 | | Re: My Space Theme Wish for 2001
|
| (...) Not too painful for me. In fact, the models and sets had to be painstakingly reconstructed from archival photography and notes still in existence, and only following the approval of Kubrick himself. Dave! (26 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.year.2001, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: My Space Theme Wish for 2001
|
| (...) Destroyed to prevent a sequel? Then how, praytell, did that morass called "2010" make it into the cinemas? (Or have I dredged up painful memories?) (...) You could electrochrome it, and make it into the Cosmic Ho-Ho from "Star Trek IV." At (...) (26 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.year.2001, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: My Space Theme Wish for 2001
|
| (...) Quite. In _The Making of 2001_ by Clarke, he relates how the book and the movie were written essentially at the same time by both of them, with Kubrick focusing more on script and Clarke more on prose. The book is by "Arthur C Clarke and (...) (26 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.year.2001, lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: My Space Theme Wish for 2001
|
| Interesting thought, that, since the cylinder was, what, 50 miles long? Or maybe 50 km? I don't have time to do the math now, but what would that be in studs? David (...) (26 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.year.2001, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: My Space Theme Wish for 2001
|
| (...) The film and cinematography owe at least as much to Kubrick's vision as to Clarke's, and it was by Kubrick's request that the original models and schematics used in the film were destroyed to prevent a cheap knock-off sequel. For that matter, (...) (26 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.year.2001, lugnet.space)
|
|
