306
Me irl
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
306 points (94.7% liked)
me_irl
8071 readers
783 users here now
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
2001 a space odyssey is like that. Visually beautiful, even today, but almost no dialogue, and absolutely nothing is explained to the viewer.
One of the most interesting parts of the book was the reasons behind the AI, HAL, going off the rails, essentially he was an AI programmed to be honest and upfront, who was forced to lie, and was by far the most interesting character in the book.
None of this made it into the movie.
But I love this story...
In the original story, the monolith was a glowing diamond. The effects people couldn't get it right, so they put a black rectangle on all the storyboards to indicate that they'd come up with a replacement eventually.
Sone day someone looks at the rectangle and says that it would look good. The build one and hell yes, ti looks great.
Movie comes out and all the critics and fans try to figure out what the monolith represents. Is it the Bible? A tombstone? What???
Years later, the original writer, Arthur Clarke, is doing a Q+A and some snotnosed punk stands up and tells Clarke that he's figured it out.
The monolith is in the ratio 1 : 4 : 9, the squares of the first three numbers.
Clarke loves it, and puts it in the next book.
Worth mentioning that the book and movie were written at the same time and influenced each other.
https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-making-of-2001-a-space-odyssey-jay-cocks/de3b7dea4dff974f
Nonfiction book, The Making of 2001.
If you're interested in film making, or just exploring the creative process, this is a good read.
There's a cute line near the end.
The editor asks a proofreader if they'd already seen the movie.
"Well, I thought I had."
Sounds interesting, thank you.
I mentioned this in another comment below about Citizen Kane, but a big reason these hugely known "great" movies don't standup today is explained in the TV Tropes page about why Seinfeld is Unfunny - basically that so many pieces of art were so revolutionary at the time, they they have been endless copied and reiterated over and over, so that modern audiences seeing the original piece of art don't see it as anything special.
2001 A Space Odyssey was specially called out as an example:
The star gate scene has essentially transcended parody and basically become visual language for someone transcending reality. I wonder if I can transcends into this post a fourth time?
I agree, and I'm usually good at appreciating movies in their original context. But some of these movies have, maybe inherently or due to the era, serious pacing issues. Watching a ship move across the screen for five minutes just isn't that thrilling.
I loved that movie but I don't fault people for not feeling the same.
It's a contemplative film. If you don't like to contemplate and muse, it's likely not a film for you.
A lot of people hate being contemplative, they find it painful.
i have. multiple times. love it.
Honestly, Arthur C. Clarke didn't seem particularly interested in any of his human character in any book I've read. They're just a means to an end.
I felt like reading the book took less time than watching the movie; it was so slow.
We must have seen two different movies. Boring is the last thing I would call it. But to be fair I haven't seen it in decades, and I could see how it would be boring if you were raised on Star Wars.