Quote:
Originally Posted by Chula Vista
(1) No. The monoliths were there from the very beginning. They were planted. They didn't just appear.
|
That's not fair. The movie never leans in favor of the monoliths being strictly literal objects placed by aliens, or metaphors. Again, you're using the novel to try and justify your interpretation of the movie, which is perfectly fine if that's what you enjoy, but you can't demand me to have the same preferences or interpretations. The movie and the novel are two seperate entities, and whether they are to be put together is up to each individual audience member.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chula Vista
(2) Why do you refer to it as an argument? It's a spirited discussion. One that would be so much better if you'd read the companion novel.
|
I was making a point. The answer to each question asked in this thread so far has been a matter of interpretation, and yet you keep insinuating that there is only one way of looking at the 2001 canon (that aliens were responsible), and that the novel gives concrete answers (when in reality it is simply the elaboration of Clarke's personal take on the story). By that logic, should fans of The Last Airbender be forced to accept Shyamalon's recent movie into the canon? It's up to every fan to decide for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chula Vista
(3) One last time. Clarke and Kubrick worked this together. There's no different version. Why do you keep falling back on this?
|
But there are different versions; the movie and the novel. If both Clarke and Kubrick wanted their collective work to be viewed as a whole, why did they both end up creating different stories altogether? Each was dissatisfied with the other's interpretation; why else would Kubrick feel the need to deviate so far from Clarke's idea of "aliens", as well as Clarke feeling the need to write a novel after the fact clarifying his specific version?
I'll be blunt; we're discussing the movie, not the novel. You bringing it up every five seconds is like jumping in front of a movie reviewer and yelling "Read the book first!" The movie reviewer is there to review the movie, which should be capable of standing on it's own. We can talk about the novel some other time, preferably when I've actually had the chance to read it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chula Vista
One of the better aspects of the novel is the first section. Where Kubrick can only show how Moon-child exists and then ultimately reacts to the monolith and it's message, Clarke is able to put the reader inside Moon-child's primitive brain. He's such a great writer and pulls it off so well.
|
That's great, but again, we're discussing the movie. Maybe you're right, and the book really will help me to like the movie, but that is a different discussion for a different time. I'm here strictly to elaborate on how I felt about the movie after watching it.