heliotis (01/03/83)
Just read Odyssey II by Arthur C. Clarke. I was not expecting much from a "sequel" book, but I was pleasantly surprised. Clarke is quite a scientist, and he uses the knowledge he has acquired over the last 15 years to help him write this book. I'm sure many of you CS types found HAL's sophistication hard to swallow; he seems to try to explain and justify how these 9000 series computers work with a lot of jargon that seems closer to 1980's "reality". Also, his use of the information from our Voyager missions is excellent. As to the drama side, I found the story reasonably exciting; I did not put the book down until I finished it (4AM!). However, I suspect there are other SF authors who can get you involved better with the characters. Clarke is still pretty good. Two negative things. I found myself disappointed that he decided to follow the movie of 2001 where it differed from his book (He claims the book was written first, then modified as the movie was being made). Also, sometimes, especially in the epilogue, I was make a little uncomfortable by all his apologies and justifications for the story, but then again, I'd be a little nervous two, if I was trying to get people to like a sequel to a great story. My mother sez she's heard a movie will be made from 2010. Wouldn't it be nice if Kubrick directed again? Jim Heliotis
bstempleton (01/06/83)
Kubrick doesn't seem to like to do sequels... Anyway, Clarke justifies using Jupiter in 2010 because we know so much more about the moons of Jupiter from the space missions. We know a fair bit about saturn, but not as much. Also, for those who read it, it's important that it is Jupiter for what happens.
mclure (03/09/83)
#R:rocheste:-36100:sri-unix:13200003:000:370 sri-unix!mclure Jan 12 14:00:00 1983 A recent LOCUS said something about Clarke telling Kubrick he would not be involved and not to allow any other director on it in Kubrick's dealings with whatever company is producing it. Personally, if it has to be done, Kubrick should do it, because anyone else would foul it up; however if "2010: The Movie" can be avoided, by all means I hope it is canned. Stuart
mclure (03/09/83)
#R:watmath:-418500:sri-unix:13200004:000:294 sri-unix!mclure Jan 13 09:34:00 1983 Jupiter was used in 2001 movie simply because at that time special effects could not realistically duplicate Saturn's rings. Nowadays, of course, it's almost "trivial" compared to things like the trip through the asteroid belt in The Empire Strikes Back (my favorite special effect). Stuart
trainor%UCLA-CS@sri-unix.UUCP (01/28/84)
From: Douglas J. Trainor <trainor@UCLA-CS> MGM/UA's production of the film has started, but can you wait until the December release?!? Peter "Outland" Hyames is the producer/director, Richard Edlund is the visual effects supervisor, and Syd Mead is the visual futurist. The sets have been built and the live-action shooting starts next month. I am with the computer graphics group producing great quantities of video resolution graphics. Douglas J. Trainor Video Image Associates Marina Del Rey, California trainor@ucla-cs ...decvax!ucbvax!ucla-vax!ucla-cs!trainor
horovitz%su-shasta@yoda.UUCP (01/28/84)
Earlier this week I was reading the Boston Herald, and noticed a small article about 2010 the sequel to 2001. They anounced that the lead role was cast to Roy Scheider(sp) of Blue Thunder fame. The character he will play is probably is Heywood Floyd. Anyone who has heard different, it sure would help for you to speak up. n.l.h.
rachiele%NADC@sri-unix.UUCP (08/13/84)
Having just read 2010 by Clarke, is he accurate when he describes the method of sling-shoting around Jupiter? He says you decelerate to lose velocity, to fall toward the planet. This sounds backwards to me. I would think you would need to increase the magnatude of your velocity, angling in the direction of the planet, to produce the hyperbolic orbit needed. Am I off the wall? Jim Rachiele
alpert@nanook.DEC (12/16/84)
Did anyone else happen to notice how after 9 years in orbit around Jupiter, all of Discovery's flat panel video screens (most of which were square or taller than than they were wide) were transformed into standard color CRT's? Must have been some strange side-effect of the monolith! :^) ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-nanook!alpert
@RUTGERS.ARPA:TRUDEL@RU-BLUE.ARPA (01/16/85)
From: Jon <TRUDEL@RU-BLUE.ARPA> I have a few qualms about the discussion regarding 2010. Here goes--- (and please forgive me, I haven't read the 2010 book yet) 1) I am ashamed at some of you out there! This whole matter of a missing helmet in the pod bay is driving me nuts! Do you think that the space agency that sent out Discovery (is it still Nasa?) would skimp in the spacesuit department? I should hope that the powers that be would have provided a spacesuit for each person on the trip, EVEN THOSE IN HIBERNATION! God forbid that when all were revived a problem arise in the ship requiring each crewmember to suit up. What happens to Kaminsky, et al? Suffocation? I think not! 2) The end of the film really bit the big one, I'm sure you all agree. Very anticlimactic, if you ask me. Hyams really blew it by leading us on with the "Something Wonderful..." bit. It was more like "Something Catastrophic...". An ultimatum from Bowman would have been more reasonable; something along the lines of "If you don't leave within 48 hours, you'll be neutronized" would make me stop in my tracks faster than it "o-my-gosh, golly-o-gee Something Wonderful..." As Jupiter was imploding, I completely cringed at Dr. Floyd yelling "hurry!" Obviously, the Leonov was up at cranking speed, and could not go any faster. I would have preferred him to adopt the Arthur Dent Attitude of Impending Doom, ie. "so this is it, we're going to die." Although not a tension builder, it would be more realistic. Finally, an implosion of Jupiter has to be able to cause disasterous things to the Leonov and the Earth. Consider this- a power that has the ability to create stars should also have the power to shield selected objects from being annihilated by the event. I don't think that this is unreasonable. They/he/she/it would have at least computed the ramifications in advance of actually making a sun (there was enough time to, over the course of the millions of years of human development). 3) There is something else that no-one has mentioned (or is it in the book?). What happened to SAL? The only hint of this in the movie comes after HAL asks Dr. Chandra, "Will I Dream?". Dr. Chandra replies, "I don't know..." Does this mean that he lost SAL? Let's have some discussion about this. JOn (TRUDEL@RU-BLUE.ARPA) The preceding discussion represents the opinion of myself, and not my employers or anyone else for that matter. It's what sets me apart from the rest of you. -------
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (01/28/85)
> ... Consider this- a power that has the ability to > create stars should also have the power to shield selected objects > from being annihilated by the event. ---------- Why? My astrophysical knowledge is lamentably thin, but I can imagine that there might be a simple way of taking an object like Jupiter, which is like a star in many respects, and adding mass and perhaps changing the element ratios a little to kick it over a threshold and ignite it. Why would that imply the ability to shield a fragile object that would be inside the surface of the resulting star? The processes involved in the former operation could be very slow moving (perhaps they'd been assembling mass since the first monolith was deposited for early man's benefit), the shielding operation is entirely different -- requiring rapid response and delicate operations. The only physical operations we see are on a fairly gross scale. scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
mccann@sjuvax.UUCP (mccann) (01/30/85)
Perhaps I don't understand the full ramifications of Jupiter's becoming a star, but I can't see it having much of an effect on Earth (catrastrophically speaking that is). It seems to me that it would be a very small, cool star (Otherwise, how could life be supported on its former moons?) The energy from it that would reach earth wouldn't be all that tremendous, so why would the earth have to be protected?