Arthur C. Clarke

[BobBong]

This is kinda trippy.. and sad.

Arthur C. Clarke died tomorrow... urrr.. today.. depending on where you are...

according to my time.. he died... tomorrow! :wtf:

But seriously.. he was a good writer.. a one of a kind.

Sleep well kind sir.

BobBong Reviewed by BobBong on 03-19-2008. Arthur C. Clarke This is kinda trippy.. and sad. Arthur C. Clarke died tomorrow... urrr.. today.. depending on where you are... according to my time.. he died... tomorrow! :wtf: But seriously.. he was a good writer.. a one of a kind. Sleep well kind sir. Rating: 5

[Mr. Clandestine]

I just heard about this about an hour ago, bummed me out too. 2001 is a great read, and highly recommended to anyone who hasn't yet had the chance to read it. He lived a long & eventful life, though. I doubt he died with very many regrets.

[Dutch Pimp]

.."open the pod bay doors HAL"...."sorry, Dave...I can't do that"...

[DirtyB]

bummed.

[McLeodGanja]

R.I.P. ACC

:stoned:

[dragonrider]

Arthur C. Clarke died tomorrow... urrr.. today.. depending on where you are...

according to my time.. he died... tomorrow! :wtf:

He was always writing about the future, so maybe it is fitting that he somehow managed to die in the future...

I liked "2001," the novel, and also liked the movie. In a lot of ways, I felt like I got more out of the book. The movie was visually interesting and Kubrik made a great effort at authenticity, but the pace was a bit slow, and some of the visual special effects that were so revolutionary at the time distracted from the story. The book gave a better understanding for what was going on.

One of the wierd things about the book and the movie was that they were different in certain details, like in the book the planet was Saturn, but in the movie it was Jupiter. Then when the next book, "2010," came out, Clarke had written it as a sequel to the movie, with all its details consistent with the movie, not the previous book. I thought that was wierd. And then of course when that book was adapted as a movie, it had details that differred from "2010," the book...

Clarke was a visionary and actuallly invented the concept for some things that were later develioped in real life. I remember reading somewhere that he invented the idea of the communications satellite, long before there was any kind of satellite technology at all, before any kind of spaceflight.

[NextLineIsMine]

It was really trippy because I had just randomly decided to eat a brownie and watch 2001 earlier in the day before he died (I live in New Zealand btw.

WATCH 2001, its an absolutely mind blowing movie, way ahead of anything at the time. One of my favorite scenes is when hes jogging around the gravity simulating room

[dragonrider]

IWATCH 2001, its an absolutely mind blowing movie, way ahead of anything at the time. One of my favorite scenes is when hes jogging around the gravity simulating room

Did you ever see any video of the astronauts on the old Skylab from the 70's? They did sort of the same thing where they would do a "hamster wheel" run around the inside of the round Skylab. It didn't rotate, so there was no aritficial gravity, but their own momentum would keep them from drifitng off the surface, and it was a lot smaller so they couldn't do a full standing-up run, but it was very trippy. This was years after 2001, so it was cool to see something from the futuristic movie come to life.

If you are in New Zealand, maybe you have a chunk of Skylab in your backyard. Didn't pieces of it fall on Australia and New Zealand?

[McLeodGanja]

He was always writing about the future, so maybe it is fitting that he somehow managed to die in the future...

Yes indeed. Here is an interesting article from the BBC news site about him.

BBC NEWS | UK | Arthur C Clarke: predictions

I liked "2001," the novel, and also liked the movie. In a lot of ways, I felt like I got more out of the book. The movie was visually interesting and Kubrik made a great effort at authenticity, but the pace was a bit slow, and some of the visual special effects that were so revolutionary at the time distracted from the story. The book gave a better understanding for what was going on.

I am also a big fan of 2001, but I personally favour the less descriptive and more abstruse nature of the film. I watched in many many times before I read the book, usually stoned, and derived many interesting sub texts and meanings behind it. It is directed slow for a reason, to capture the isolation of being in deep space.

When I later went on to read the book I was somewhat disappointed to find the ending written so explicitly. It kind of made the final scenes in the film seem less fathomable, if that makes sense.

2010 is also a great film, but I found the book quite dry, and I only read half way through it before I lost my copy. Didn't bother with 2061, but I read 3001 and it was ... alright I suppose...

One of the wierd things about the book and the movie was that they were different in certain details, like in the book the planet was Saturn, but in the movie it was Jupiter. Then when the next book, "2010," came out, Clarke had written it as a sequel to the movie, with all its details consistent with the movie, not the previous book. I thought that was wierd. And then of course when that book was adapted as a movie, it had details that differred from "2010," the book...

Actually the film and the book were co-created by by Kubrick and Clarke together, but the book was based on two short stories written by Clarke decades earlier, one was called The Sentinel I think and the other I can't remember.

The reason that Jupiter was chosen for the film was simply down to limitations in special effect technology back then. I cannot remember why Clarke left it as saturn in the book.

Clarke was a visionary and actuallly invented the concept for some things that were later develioped in real life. I remember reading somewhere that he invented the idea of the communications satellite, long before there was any kind of satellite technology at all, before any kind of spaceflight.

Clarke is far from being the greatest science fiction writer of our time, however he was a great man, and a technological visionary. I will remember him best for his show I used to watch as a young boy, Arthur C Clarke's Mysterious World.

[smok3y]

Never herd of the guy.. I take it he was an author? was his books any good?

R.I.P. Arthur C. Clarke:hippy: