Is it good? How does it compare to the movie?

>>9754856
It's good, it has some differences with the movie

>>9754996
What are the differences?

stanley kubrick might be the greatest cinematographer to have ever lived so the source material probably will never live up to his movies.

I've only read clockwork and the shining, though. in clockwork's case the movie sucked less than the book and in the shining's case the movie is a masterpiece whereas the book is a typical shat-out king horror.

>>9755016
>tanley kubrick might be the greatest cinematographer to have ever lived so the source material probably will never live up to his movies.
/tv/ disagrees.

>>9755046
and?

>>9755076
I was trying to imply that /tv/ has shit taste.

>>9754856
I thought it was decent, but I also hated the movie. I get people like cinematography but i can only watch asteroids spinning around in space for so fucking long

>>9754856
It's very good but the film stands on its own entirely, it's almost not really an adaptation.

>>9755046
/tv/ also doesn't watch anything outside of Game of Thrones. Those fools don't know 'bout muh Ozu.

>>9755113
pleb.

>>9755016
>>9755046
>>9755097
Kobayashi, Kurosawa, Ozu, Dreyer, Tarkovski and Bergman are better.

>>9755259
I wouldn't really consider kobayashi or kurosawa to be on kubrick's level whatsoever as far as cinematography goes but they are top-tier directors. tarkovsky and ozu could be considered at his level of cinematographic skill but I personally don't find their movies to be anywhere near as entertaining, not that this is entirely relevant to my original post. not sure where you get off with dreyer or bergman, just directors that made a few good movies. might as well throw in lang or hitchcock if mentioning those two.

honestly I'm more impressed with the cinematography in beyond the black rainbow than anything that kubrick made, but I'll wait until he has more than one movie before I call him better. there are a lot of movies I like more than the shining but it's just about the only movie I'd call 'flawless', and I watch a lot of movies. there are just some movies out there that I enjoy aspects of enough to not care about the flaws of. hunter prey for example, I like that movie more than anything made by the directors you listed but it's much wonkier than most anything they've made.

>>9754856
It's pretty good. Unlike the movie, however, it is not sublime.

If you want to watch a movie that more accurately portrays Clarke's vision, watch 2001's sequel, 2010: The Year We Made Contact.

>>9755259
You can't beat Kubrick, mate.

>>9755113
>>9755259
>>9755390
>Hating the movie
Fucking plebs

File: metal gear.jpg (309KB, 1101x1536px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 1101x1536px

I read the book then found out there was a movie. Book is much better, the chinese journey to the Jovian moon was completely ignored! theres more to the book. Anyway both are amazing.

>>9755259
Contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

>>9755512
maybe but ozu really is an incredible cinematographer and I recommend his movies to anyone who's into that side of film.

>>9755004

In the book, they go out to Saturn as opposed to Jupiter. Specifically, the monolith and the critical events take place around the moon Iapetus. This experiment is unique to this novel, as all further novels and books have the critical events as having taken place around Jupiter.

This mysterious mission out to Saturn, as opposed to Jupiter, is a story element shared with the recent Interstellar movie.

There is also an awkward phase following Frank Poole's death where Dave and HAL are left alone on board the ship. Dave demands to assume control, but HAL is resisting him, and even depressurizes the ship at one point, killing the hibernating astronauts (Dave manually secures a room for himself, just in time). So it's not a matter of Dave getting back into the ship from outside with no helmet, but instead a brief battle of wits inside the ship. The basic threat of being exposed to a vacuum is used in both versions, of course.

The names of the hibernating astronauts, and the nicknames for the space pods vary a bit among all the media as well. There are even gaffes regarding the pods among the related media, books and movies - though some of this can be explained by the fact that Clarke just does variations on the same theme, and is expressly not being autistic about/worrying about continuity too hard.

>>9755016

Clarke and Kubrick developed both book and movie simultaneously, as distinct-yet-related projects, so it's misleading to say that the book is "the source material" for the movie. Specifically they jointly did the film's screenplay, Kubrick made his film using that, and Clarke did his own variation on the theme as the novel.

In fact, the very first piece of Space Odyssey media to be released /was the movie itself/, with the companion book following immediately thereafter.

>>9754856
movie sucks a little bit if you compare it with the source material, i mean, the scene with all the fucking light is a scene where the characters fucking discover alien life, but it Kubrick shit it´s an allegory to point to no fucking way, but wannabe cunt suck his balls, because were so deep for them.

>>9755310
Bergman is the greatest director tho

>>9754856
It's an average book.

The movie is an amazing work of art though.

>>9755259
Nice

File: 1475413562556.jpg (7KB, 240x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 240x200px

>>9755444
>It's pretty good. Unlike the movie, however, it is not sublime.
>the book is pretty good
>however, it is not as good as the movie
>the movie is sublime


>hating the movie
~~~~~~le xDDDDDDDDDDDD literature bOarD GrEat ReAdIng ComprEhenSion xdddddd

get back to /tv/ dumb phoneposter

It's a must read for any fan of the movie, since it explains a lot of stuff that doesn't get explained in the movie. I also like the second half of the book a lot more than how the movie handled it (obviously for time reasons, the movie story was shortened).

It's an alright book, but I think it goes hand-in-hand with he movie.

>>9754856
It's good
2010 is OK
2061 and 3001 are shit

When Clarke saw the movie in theaters, he had to leave midway into the film and wept in the bathroom stall in utter agony at how the movie had totally failed his hyperrational scientific vision of space. It's reported that he collapsed after wailing loudly enough to frighten children in the lobby and that he had to be escorted to a safe zone by theatre staffe.
Take that as evidence of how far the book exceedeth the (((movie)))