Wait, there’s a sequel? Is it any good?
2001 is a great movie but I never liked the LSD driven oil paint visuals at the end instead of a journey through the "Grand Central Station of the galaxy" depict in the Clarke's book
There were plans for 2061 movie but seems things stuck in the development hell.
There are also three other novels under "A Time Odyssey". Separate story but with similarities <spoiler>mysterious outsiders and fascinating human-made AIs</spoiler.
> Originally, Kubrick and Clarke had planned to develop a 2001 novel first, free of the constraints of film, and then write the screenplay. They planned the writing credits to be "Screenplay by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, based on a novel by Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick" to reflect their preeminence in their respective fields.[31] In practice, the screenplay developed in parallel with the novel, with only some elements being common to both.
> In the end, Clarke and Kubrick wrote parts of the novel and screenplay simultaneously, with the film version being released before the book version was published. Clarke opted for clearer explanations of the mysterious monolith and Star Gate in the novel; Kubrick made the film more cryptic by minimising dialogue and explanation.
However, 2010 was only a novel and later made in to a film, with the producer consulting with Clarke over email (in 1983).
Staring a young Helen Mirren as a Russian commander!
I actually prefer it to 2001, but if you read down thread you will see a strong opinion of which is better. :)
A fine space flick in the vein of pensive 1980s SF flicks, a genre I feel is revisited with The Expanse.