I first saw 2001 (and read the novel) as a teenage boy who was very interested in space travel - both book and film fascinated me. The lengthy and detailed depictions of space flight in the movie never bothered me; on the contrary, they were my favorite passages. After reading the original post on this thread, I found myself pondering how to explain the difference in our reactions, but found it difficult to explain. As I was lying in bed last night, I remembered something I read by C.S. Lewis years ago that seemed very pertinent. It may not seem to have any relevance to 2001 (or science fiction) but there is a connection - trust me. I was lucky enough to be able to find the passage online. This is a longish quote (though I have edited it down a bit) but it expresses very well a point that I want to make. This is from the essay titled “On Stories” which is collected in the volume of the same name. He is describing a conversation he once had with a man who had loved the stories of James Fenimore Cooper.
“I asked him whether he were sure that he was not over-emphasizing and falsely isolating the importance of the danger simply as danger. For though I had never read Fenimore Cooper I had enjoyed other books about ‘Red Indians’. And I knew that what I wanted from them was not simply ‘excitement’. Dangers, of course, there must be: how else can you keep a story going? But they must (in the mood which led one to such a book) be Redskin dangers. The ‘Redskinnery’ was what really mattered. In such a scene as my friend had described, take away the feathers, the high cheek-bones, the whiskered trousers, substitute a pistol for a tomahawk, and what would be left? For I wanted not the momentary suspense but that whole world to which it belonged–the snow and the snow-shoes, beavers and canoes, war-paths and wigwams, and Hiawatha names. Thus I; and then came the shock. …] He replied that he was perfectly certain that ‘all that’ had made no part of his pleasure. …] Indeed–and this really made me feel as if I were talking to a visitor from another planet–in so far as he had been dimly aware of ‘all that’, he had resented it as a distraction from the main issue. He would, if anything, have preferred to the Redskin some more ordinary danger such as a crook with a revolver.”
I myself once had an experience very similar to Lewis’ when discussing
The Lord of the Rings with a classmate in college. He liked the book very much but criticized the large amount of poetry, saying it did nothing to advance the story and would have been better left out. I was rather amazed, since the passages that include poetry are among my favorite passages in the whole book. Thinking about the difference in our reactions helped me to analyze exactly what it is that I love about the book; and that is first and foremost the overall mood - the atmosphere, the “flavor” if you like - of this imaginary world, which is so different from our own and yet so similar - everything shimmering with the promise of magic, and yet just as full of pragmatic, realistic detail as our own world. The numerous poems and songs which appear throughout play an important role in creating that atmosphere.
I think a very similar dynamic explains our different reactions to
2001: A Space Odyssey. What I most loved about it as a young lad was the detailed, believable depiction of space travel. This is very different from the space travel of Star Wars or Star Trek, in which (for example) spacecraft always have artificial gravity, so that the characters can walk around the halls of their vessels just as if they were walking around a building on Earth, and no explanation is ever given. I’m not saying that is a flaw, just that it’s a different kind of science fiction. What fascinated me about the scenes of space flight in 2001 was the fact that it was (or seemed to be) believable and realistic.
For example, on the shuttlecraft which carries Dr. Floyd from Earth to the space station, there is a close-up of the stewardess’ shoes, showing that they have Velcro bottoms to enable her to remain connected to the floor in spite of the weightlessness of space. I can’t find words to express the delight which this detail created in me. The fact that it contributed nothing to the plot was irrelevant. What did I care about plot? The important thing was that I was seeing human beings travelling in space! The joy! The wonder! The marvel of it! The triumph of human ingenuity, of the impulse to explore! Those scenes could have been twice as long as they were, and I wouldn’t have minded in the least.
I could easily go on and give more examples - one of my favorite things about the movie is that it deals seriously with the difficulty of creating artificial gravity on a prolonged space flight. Incidentally, the movie The Martian (just released last month) also deals with the same issue, and comes up with exactly the same answer - the use of centrifugal force to create the illusion of gravity, by putting the space travelers in a large spanning drum or wheel. As I said, it would be easy for me to give many more examples but I think it would be beside the point, and anyway this post is probably too long already. I hope I have managed to convey to the OP what it is that I love about this movie and why the things that bothered him/her (?) didn’t bother me.
