...
ITT: timeless films that will make sense to the average viewer even in the year 3017
2001 A space odyssey
The Tree of Life
Inland Empire
2001 A space odyssey
The Dark Knight Rises
The Tree Of Life
...
2001 A space odyssey
Speed Racer
White Chicks
2001 A space odyssey
Star Trek Beyond
Cowboys And Aliens
What if the people of the future live in a dystopian world where no one knows we evolved from monkeys
Rogue One, but of course we will all be living on like Death Stars and Starkiller bases by then and so it'll seem more like a coming-of-age flick and not be considered hard science fiction anymore.
2001 A space odyssey
2012
Dracula 2000
2001 a space odyssey
Birdimic 2
Mega shark vs Giant octopus
2001 A space odissey
Barry Lyndon
Lawrence Of Arabia
2001 A space odyssey
Young Thug - Check (Visual)
Marcianito 100% real bailando cumbia no fake
days of thunder
Drive
Problem Knight Rises Two
2001 A space odyssey
Beavis and Butthead Do America
Lord of the Rings
2001 a space odissey
Ghostbusters (2016)
Children of men
After reading the book, the film becomes little more than a very well crafted container: It's pretty and neat to look at it, but open it up, and it's empty. There is none of Clarke's vision of how a being we'd call God would communicate with us across unfathomable time spans, or teach us, or lead us into higher consciousness. Stripped away by Kubrick is the sense that this being truly wants us to be in its image, and that the whole breadcrumb trail of monoliths was designed to do just that. And completely erased is the notion that David Bowman, as Star Child, is now one with the Universe, in some Zen-like way, and also much more like something we'd called a god.
Don't get me wrong, 2001 is still one of my favorite films, but to get the full meaning and understand the full weight of why 2001 has been called "the perfect science fiction story," you must read the book. Clarke marries science, mysticism, theory, and fantasy in ways like no other. Unfortunately, Kubrick stripped away the mysticism and theory and left us what is, in comparison to the book, only a glimmer at something bigger.
Kubrick touched the monolith, but Clarke went inside.
pleb
2001: A Space Odyssey
Alien
Back to the Future
They're companion pieces moron.
The book explains things the Film leaves vague, the film tells things from the book visually.
They were produced at the same time, and the film came out before the book.
It's like saying The Phantom Menace novelisation is better than the Phantom Menace because it explains bits more.
>but to get the full meaning and understand the full weight of why 2001 has been called "the perfect science fiction story," you must read the book.
false. In its purest form Sci-Fi as a genre is about high science and its impact on all facets of life down to the lowest dregs of society.
Keeping that in mind the reason why 2001 is the perfect sci fi is because it looks at science and technology from so many different angles, It looks at space travel, it looks at AI it looks at other dimensions, evolution, exploration advancement. Its a story about discovery and survival and shows that anyone can go on a journey through time and space to discover themselves and a place for themselves in a universe we don;t fully understand. It breaks down man and his relationship with technology and the universe in a degree that no other movie (except for mayyyyybe the matrix) even comes close to.
Thats why its the best sci fi of all time and thats totally irrespective of the arthur C clark book