> Science fiction is entertainment. Any film or book that needs pretentious
> wankers to tell you what it means has just got to be rubbish. Even,
> especially, if the interpretations reveal something about the story that an
> audience might miss, it must have failed to tell the story. Its science
> fiction, not mystery. If the film-maker tells the story in such a way to
> necessitate someone explaining it to the audience later, then the film is a
> failure at best. At worst, such a film is a pretentious wank. Which is what
> we have here, not just a dismal failure, that would be forgivable, but a
> deliberately obscurant rendering of the story.
Clarke and Kubrick co-wrote the screenplay, and Clarke based the novel off of it. They were supposed to compliment each other.
-- Andy