Finally saw 2001: A Space Odyssey and am still reeling from that ending. Anyone know some interesting high strangeness theories or videos about this film?

I enjoy the book and movie, each on its own merits. >There are slight differences between the two There is an immense *number* of differences between the two. To me, many of them are meaningful. As to what is "slight" and what is "major" that is an opinion, and on a case by case basis. To me, many of the differences are major. (E.g. in the book there are many Earth monoliths, and they spend a long time teaching or brainwashing the creatures against their will. (Clarke claims the monoliths are active teaching machines. Speaking only for myself, when I went to school, I was not brainwashed against my will--I cannot speak for Clarke's educational experience.) In the movie there is one Earth monolith and it is passive, implacable; it is the creatures' encounter with it which is active. I see no learning; I see an ecstatic experience, a religious epiphany as it were--and that is utterly unlike what Clarke claims about it in the book. In the book the creatures learn to kill others of their kind--have they passed or failed their class? Clarke does not say. .... As to how someone would conclude these differences are slight, I cannot say, you can speak for yourself.) (E.g. n the book Poole goes on the first EVA; e.g. Bowman does not go on an EVA later to try to rescue Poole; e.g. Bowman does not forget his helmet; e.g. there is no emergency re-entry into Discovery; e.g. there is no conspiracy in a pod which HAL learns about via lip reading; and so on and so on and so on. As to how someone would conclude these differences are slight, I cannot say, you can speak for yourself. >but tell the same story. They have the same rough plot but almost nothing else in common--and that is not due to them existing in different media. Story or plot is not everything. The movie, more than most, is not its plot. The book is plot and only plot. (E.g. the worldviews differ. E.g. the purpose of technology differs. E.g. the meaning of life differs. And so on and so on and so on. Even the food differs.) >I think the novel having the benefit of narration added much to the meaning, message, and theories presented in the story To me the book is of no value whatsoever in appreciating and enjoying the movie. Indeed, the book tells me what to think and offers puzzles with solutions; the movie allows me to think about what I experience and offers Mysteries. In effect the book offers fan fiction relative to the movie. Clarke relates some very peculiar information about his characters. (E.g. he writes that HAL was programmed to lose half his chess games--and that the humans he plays know that--to *increase* morale. Clearly this would play havoc with everyone's morale. HAL would either know and perhaps resent losing to mere humans who cheat via his programming; or HAL would not know why he can only win half his games, would perform a self-diagnostic, and learn the humans were cheating; meanwhile, the humans would know any win against HAL might be tainted.) >While the movie left the explanation of events open to a certain amount of interpretation in a very well-done way, I feel that the book left the meaning of the events open to interpretation and did a great job elaborating on the events themselves. I disagree intensely. To me, the movie is not about explanation--having one or finding one; it is about experience, about awe, the sublime, and so on--about the nature of reality, consciousness, and so on. The book is about explanation--about the solar system and technology. (The book is science with some fiction; the movie is fiction with some science.) Clarke will not permit a reader to think. He explains everything, even things not needing explanation. Strangely, his book answers none of the questions I have about the movie. Clarke and his book seem utterly unaware of, well, stuff which I will not go into here. The book has no metaphysics, no philosophy, no religious aspects; the movie overflows with them. If the book has symbolism, Clarke explains it--even typically points out it *is* symbolism by using the word "symbol." I interpret the movie overflows with symbolism, and yet doesn't explain it, even less point it out to begin with. The book is largely humorless--I recognize Clarke's attempts to be funny, but it just doesn't work for me. The movie is funny and in many ways. (I don't claim it is hilarious or a comedy.)