Thread 24542246

Is it the perfect science fiction book? It's either this or The Time Machine, I reckon.

i genuinely believe frankenstein is the best sci fi story just for sheer breadth and longetivity

My personal favorite is the stars my destination but foundation is what I consider the gold standard

The movie is a genuinely poor adaptation

Foundation sucks. Most boring shit ever. PKD mogs that fucking retard

>>24542275
Ive only read ubik androids dream...I prefer asimov

>>24542283
Hylic

>>24542246 (OP)

-You made this failed thread with (IIRC) zero replies earlier. You are likely the party responsible for the other one with the anonymous name.

>>24542269

It's exactly the other way around. The movie is the really interesting thing, and the companion book is the forgettable thing that adds nothing. The whole rest of the media franchise can be ignored at no great loss. 2001 is Kubrick's best film.

>>24542246 (OP)
archon monoliths

Does the simulation thing (and dark forest thing) cleaner and leaner than most before or after it.

>>24542269
>The movie is a genuinely poor adaptation

The novel was contracted out by Kubrick, with full creative control. "Astronauts in outerspace is the most surface level of the narrative."

>>24542269
So poor an adaptation that it's always in top 10 movies where you wouldn't find the book in any top 10 books

>>24542381
it's just 'the sentinel' dragged out to the point of excess. there are no films superior to the stories they take from.

>>24542275
Based gnosticated retard.

>>24542394
>there are no films superior to the stories they take from.
2001, a clockwork orange, american psycho, breakfast at tiffany's.

>>24542511
Wrong, wrong, right, idfk.

>>24542528
You just hate the man.

>>24542546
No he's my favourite director. Full Metal Jacket is a masterpiece.

>>24542381
Kubrick is a hack that has never made a good film

>>24542246 (OP)
>fiction
except that part about the flying sky rocks and ook ooking monkeys

>>24542817
lmao

>>24542246 (OP)
the personal history, lifestyle, and behavioral habits of its author are kind of suspect

>>24542269
They were made concurrently tho. The film takes inspiration from an earlier Clarke short story

What's the better ACC novel: 2001, Rendezvous with Rama, or Childhood's End?

>>24542246 (OP)
>Is it the perfect science fiction book?
It isn't Haruhi Suzumiya so no

>>24542246 (OP)
2001, Solaris and Roadside Picnic are my favourites and they all search for a true “other” intelligence that’s borderline incomprehensible. In some ways they are the pinnacle of “cosmic horror” writing as well, even though that’s not their genre, if they affect you just right they will trigger that existential dread.

>>24542269
I came here to say this
I recently rewatched 2001 and was blown away by how little happens
Monke
Go to moon
Spaceship, HAL starts acting funny, dude gets thrown into space and thats basically the end

>>24544970
>What's the better ACC novel
I think the critical consensus is Childhoods End
My favorite is 2001 but Rama is one of, if not the best depiction of what deep space travel would actually be like, maybe ever
I honestly think that the "tubeship spinning to create gravity while having a walkable surface inside" thing will be invented one day and the scientists who make it happen are going to be like, "so there was this author in the 20th century..."

>>24542246 (OP)
I watched the movie and tried reading the book, the writing of the book was so painfully boring that I didn't even bother beyond the first few pages. It was just boring to read.

As a comparison, Fahrenheit 451 and its first movie are both good, but the movie was missing the mechanical hound. Won't watch the second movie adaptation since they were obviously pandering.

>>24542269
Movie and book were developed in parallel with some communication between Kubrick and Clark. They made two versions of the story for two types of media.
Also, consider that this was nothing like a modern, rote novelization because it was the late sixties. People barely had tvs, and home media was way later. People could only see a movie in the theater when it was on, or a play, or read a book, that was pretty much all they had

Blookmp

>>24546861
A few things. I love F451 too though I haven't seen the film. And ACC was a great writer in my opinion.

>>24546960
Television was pretty ubiquitous in the 1960s actually.

>>24548749
Yeah but mostly live broadcasts and certainly not in a format to rival the cinematic experience. And no home media. Point is a book was a more valued extra medium for a story. It's hard to evaluate that nowadays.
Similarly, while reading Moby Dick, I thought how a book like that at the time would be such a blessing. When you have little other culture with the availability amd convenience of a book, it makes more sense for it to be a whaling manual, whale encyclopedia and a dramatic story at the same time. Not self-indulgent at all, just generous

>>24548814
God bless you anon.