What was Arthur Clarke thinking?

Speaking only of TDTESS and 2001: ASO, it could be that Clarke was simply placing more importance on a film that pointed out the foibles in human behavior than one that pointed out potential technological foibles.

Both dealt with humans not being able to control their own technology to be sure, but while 2001: ASO dealt mainly with the potential problems humans may experience because of their own arrogance as the lines between human and the artificial intelligence humans create grow closer, TDTESS dealt with the potential repercussions humans could face because of their own immaturity when utilizing their technology as a species, whether it be only against themselves, or anyone/anything else.

Clarke admitted a long time ago that 2001 wasn't really his baby. He said it was about 90% Kubrick, 5% the SFX people and 5% him.

Someone needs to explain to me why Clarke is always 'one of the world's greatest science-fiction authors of all time'.

He was an important figure in the development of the genre like Asimov (with whom he is often lumped) responsible to a degree for bringing a certain scientific rigour to the field - but as a writer he was not that great a stylist, and his stories are pretty mechanical.





----------
"Look! - it's the Invisible Man!"

"King Kong" is Fantasy, as opposed to Science Fiction: ask Eric Rankin at U of M.

You sound bitter.

I think you should be more upset over his placing of Things To Come. I can think of several Science Fictions films greater than it.

Could it be this is just a list and not a ranking? Could it be he knows a wee bit more about good science fiction than you?

Now Mickeyone nobody really needs to explain Arthur C Clarke's list to you; there could be any number of reasons for his choices based on all sorts of different criteria, but since he is regarded as a true visionary in the world of science and sci-fi, one of "the big three" in sci-fi literature (with, Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein) and the chap that proposes using satellites for communication and the "space elevator", multiple award winner (the list is too long to put here) then I don't think it is worth questioning his judgement. I think his credentials are in order.

I've seen every movie on the list and they all look good to me. I've met Arthur C Clarke, but I didn't ask him about Sci-fi and there may well be personal reasons for a film being on his list, but perhaps he didn't rate 2001 as highly because of personal modesty, he struck me a gentleman in the way he conducted himself and also, I would agree with him here; I think "The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)" is the better movie. When I watched 2001 (in the 1970's) I found it incomprehensible, but I went to see it with someone who had read the book, they explained bits on the way home, so it ended up only semi-incomprehensible. Nobody had to explain the plot of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" to me, an alien has arrived and he is "way out of our league"; he and his rather lethal companion have arrived for a reason. It is also well made, strong plot line, good characterisation. I have it higher on my list.

The list says quite a lot about Arthur C Clarke the man. Visionary movies top the list .... the shape of things to come. Monster movies feature throughout the list and while I know he liked Gorillas and campaigned to save them, King Kong on the big screen is one of the great movie monsters, as is the alien in Alien (1979) as is Gort for that matter and not forgetting the "invisible ID monster of Altair 5". I would say that there are some movies conspicuous by their absence: The Time Machine (1960); War of the Worlds (1953); Back to the Future 2 (1989), so it looks like Time Travel and marauding alien armies are not favoured by Mr Clarke. What seems to run right through the list is the concept of "individualism", well that and really scary monsters. It's possible he didn't like the adaptation of his story and if you watch the remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and I'd strongly advise you not to, then you can see what that might feel like. I don't know, but it's on the list.

So I'll side with my big pal Arthur C on this particular issue; but I would disagree with him on at least one point; I think the remake of The Thing from Another World (original version) (1951) ... is John Carpenter's "The Thing" (1982) and it's higher on list list of "movies that will creep the bejeebies out of you"; I think it's the better version. I liked "Logan's Run"; Rocky Horror Picture Show" (but I wouldn't have ever recommended that to Arthur C) and "Forbidden Planet" (1956) is my favourite on his list. Number two on my list "The Day the Earth Stood Still". Number three would be "Harvey" (1950) ... but I would accept that this is not "hard Sci fi" and falls outside the criteria. Still it's a masterpiece of "something" (imo). I would say that after watching 2001, the song "Daisy Daisy" was never quite the same again and it's a worthy contender to be on a list of top Sci-Fi movies. I suppose the short answer to your question of why the list is the way it is, is because that is the way Arthur C Clarke wanted to be. I think his taste in sci-fi movies is fine; not a Werewolf; Vampire or Wizard in sight, I think he knows what he likes.

I was in Asia, on a ship, in a casino, supervising an "empty table"; the Ship was travelling from Singapore, up to Phuket, in Thailand and I talked to an elderly Englishman (who wasn't gambling) about Burma and his experiences there; then two days later, on return to Singapore, I opened a Sci-Fi book and the authors picture inside was Arthur C Clarke, the man I had been talking to and had just not recognised. Well that happened in the 90's and I'm nearly over it now.........

Now Mickeyone nobody really needs to explain Arthur C Clarke's list to you; there could be any number of reasons for his choices based on all sorts of different criteria, but since he is regarded as a true visionary in the world of science and sci-fi, one of "the big three" in sci-fi literature (with, Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein) and the chap that proposes using satellites for communication and the "space elevator", multiple award winner (the list is too long to put here) then I don't think it is worth questioning his judgement. I think his credentials are in order.

I've seen every movie on the list and they all look good to me. I've met Arthur C Clarke, but I didn't ask him about Sci-fi and there may well be personal reasons for a film being on his list, but perhaps he didn't rate 2001 as highly because of personal modesty, he struck me a gentleman in the way he conducted himself and also, I would agree with him here; I think "The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)" is the better movie. When I watched 2001 (in the 1970's) I found it incomprehensible, but I went to see it with someone who had read the book, they explained bits on the way home, so it ended up only semi-incomprehensible. Nobody had to explain the plot of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" to me, an alien has arrived and he is "way out of our league"; he and his rather lethal companion have arrived for a reason. It is also well made, strong plot line, good characterisation. I have it higher on my list.

The list says quite a lot about Arthur C Clarke the man. Visionary movies top the list .... the shape of things to come. Monster movies feature throughout the list and while I know he liked Gorillas and campaigned to save them, King Kong on the big screen is one of the great movie monsters, as is the alien in Alien (1979) as is Gort for that matter and not forgetting the "invisible ID monster of Altair 5". I would say that there are some movies conspicuous by their absence: The Time Machine (1960); War of the Worlds (1953); Back to the Future 2 (1989), so it looks like Time Travel and marauding alien armies are not favoured by Mr Clarke. What seems to run right through the list is the concept of "individualism", well that and really scary monsters. It's possible he didn't like the adaptation of his story and if you watch the remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and I'd strongly advise you not to, then you can see what that might feel like. I don't know, but it's on the list.

So I'll side with my big pal Arthur C on this particular issue; but I would disagree with him on at least one point; I think the remake of The Thing from Another World (original version) (1951) ... is John Carpenter's "The Thing" (1982) and it's higher on the list of "movies that will creep the bejeebies out of you"; I think it's the better version. I liked "Logan's Run"; Rocky Horror Picture Show" (but I wouldn't have ever recommended that to Arthur C) and "Forbidden Planet" (1956) is my favourite on his list. Number two on my list "The Day the Earth Stood Still". Number three would be "Harvey" (1950) ... but I would accept that this is not "hard Sci fi" and falls outside the criteria. Still it's a masterpiece of "something" (imo). I would say that after watching 2001, the song "Daisy Daisy" was never quite the same again and it's a worthy contender to be on a list of top Sci-Fi movies. I suppose the short answer to your question of why the list is the way it is, is because that is the way Arthur C Clarke wanted to be. I think his taste in sci-fi movies is fine; not a Werewolf; Vampire or Wizard in sight, I think he knows what he likes.

I was in Asia, on a ship, in a casino, supervising an "empty table"; the Ship was travelling from Singapore, up to Phuket, in Thailand and I talked to an elderly Englishman (who wasn't gambling) about Burma and his experiences there; then two days later, on return to Singapore, I opened a Sci-Fi book and the authors picture inside was Arthur C Clarke, the man I had been talking to and had just not recognised. Well that happened in the 90's and I'm nearly over it now.........