I really love 2001 and 2010, I like 2061, and there were some good things in 3001 but it’s nothing exceptional. I first saw 2010 in the 80s when I was twelve, and didn’t see 2001 until several years later. But I was hooked on Clarke and science fiction in general after seeing 2010.
I've recently read through this series, too! I didn't much like 2001, but I liked the later books. Rendezvous with Rama is my favourite Clarke, though!
@@danecobain That's interesting. I wonder how many people read the book first. I always assumed most people saw the movie first, and then read the novel to figure out just what the heck it all meant.
2001: I love it as a different animal from the movie. 2010: A really great hard SF space opera, under appreciated IMO. Hell of an ending! 2061: Was bored by most of this. 3001: I thought this was unnecessary. And what a terrible ending!
Thanks for review of these books. I've only seen the film version of 2001 and 2010, and I read the book 2001. Just a few comments: 1. People still make the mistake of saying that the film is based on the book. If anything, the idea for the film starts with the short story "The Sentinel". The book 2001 is based on the film, but Kubrick was mischievous. He invited Clarke to the studio to watch scenes being recorded that were never in the final cut of the film. 2. There's no denying that Kubrick was a visual and film genius. 2001 is brilliant. I don't see why Peter Hyams agreed to make film of 2010. It would have been fine just on its own, no need to burden it by linking it with one of the greatest visually stunning films. 3. Even though I agree that 2001 is visually stunning, it is so wrong about the past and the future. It is silly that pre-historic mammals can touch an alien object, and instantly learn to use "bones as tools, and as weapons"!! Whereas millions of years of evolution, mammals did not know about tools! Also, touching the alien object, converted these mammals from herbivore into carnivores, within a few hours!! Hard to believe. 4. And last point... his image of a stewardess walking in a circle, and upside-down, is totally wrong (although very beautiful to watch). Just have a look at any modern astronauts... they float. And they never walk in a circle like in 2001.
Kubrick was a cinematic genius, but generating excitement and suspense was not his thing. 2010 did have these elements and to me, it was much more engaging, something that is important to me personally.
it's well documented Clarke and Kubrick co-wrote the noveland film screenplay during the same period. - Clarke states this in a video voiceover. obbiously the film needed, to be more graphic, and certainly was. beardie says he has not read all nocels, so strange he thinks an overview ritle is used for his vid.
Clarke himself wrote about the process of working with Kubrick and the screenplay while writing the novel in The Lost Worlds of 2001, a book I highly recommend even for folks who didn't love the novels.
3001 felt so anti-climactic. The story just didn't do anything for me; and I actually reread that book only a couple years ago. There were so many rudimentary things that are talked about and the ending was........meh. The first two books are pretty good, but to be honest, it has been decades since I read 2061: Odyssey 3. Both movies are pretty good, but I will probably always prefer the first movie better. It is an interesting series, but I think these will always be more remembered for the movies, as opposed to being remembered as a book series. My favorite book is Odyssey Two, though I still don't understand why they added "The Year We Make Contact" to the movie. Thanks for this!
Finding out the actual form of the Sentinels in 3001 was a BIG MISTAKE! I lost all interest when Clarke just threw away the concept and gave it form, destroying all that mystique this series had built up. Stephen Baxter does this better by explaining how the XEELEE were formed but that's it---we never really meet them on a fathomable capacity, because they're beyond us---beyond the baryonic universe, in fact. In 3001 it's like, oh, so that's that then, oh, Bowman and Floyd and HAL are just digital info after all, eh? Very, very disappointing; I'd NEVER read the lowest book of all, which probably explores (exploits) every damn recess of the concept we really don't need to know
@TrainingtoThrive-x5m Baxter was writing stuff more ambitious than Space Odyssey and Three Body Problem decades ago, with the Xeelee sequence; I don't know why he isn't more popular. He's successful, but why isn't he a household name? Never red anything as mind bending--my mind is still bent from his concepts.
@@markpaterson2053 Well now I REALLY need to read his stuff. I'll see what I already own; I think at least one of his early novels is down in my stack of sci-fi books.
@@markpaterson2053 BTW, that TH-cam handle for me, "TrainingtoThrive" is due to me experimenting with possibly starting a second channel, which I ultimately have decided not to do.
I feel like Clarke was just a great one-off sci-fi writer, but he never really wrote a series that hit the mark. Every "2001" sequel was less necessary than the prior one, and "2010" was wholly unnecessary. I got out to "2061" and stopped, but I will say the "Rendezvous with Rama" sequels are far worse and largely undermine the overall point of "Rendezvous With Rama".
On the whole, I would agree with that, and assert that the same applied to Heinlein (luckily he never really attempted to write a series, per se) and most other sci-fi writers. There are plenty of exceptions, of course!
After 2001 and 2010 I'm out. Everything after that kinda sucks the hope out of the story. Clarke is great at making nihilism look naive and optimistic. One of his weird talents i guess.. 2061 doesn't add much and needs way more HAL and 3001 was just Clarke rewriting stuff from the first 3 and preaching a lot, trying to make eugenics look cool and nullifying everything that went before. PS: See 2010. It's great!
Mike Tyson is the better speaker of the Tysons. I saw 2001 in 1968 at the Cinemascope theater in HOllywood. If you didn't see it in Cinemascope you never saw it as it was intended.
@@John-mb3ti I'm unaware of all that. I still dig his show, though. I saw him live a few years ago here in Atlanta at the Fox Theatre and he was extremely entertaining. Definitely more entertainment than educational, but that's what I was expecting.
I really love 2001 and 2010, I like 2061, and there were some good things in 3001 but it’s nothing exceptional.
I first saw 2010 in the 80s when I was twelve, and didn’t see 2001 until several years later. But I was hooked on Clarke and science fiction in general after seeing 2010.
I still haven't seen the 2010 movie, alas. One of these days, when I have time...
I've recently read through this series, too! I didn't much like 2001, but I liked the later books. Rendezvous with Rama is my favourite Clarke, though!
Interesting. Did you like the movie?
@@inerdius Yeah, it was pretty good! I read the book first as I hadn't seen it before.
@@danecobain That's interesting. I wonder how many people read the book first. I always assumed most people saw the movie first, and then read the novel to figure out just what the heck it all meant.
@@inerdius I read the book, watched the movie, then consulted Wikipedia to figure out what the heck it all meant :D
Rama (1, the others don't exist lol) it's perhpa one of the best books I've ever read
2001: I love it as a different animal from the movie.
2010: A really great hard SF space opera, under appreciated IMO. Hell of an ending!
2061: Was bored by most of this.
3001: I thought this was unnecessary. And what a terrible ending!
I liked certain parts of 3001 a lot but did feel the ending was a little mundane.
2001 is my favourite film by my favourite director! My only criticism is that Kubrick didn't even allude to the dimensions of the monolith.
I definitely came to appreciate more when I saw it a few years ago in the Fox Theatre in Atlanta!
Awesome video, thanks for posting !
You're welcome!
Thanks for review of these books. I've only seen the film version of 2001 and 2010, and I read the book 2001. Just a few comments:
1. People still make the mistake of saying that the film is based on the book. If anything, the idea for the film starts with the short story "The Sentinel". The book 2001 is based on the film, but Kubrick was mischievous. He invited Clarke to the studio to watch scenes being recorded that were never in the final cut of the film.
2. There's no denying that Kubrick was a visual and film genius. 2001 is brilliant. I don't see why Peter Hyams agreed to make film of 2010. It would have been fine just on its own, no need to burden it by linking it with one of the greatest visually stunning films.
3. Even though I agree that 2001 is visually stunning, it is so wrong about the past and the future. It is silly that pre-historic mammals can touch an alien object, and instantly learn to use "bones as tools, and as weapons"!! Whereas millions of years of evolution, mammals did not know about tools! Also, touching the alien object, converted these mammals from herbivore into carnivores, within a few hours!! Hard to believe.
4. And last point... his image of a stewardess walking in a circle, and upside-down, is totally wrong (although very beautiful to watch). Just have a look at any modern astronauts... they float. And they never walk in a circle like in 2001.
I agree with all that, but man I still love that movie.
Kubrick was a cinematic genius, but generating excitement and suspense was not his thing. 2010 did have these elements and to me, it was much more engaging, something that is important to me personally.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 I still need to watch 2010. Your comment has helped move it closer to the top of the to-be-watched list. Thanks!
it's well documented Clarke and Kubrick co-wrote the noveland film screenplay during the same period. - Clarke states this in a video voiceover. obbiously the film needed, to be more graphic, and certainly was. beardie says he has not read all nocels, so strange he thinks an overview ritle is used for his vid.
Clarke himself wrote about the process of working with Kubrick and the screenplay while writing the novel in The Lost Worlds of 2001, a book I highly recommend even for folks who didn't love the novels.
Sometimes the movie is better than the book. I will say the book was excellent, so draw your own conclusions about the movie.🎉
3001 felt so anti-climactic. The story just didn't do anything for me; and I actually reread that book only a couple years ago. There were so many rudimentary things that are talked about and the ending was........meh. The first two books are pretty good, but to be honest, it has been decades since I read 2061: Odyssey 3. Both movies are pretty good, but I will probably always prefer the first movie better. It is an interesting series, but I think these will always be more remembered for the movies, as opposed to being remembered as a book series. My favorite book is Odyssey Two, though I still don't understand why they added "The Year We Make Contact" to the movie. Thanks for this!
Yes, 2001 the movie is definitely the thing that makes these books even worth considering. With the movie, there's nothing.
Finding out the actual form of the Sentinels in 3001 was a BIG MISTAKE! I lost all interest when Clarke just threw away the concept and gave it form, destroying all that mystique this series had built up. Stephen Baxter does this better by explaining how the XEELEE were formed but that's it---we never really meet them on a fathomable capacity, because they're beyond us---beyond the baryonic universe, in fact. In 3001 it's like, oh, so that's that then, oh, Bowman and Floyd and HAL are just digital info after all, eh? Very, very disappointing; I'd NEVER read the lowest book of all, which probably explores (exploits) every damn recess of the concept we really don't need to know
@TrainingtoThrive-x5m Baxter was writing stuff more ambitious than Space Odyssey and Three Body Problem decades ago, with the Xeelee sequence; I don't know why he isn't more popular. He's successful, but why isn't he a household name? Never red anything as mind bending--my mind is still bent from his concepts.
@@markpaterson2053 Well now I REALLY need to read his stuff. I'll see what I already own; I think at least one of his early novels is down in my stack of sci-fi books.
@@markpaterson2053 BTW, that TH-cam handle for me, "TrainingtoThrive" is due to me experimenting with possibly starting a second channel, which I ultimately have decided not to do.
NEVER---EVER---show the magician behind the curtain!
I feel like Clarke was just a great one-off sci-fi writer, but he never really wrote a series that hit the mark. Every "2001" sequel was less necessary than the prior one, and "2010" was wholly unnecessary. I got out to "2061" and stopped, but I will say the "Rendezvous with Rama" sequels are far worse and largely undermine the overall point of "Rendezvous With Rama".
On the whole, I would agree with that, and assert that the same applied to Heinlein (luckily he never really attempted to write a series, per se) and most other sci-fi writers. There are plenty of exceptions, of course!
After 2001 and 2010 I'm out. Everything after that kinda sucks the hope out of the story. Clarke is great at making nihilism look naive and optimistic. One of his weird talents i guess.. 2061 doesn't add much and needs way more HAL and 3001 was just Clarke rewriting stuff from the first 3 and preaching a lot, trying to make eugenics look cool and nullifying everything that went before. PS: See 2010. It's great!
I really do plan to see 2010 at some point, I swear!
Mike Tyson is the better speaker of the Tysons.
I saw 2001 in 1968 at the Cinemascope theater in HOllywood. If you didn't see it in Cinemascope you never saw it as it was intended.
I saw it at the Fox Theater in Atlanta sometime within the last 10 years. I don't know if it was Cinemascope or not, though.
@@inerdius In Cinemascope the screen wraps around you.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaScope#/media/File:Robe-Cinemascope-Ad.jpg
The best scenes in cinema scope were inside the pod bay and the externals of the Jupiter Probe. It was like being there.
@@rcworks9762 Ah, OK, then no, it was not Cinemascope.
@@rcworks9762 That's cool.
Really sad what happened to Neil Degrassy Tyson
What happened to Neil DeGrasse Tyson??
He has become super woke. Has some really strange views on trans stuff that defies logic and science.
@@John-mb3ti I'm unaware of all that. I still dig his show, though. I saw him live a few years ago here in Atlanta at the Fox Theatre and he was extremely entertaining. Definitely more entertainment than educational, but that's what I was expecting.