🚀 go-pugleaf

Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote in news:fp4cpcFkh8mU10
@mid.individual.net:

> 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.

"Lost Worlds of 2001" had a number of Clarke's plot outlines that were 
rejected.