Simon wrote:
>>>> For some reason, I've always imagined it shiny.
>>> It's not, in 2010 they analyse it and they find it absorbs light
>>> perfectly or something like that.
>>
>> Ah. Only read 2001.
> 
> Never read any, and I wonder if they were written by the same author (or 
> even if the books are based on the movies or movies based on the books...)

They were all written by Arthur C. Clarke.  The first book was based on 
the movie, but the second movie was based on the second book.  There's 
also 2051 (not too bad, imo) and 3001 (reads like a 3rd grade 
afterthought... the only book of his that I started and couldn't finish, 
it was so awful).

> In any case, for anybody that liked 2001, I recommend 2010, it is a 
> totally different type of movie;

2010 is for people who didn't get 2001.  It's still a good movie, but 
*completely* different from the first.

>>> Remember: "Oh my God!...  It's full of stars!"
>>
>> I know. That's what I was refering to.
> 
> Lol, it impressed me so much, this single sentence, that I think I 
> almost tattooed it on myself! ;)
> 
> But you mean...  do you think Dave says that when he looks deep into the 
> monolith?  I thought when he reached the monolith, his existence was 
> somehow transcended and he was given the sight of the whole universe? 
> That's how I explained the mega-psychedelic scenes at the end with 
> colors melting vertically or horizontally toward Dave...  to me it was 
> his passage into something else...
> 
> Simon

Well, his perception at first was that the Monolith itself was full of 
stars, but then he entered it.  You're right about his transcendence, 
though; pay attention to the whole movie.  There's a reason they start 
and end the way they do.

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary for man to create him" 
--Friedrich Nietzche (sp?).  2001 is all about the ascension of Man to 
Godhood through knowledge and science.  Whether or not you believe that 
to be true, it's very artistic.  2010 lost all the meaning, and went 
with the sci-fi thriller in space theme.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:07:57 -0800, Ben Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:

>They were all written by Arthur C. Clarke.

The short story "The sentinel" haunted me for years until 2001 was made.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Ben Chambers wrote:
[...]
> They were all written by Arthur C. Clarke.  The first book was based on 
> the movie, but the second movie was based on the second book.  There's 
> also 2051 (not too bad, imo) and 3001 (reads like a 3rd grade 
> afterthought... the only book of his that I started and couldn't finish, 
> it was so awful).
>
I have similar feelings about his Rama series.  Here are my opinions:

Book 1:  Rendezvous with Rama
Excelent.  Typical classic Clarke.  Matches my taste in science fiction 
perfectly.

Book 2:  Rama II
Now a colaboration -- Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee.  Typical for a 
sequel, fairly enjoyable but not nearly as entertaining as the original.
I would describe the authorship more as by Gentry Lee with some help 
from Arthur C. Clarke.  Definitely not a Clarke-style of writing.

Book 3:  Gardens of Rama
I would describe the authorship of this one as by Gentry Lee, vaguely 
based on ideas of Arthur C. Clarke.  Terrible.  I did work all the way 
through it (and it _was_ work!) because I mistakenly believed that this 
was the final book and I was still curious to find out the what/who/why 
of the Ramans.  The main word I would use to describe this one is 
BORING!  Much too long (too many characters, too many subplots with none 
of them interesting) and it had no ending -- it simply abruptly stopped.

Book 4:  Rama Revealed
No comment.  I didn't read it and after forcing my way through the 
"Gardens" I never will.

      -=- Larry -=-

Post a reply to this message

My thoughts on Clarke:

Firstly, not only was the first book based on the movie, but Clarke himself
wrote the screenplay for the movie in collaboration with Stanley Kubrick,
the director, expanding on his short story 'The Sentinel'.

I agree with everyone about Clarke's novel sequences - they get steadily
less interesting! He's a very clever man with very good SF ideas (this is
the guy who invented geostationary orbits, don't forget), but I don't think
he's a terribly good author. His characters all feel the same and his prose
feels a little flat. He's at his best when involving you in a mystery of
some sort, a la 2001 or Rendezvous With Rama, but trying to explain those
mysteries usually spoils it all. 2010 worked well, because it moved the
story on and explained the events in 2001 without ever revealing the nature
or motivations of the monolith (or whoever built it). I especially like the
idea of igniting Jupiter artificially to allow life to evolve on Europa,
and the final haunting scene in 2010 closes the circle that started in
2001.

I thought the reasons for Hal's malfunction a were very consistent and
logical. It always annoys me that Hal is seen as a 'mad', 'homicidal'
computer by most people - it was never mad, and it never malfunctioned,
except when Dave Bowman dismantled its brain in the interests of
self-preservation. It was just given conflicting orders by people who had
no idea how it worked. A better argument for keeping 'normal' users away
from computers I've yet to see. :)

Oh, and Rendezvous With Rama should never have been continued...!

Clarke's earlier stuff tends to be better ('A Fall Of Moondust', although
outdated, is great!), and I think some of his collaborative novels are
good, especially the recent ones, because his co-authors appear to handle
the nitty-gritty of characters while Clarke (presumably, I'm only guessing
really) puts more into ideas and storyline. The Trigger and Richter 10 are
quite readable.

As to my scene, I think I'm going to try to build the 'Discovery' and use
the crew section as the CGSphere centre...

Bill

Post a reply to this message

"Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> I like. Is the grid an image map?

Well, I thought it was, but closer inspection of Trevor Quayle's CGSphere
template reveals it to be a UV-mapped pigment map. Which is nice, 'cos
that's much easier to modify than an image map. The CGSphere.com zip file
still contains an unused 'grid.tga' though, which confused me.

> For some reason, I've always imagined it shiny.
Well, I think it was given a sort of sheen in the movies so people would
know what they were looking at. One of their very few unrealisms, actually
- I think 2001 and 2010 must be unique in movie SF to convincingly convey
the total, lonely silence of space. The only sound effects are engines
roaring, which you'd hear through your spacecraft superstructure anyway,
and the claustrophobic gasping of panicky American NASA engineers as they
space-walk with their brown trousers on.

Bill

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> My thoughts on Clarke:
>
>
> Clarke's earlier stuff tends to be better ('A Fall Of Moondust', although
> outdated, is great!), and I think some of his collaborative novels are
> good, especially the recent ones, because his co-authors appear to handle
> the nitty-gritty of characters while Clarke (presumably, I'm only guessing
> really) puts more into ideas and storyline. The Trigger and Richter 10 are
> quite readable.




typical of the era i.e. good enough for children. No characterization and
women are just plot devices.

> As to my scene, I think I'm going to try to build the 'Discovery' and use
> the crew section as the CGSphere centre...

I look forward to seeing that.


Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> > I like. Is the grid an image map?
>
> Well, I thought it was, but closer inspection of Trevor Quayle's CGSphere
> template reveals it to be a UV-mapped pigment map. Which is nice, 'cos
> that's much easier to modify than an image map. The CGSphere.com zip file
> still contains an unused 'grid.tga' though, which confused me.
>

They told me they wanted to keep it in for consistency even though it wasn't
used.

> > For some reason, I've always imagined it shiny.
> Well, I think it was given a sort of sheen in the movies so people would
> know what they were looking at. One of their very few unrealisms, actually
> - I think 2001 and 2010 must be unique in movie SF to convincingly convey
> the total, lonely silence of space. The only sound effects are engines
> roaring, which you'd hear through your spacecraft superstructure anyway,
> and the claustrophobic gasping of panicky American NASA engineers as they
> space-walk with their brown trousers on.
>
> Bill

What?!?! You mean space isn't filled with Aerosmith tunes cranked up to 11?

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

"Trevor G Quayle" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> What?!?! You mean space isn't filled with Aerosmith tunes cranked up to 11?

He he, that movie probably has a higher inaccuracy count than any I've ever
seen... although the meteor strike that gets Paris is very believable.

The one that always makes me laugh is when asteroids make a muted rumbling
noise as they go past the camera.

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> schreef in bericht 
news:csbvr21nu3l420uu17k36k3b8rmbb9js1j@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:07:57 -0800, Ben Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> 
> wrote:
>
>>They were all written by Arthur C. Clarke.
>
> The short story "The sentinel" haunted me for years until 2001 was made.
>

Ah yes! "The sentinel"! In a way, I prefer that story to 2001 itself.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:web.45c0774efa3b26c2731f01d10@news.povray.org...
> "Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> > I like. Is the grid an image map?
>
> Well, I thought it was, but closer inspection of Trevor Quayle's CGSphere
> template reveals it to be a UV-mapped pigment map. Which is nice, 'cos
> that's much easier to modify than an image map. The CGSphere.com zip file
> still contains an unused 'grid.tga' though, which confused me.

How did you do the stars then? That's probably one of the best starfields
I've seen done wih povray.

Post a reply to this message