🚀 go-pugleaf

On 22 Jun 2018 21:21:21 GMT, Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 12:49:25 -0500, JimP wrote:
>
>> On 22 Jun 2018 13:44:12 GMT, Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
>> 
>>>On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 08:18:32 -0500, JimP wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22 Jun 2018 07:26:34 GMT, ma...@mail.com wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>On 2018-06-21, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 06:53:31 -0400, Peter Flass
>>>>>>> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 19 Jun 2018 21:33:20 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The first one, now number 4, was the best sf movie since
>>>>>>>>> Forbidden Planet. My high school buddies and I had given up ever
>>>>>>>>> seeing a good sf movie again.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2001?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> My recollection is foggy, but my thought at the time was that Star
>>>>>>>> Wars dropped in as a full-featured sci-fi movie into a desert of
>>>>>>>> creature features and cheap B movies. I think it started the trend
>>>>>>>> toward higher-class scifi now in the movies and on tv.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The Andromeda Strain, The Omega Man, THX 1138, Silent Running,
>>>>>>> Solaris, Fantastic Planet, Soylent Green, Dark Star, The Terminal
>>>>>>> Man, A Boy and His Dog,
>>>>>>> Logan's Run, The Man Who Fell to Earth, Close Encounters of the
>>>>>>> Third Kind... just some of the films from that period -- hardly a
>>>>>>> desert.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It was 2001 that really set the higher bar for science fiction
>>>>>>> cinema, but nobody tried to reach it for quite a while.  Star Wars
>>>>>>> did spawn a host of imitators, none of which were as good and some
>>>>>>> of which were truly awful.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2001 was good, but the ending was hokey - not the fault of the
>>>>>> movie,
>>>>>> since the book was also. I saw many of the others and thought some
>>>>>> were pretty good. Blade Runner beat them all, but I believe that
>>>>>> came after SW.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>AFAIK, the Book (2001) came after the film, and was really the
>>>>>`bookifying'
>>>>>of the script. Great film.
>>>> 
>>>> They were written at the same time. The author and the film maker had
>>>> a number of arguments.
>>>
>>>There is another book about it.
>> 
>> The story I read titled 'The Sentinel', was a short story.
>
>No, you misunderstand. There was:
>
>1) The Sentinel (short story)
>2) The 2001 book
>3) The book about the writing/making of 2001

I read the short story, then saw the movie. The only other book I read
about it was how the movie was put together.