Wonderful book. I was about 12 when I first read it. My first Arthur C Clark book. I then went on to read the Rama series, I didn't read 2001 until about 5 years ago. But always loved the movie and the 2010 movie. About 3 years later I found a book called Excession by some bloke from Scotland call Iain M Banks, that blew my mind! Great vid, good discussion and keep up the good work.
2001 was not the regular "novelization" of a movie book. From the interweb: 2001: A Space Odyssey is a 1968 science fiction novel by British writer Arthur C. Clarke. It was developed concurrently with Stanley Kubrick's film version and published after the release of the film. Clarke and Kubrick worked on the book together, but eventually only Clarke ended up as the official author.
Yep. A lot of novelizations go that way. Alan Dean Foster has commented on differences in his books due to the novelization being written at the same time the movie was being shot and directors go and make changes at a time that the books already need to be on press. Clarke may have taken even more liberties with 2001.
@@man.itz.ashton maybe a loose adaptation may work best take what worked mainly for 2061 which is still good but feel free to radically change the story especially for 3001
I think the audience for this had cooled enough that Hollywood didn't see enough money potential. Sometimes though that is a blessing, given Hollywood's track record of adapting books.
This book bored the crap out of me when I was 22, I ended up just skimming it once I got about halfway through. 3001 was pretty dull as well, Clark's vision of the future kept me a little more interested but toward the end I just wanted it to be over.
@@telltalebooks vonnegut galapagos, catch 22, 2001-2010, hg wells the first men on the moon, a song of ice and fire, the eye of the needle. That all I can thof at the moment.
I read this book about 20 years ago and at the time it struck me that it lacked the depth of the previous stories. I think it would be challenging to make into an inspiring story in the hands of a film maker. Tom Hanks was apparently interested 20 years ago, and SyFy channel about 8 years ago. It would need to depart from the book quite significantly to be a viable film.
Agreed on all thoughts here. Additionally though Clarke doesn’t have as many readers today as he did when 2010 came out and the movies are now pretty old. I think any more sequels in the movies or even as books would be very difficult to sell.
Rest in peace, Sir Arthur.
I wish we had writers like him today.
PEDOPHILE ARTHUR ... nothing honorable about that man
I read this when it came out. I was 13. I have always wished it had more Dave and HAL. They're the best!
Wonderful book. I was about 12 when I first read it. My first Arthur C Clark book. I then went on to read the Rama series, I didn't read 2001 until about 5 years ago. But always loved the movie and the 2010 movie. About 3 years later I found a book called Excession by some bloke from Scotland call Iain M Banks, that blew my mind! Great vid, good discussion and keep up the good work.
Thank you!
2001 was not the regular "novelization" of a movie book. From the interweb: 2001: A Space Odyssey is a 1968 science fiction novel by British writer Arthur C. Clarke. It was developed concurrently with Stanley Kubrick's film version and published after the release of the film. Clarke and Kubrick worked on the book together, but eventually only Clarke ended up as the official author.
Yep. A lot of novelizations go that way. Alan Dean Foster has commented on differences in his books due to the novelization being written at the same time the movie was being shot and directors go and make changes at a time that the books already need to be on press. Clarke may have taken even more liberties with 2001.
Thanks for the great review
You’re welcome! More to come.
Why the film series hasn't continued adapting the books is something I still wonder to this day
cause the sequels are garbo
@@man.itz.ashton maybe a loose adaptation may work best take what worked mainly for 2061 which is still good but feel free to radically change the story especially for 3001
Clarke isn't around to push for it.
2010 underated but dated@@man.itz.ashton
Came for the synopsis, stayed for the hot takes on the economy
2061: The Year We Fight The Aliens
(lol)
The only one now that is truly set in the future
There's still 3001.
Someone please make a movie.
I’m on it.
If anyone should it should be Christopher nolan
I wish 2061 the space odyssey three movie adopt from the book but it never happened
I think the audience for this had cooled enough that Hollywood didn't see enough money potential. Sometimes though that is a blessing, given Hollywood's track record of adapting books.
Look for the Final Odyssey video later this month! Emily is done and I am in the middle of reading it.
This book bored the crap out of me when I was 22, I ended up just skimming it once I got about halfway through. 3001 was pretty dull as well, Clark's vision of the future kept me a little more interested but toward the end I just wanted it to be over.
Definitely not for you then. What books are your favorites?
@@telltalebooks vonnegut galapagos, catch 22, 2001-2010, hg wells the first men on the moon, a song of ice and fire, the eye of the needle. That all I can thof at the moment.
An excellent list!
I read this book about 20 years ago and at the time it struck me that it lacked the depth of the previous stories.
I think it would be challenging to make into an inspiring story in the hands of a film maker.
Tom Hanks was apparently interested 20 years ago, and SyFy channel about 8 years ago.
It would need to depart from the book quite significantly to be a viable film.
Agreed on all thoughts here. Additionally though Clarke doesn’t have as many readers today as he did when 2010 came out and the movies are now pretty old. I think any more sequels in the movies or even as books would be very difficult to sell.
Please don't make this into a movie! Please!!