I agree across the board.
I do have to put my hand up for 2001.
Back then, people READ BOOKS. If you read “2001” and then saw the movie, the 2 clicked in nicely and made it a good movie. If not, then 2001 made no more sense than “A Clockwork Orange.”
I also think 2001 gets props for special effects — making space a true, livable and believable backdrop. The idea that all the computer displays were hand-drawn graphics makes one pause.
Arthur C. Clarke is also an arrogant S.O.B. who made himself the spokesperson for Sci Fi when there were much bigger names still alive (Asimov, Heinlein, Ellison). Just sayin’
Absolutely right. 2001 is a classic, but these lists are just opinions, and we all know what Clint said about those
Agree. I read both 2001 and clockwork prior to seeing them. Made both much easier to watch.
Funny thing... If I remember right, the book “2001” was being written at the same time the movie was being made.
Chicken or the egg?
It was ‘68... I may be remembering wrong.
I saw the movie and read the book. It is one of those rare situations where the gook is based on the movie.
2001 is also an important for those of us who remember what other movies looked like at the time it was released. I suspect that many of its critics are young and lump it in with all of the space flicks that they have seen, having no knowledge of how much that later films owe to 2001.
2001 the book was written when the film was already in production. It was a unique situation. The film makes all the sense it needs to. Harlan Ellison was a generation after Clarke who was writing classic SF in the early 1950s.