why he didn't then go back and revise his 2001 novel to reflect this. I guess I just thought there would be consistency between the novels.

Yeah, I guess I see your point. The change in setting is a relic of a change in knowledge that should be celebrated and not hidden. I guess so.

Maybe I'm just being story purist :D

I read all four of the series, quite entertaining, though Clarke can be a little cold around the edges, Brendon. And exploring is in my Portuguese culture.. P.S. Australia finally has given my ancestors , credit for being the first Europeans to see it...

A very decent review. You are right when you say the script and novel were developed in tandem. Clarke was writing chapters that Kubrick edited, contributed to, and took for his script. Clarke himself wrote that there were endless chapters and sections that Kubrick took and dismissed. Some found their way into the novel, others went in the bin. At some point the movie version took over, and this accounts for the variation in Clarke's usual style. Anyone who wants to delve into the depths of what it was like for Clarke working with Kubrick can do no better than to read The Lost Worlds of 2001 by Clarke.

I was 9 or 10 in 1968 when the film came to town. I was seriously entranced by the low orbit, moonscape and deep space scenes - and astonished that Kubrick respected the "sound" of a vacuum. I doubt that I caught the art-film aspects at that time.

Later, Clarke's novel slotted right in with all of his and Asimov's fiction that I was reading - and offered the exposition that Kubrick intentionally avoided.

Now, I regard Clarke's novel as "interpreting" Kubrick.

It's been decades - I don't recall whether HAL was more emotional and had more "personality" than Bowman - as in the film. Certainly, HAL evoked more sympathy as the lobotomy proceeded (and in "pre-op"). I'm sure that Kubrick was rigorous in his direction of the Discovery-nauts - acheiving that flat aspect.

Was the (monolith) 1:4:9 ratio in the movie?

I have long suspected that the film monolith was more "slender" than 1:4:9. I went ahead and measured some images and got 1:5:13.