Visual effects legend Douglas Trumbell on working with Kubrick on 2001: A Space Odyssey
Select pages from the final shooting script of 2001: A Space Odyssey as exactly reprinted in the original version of the book The Making of Kubrick’s 2001 (edited wonderfully by Jerome Agel 1970—second printing, pg 165.)
With thanks to Matt Degennaro

The complete screenplay of Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. Typographically designed to read during watching the movie.
I just received this out-of-print gem. I’m over the moon!
It is such a shame that this book is out-of-print. It is filled with everything you ever wanted to know about 2001. It leads off with Arthur C. Clarke’s short story “The Sentinel” and closes with a complete reprint of Stanley Kubrick’s interview with Playboy magazine. In between are profiles, interviews with technical advisors, effects secrets revealed, letters to Stanley from the moviegoing public, as well as reviews of the film, both good and bad. A fascinating snapshot of a moment in history when the world was caught off guard by a motion picture. Search your local used book stores, like I did. If you’re a Kubrick fan, it’s worth the effort.
Coming soon to Cinephilia and Beyond.
With endless thanks to Matt Degennaro
Stanley Kubrick with Arthur C. Clarke, 2001 Reservoir Dogs style
Below is a brilliantly far ranging and lengthy interview with Stanley Kubrick, carried out after the completion of 2001: A Space odyssey, and while he was still researching his planned biopic of Napoleon Bonaparte. —An Interview With Stanley Kubrick (1969) From “The Film Director As Superstar”
With thanks to @johnneyred
Terence Davies’ Introduction to 2001: A Space Odyssey for TV.
A bit of an oddity today: the introduction to a television broadcast of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) on BBC2′s The Film Club from director Terence Davies (The House of Mirth, The Long Day Closes and Distant Voices, Still Lives). Davies is strikingly accompanied by images from the film, a blank black background, and an imposing set light. 2001 was the last in a programme of Kubrick films on the screening series and Davies cites it as his personal favourite. One incredible aspect of the series was its commitment to show the film in its widescreen aspect ratio, which Davies makes a point of celebrating. —Spencer Everhart, The Seventh Art
Source: theseventhart.org
2001: A Space Odyssey screenplay by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke [pdf]. The complete screenplay of Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. Typographically designed to read during watching the movie [pdf]. (NOTE: For educational purposes only)

On March 31st of 1964, Stanley Kubrick initiated contact with author Arthur C. Clarke by way of the following letter, in which the filmmaker declared an interest in the two collaborating to produce, in his words, “the proverbial ‘really good’ science-fiction movie.” Clarke was immediately keen — so much so that just three weeks later, on April 22nd, the pair met at the Plaza Hotel in New York and, according to Clarke, “talked for eight solid hours about science fiction.” Four years later, the groundbreaking result of their partnership — 2001: A Space Odyssey — was released to the public.

SOLARIS PRODUCTIONS, INC
March 31, 1964
Mr. Arthur C. Clarke
[Address redacted]
Dear Mr Clarke:
It’s a very interesting coincidence that our mutual friend Caras mentioned you in a conversation we were having about a Questar telescope. I had been a great admirer of your books for quite a time and had always wanted to discuss with you the possibility of doing the proverbial “really good” science-fiction movie.
My main interest lies along these broad areas, naturally assuming great plot and character: The reasons for believing in the existence of intelligent extra-terrestrial life. The impact (and perhaps even lack of impact in some quarters) such discovery would have on Earth in the near future. A space probe with a landing and exploration of the Moon and Mars. Roger tells me you are planning to come to New York this summer. Do you have an inflexible schedule? If not, would you consider coming sooner with a view to a meeting, the purpose of which would be to determine whether an idea might exist or arise which could sufficiently interest both of us enough to want to collaborate on a screenplay?
Incidentally, “Sky & Telescope” advertise a number of scopes. If one has the room for a medium size scope on a pedestal, say the size of a camera tripod, is there any particular model in a class by itself, as the Questar is for small portable scopes?
Best regards,
(Signed)
Stanley Kubrick
A rare video interview with Stanley Kubrick at the 1968 opening of 2001: A Space Odyssey in New York City. Here Kubrick talks about the possibility of life in other planets. Features behind the scenes footage of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ as well as a very insightful interview by Kubrick at the premiere of the film. An interview with proposed star of the unmade ‘Aryan papers’, Johanna ter Steege, who talks about how Schindler’s list effectively caused Kubrick to cancel his own Holocaust epic and Malcolm McDowell talks about working on ‘A Clockwork Orange’ whilst in Venice in 1997. Interviews: Stanley Kubrick, Peter Delpeut, George Sluizer, Harry Kumel, Johanna ter Steege and Malcolm McDowell.
- 14 Interesting Facts You Don’t Know About 2001: A Space Odyssey
- Stanley Kubrick on Mortality, the Fear of Flying, and the Purpose of Existence: 1968 Playboy Interview
- The great (now late) Arthur C. Clarke had a longstanding relationship with Playboy magazine: they published the first excerpts of 2010: Odyssey Two, as well as a plethora of his short works, musings, and technical papers. It wasn’t until 1986 that the magazine ran a full-length “Playboy Interview” with Clarke
Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick.
“2001: The Making of a Myth”, an exquisite 43-minute documentary produced in 2001 which wonderfully covers the movie’s themes and technique. Introduced and narrated by James Cameron, the piece includes new interviews with author/screenwriter Arthur C. Clarke, members of the crew and cast (not just the obvious like Keir Dullea, but even a space stewardess and two apes), and critics. They all shed lots of light, from interpretations to production tales.
Stanley Kubrick on Mortality, the Fear of Flying, and the Purpose of Existence: 1968 Playboy Interview (PDF).
The great (now late) Arthur C. Clarke had a longstanding relationship with Playboy magazine: they published the first excerpts of 2010: Odyssey Two, as well as a plethora of his short works, musings, and technical papers. It wasn’t until 1986 that the magazine ran a full-length “Playboy Interview” with Clarke (PDF), then living in Sri Lanka in a compound next-door to the country’s prime minister. I recently picked up the July 1986 Playboy at an estate sale. Reading the interview knocked me on the floor a handful of times, so I’ve transcribed some of the many many segments of it here.
(NOTE: For educational purposes only)
2001: A Space Odyssey by Jason Heatherly
You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.
A letter from Kubrick: “Does IBM know that one of the main themes of the story is a psychotic computer?”
In August of 1966, 2 years prior to the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Stanley Kubrick wrote to the vice president of his production company and asked whether IBM — a company with whom Kubrick consulted during production, and whose logo briefly appears in the film — were aware of HAL’s murderous actions in the story. His letter, and Roger Caras’s reply, can be seen below.
It’s worth noting that both Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke have since denied that HAL represented IBM, and have claimed that the “one-letter shift” between the names “HAL” and “IBM” is purely coincidental.
Transcripts follow.
(Source: LACMA; Image: HAL 9000, via.)Transcript
STANLEY KUBRICK
31st August, 1966.
Mr. Roger Caras,
Polaris Productions Inc.,
239 Central Park West,
New York 24.
Dear Roger,
Does I. B. M. know that one of the main themes of the story is a psychotic computer? I don’t want to get anyone in trouble, and I don’t want them to feel they have been swindled. Please give me the exact status of things with I. B. M.
Best regards,
(Signed, ‘Stanley’)
MGM Studios
Boreham Wood
Herts
Transcript
September 13, 1966
Mr. Stanley Kubrick
Hawk Films Ltd.
MGM Studios
Borehamwood, Herts
England
Dear Stanley,
Here is your status report on IBM and the nervous computer:
Sometime ago I explained to IBM at great length the change in the script as effects HAL. To be absolutely certain that the situations was clear and in the open I called C.C. Hollister their Corporate Director of Public Relations again today and repeated the story going so far as to explain to him that HAL actually causes human deaths. I made it very clear, and this is completely true to the best of my knowledge, that the name IBM is never associated with equipment failure but that is is obviously not an IBM machine.
IBM’s position is that if IBM is not associated with the quipment failure by name they have no objection if it is decided to give screen credit to the advising companies (and I hope you do decide to do this) they will not object to getting screen credit as long as their name is buried in a list with others and they are not specifically listed as being technical advisor for the computer.
Source: Letters of Note
The great (now late) Arthur C. Clarke had a longstanding relationship with Playboy magazine: they published the first excerpts of 2010: Odyssey Two, as well as a plethora of his short works, musings, and technical papers. It wasn’t until 1986 that the magazine ran a full-length “Playboy Interview” with Clarke (PDF), then living in Sri Lanka in a compound next-door to the country’s prime minister. I recently picked up the July 1986 Playboy at an estate sale. Reading the interview knocked me on the floor a handful of times, so I’ve transcribed some of the many many segments of it here.
PLAYBOY: You’ve said that the famous opening sequence, in which the bone thrown into the air by the prehistoric man-apes becomes the space vehicle Discovery, came about by accident.
CLARKE: Yes, Stanley and I were trying to figure out that crucial transition. We were walking back to the studio in London and, for some reason, Stanley had a broomstick in his hand. He threw it up into the air, in a playful way, and he kept doing it, and it was at that moment that the idea of making the broomstick into the bone that gets turned into Discovery came about. I was afraid it was going to hit me in the head. [Laughs] So later we filmed it with some sort of bone. That shot was the only one in the movie done on location. It was shot just outside the studio. There was a platform built and, just beneath it, all the London buses were going by.
PLAYBOY: In the postscript to your book Ascent to Orbit, you talk about technology quite a bit. You have a lot of technology in your own home—your John Deere computer “Archie,” your satellite dish, your Kaypro-II computer. Yet you write, “This power over time and space still seems a marvel to me, even though I have been preaching its advent for decades. But the next generation will take it completely for granted and wonder how we ever managed to run the world without it … which we never did. May these new tools help them to succeed where we failed so badly.” Do you still think that way?
CLARKE: [Pauses] Absolutely. That’s why I’m so delighted that kids these days are not using their computers strictly to play games but are using them to process information. Knowledge really is power, and computer technology has increased an individual’s potential for power considerably. I still think it’s one’s duty to be optimistic about the possibilities of that power, without being unrealistic. It’s just that if one radiates doom and gloom about the possibilities of technology, one is in danger of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy about self-destruction.”
ON EXTRATERRESTRIAL CONTACT:
CLARKE: I would like to live until we’ve made contact with some extraterrestrials — at least know if they’re there. I’ve had fantasies about that a lot — a spaceship comes down and the first guy off the ship says, “Take me to Arthur C. Clarke.”
PLAYBOY: Meaning that they’ve read your books, so they’re saying the proverbial “Take me to your leader” line.
CLARKE: Yeah. But then again, of course, he might say, “Take me to Isaac Asimov” — that’s the nightmare, isn’t it?
ON MYSTICISM:
PLAYBOY: You write about the mind’s transcending, leaving behind, its material organic base, as you put it. Why do you regard the departure for the physical realm — leaving planet Earth — as desirable?
CLARKE: I guess that it’s just hard to imagine another direction in which to go. I hope I’m making sense. I guess it’s just pure laziness on my part — I should think of a new evolutionary outcome. But I’m very much against any form of irrationality and mysticism. I guess I’m a mystic who’s against mysticism.
PLAYBOY: What does that mean?
CLARKE: I’m so very sorry you asked that question.
PLAYBOY: Why?
CLARKE: It’s tough to explain. This universe is so incredible, and we constantly find new things out; but what we know may be such a small part of reality, if, indeed, reality is finite — it may be infinite. But one must always allow for the totally unexpected. So, in a way, talking about things that could be called mystical — well, I guess, I do try to allow for the idea that, as the famous scientist J.B.S. Haldane once said, “The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it’s queerer than we can suppose.” I’ve changed the word queer to strange, because, of course, the word queer has taken on a different context. And that calls to mind what I call Clarke’s Third Law, which is “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” — by which I mean things we take for granted now, such as transistor radios, that would be totally baffling, totally magical to even a man like Thomas Edison. I mean, if he saw a pocket computer, Edison would go totally crazy. He’d spend his whole life trying to figure out, “How does this work?”
ON THE MOON LANDING:
PLAYBOY: Let’s go to the moon.
CLARKE: Fine with me.
PLAYBOY: You made a bet with the chairman of the Interplanetary Society, of which you were a member in the thirties, about when the first landing on the moon would occur.
CLARKE: Yes, I wasn’t very clever. I never really thought a moon landing would occur in my lifetime. But, you know, even the space enthusiasts of my youth didn’t believe it would be in this century. When I wrote my book Prelude to Space in 1948, I put the landing 30 years in the future, in 1978. I remember thinking when I wrote it, “This is hopelessly optimistic.”
PLAYBOY: As it turned out, during the moon landing in 1969, you were a commentator for U.S. television, along with your friend Walter Cronkite. You cried then, didn’t you?
CLARKE: When you go to a launch, it is an emotional experience. Television doesn’t give you any idea of it, really. Walter wiped away a tear or two, as well — as did Eric Sevareid. The last time I’d cried was when my grandmother died, 20 years before.
PLAYBOY: The crew of Apollo Eight circled the moon on Christmas eve, 1968 — the first men ever to see the dark side of the moon. Didn’t the commander of the mission later tell you they’d been tempted to radio back to earth that they’d discovered a large black monolith, as in 2001?
CLARKE: Alas, discretion prevailed.
PLAYBOY: How do you think 2001, which you began envisioning with director Stanley Kubrick in 1964, inspired actual space exploration?
CLARKE: Although most people thought space travel was inevitable by then — President Kennedy had called for a moon landing before the end of the Sixties — I think the movie did stir people’s imaginations about the future. I’m especially proud of how well the film stands up — even the moons-of-Jupiter stuff. The only thing we were wrong about scientifically — everybody was wrong, because the information was incomplete — was the surface of the moon as we depicted it in the film.
PLAYBOY: What do you mean?
CLARKE: We never dreamed it would be so smoothed.
Source: afflictor.com
“2001: The Making of a Myth”, an exquisite 43-minute documentary produced in 2001 which wonderfully covers the movie’s themes and technique. Introduced and narrated by James Cameron, the piece includes new interviews with author/screenwriter Arthur C. Clarke, members of the crew and cast (not just the obvious like Keir Dullea, but even a space stewardess and two apes), and critics. They all shed lots of light, from interpretations to production tales.

In 1964, Stanley Kubrick wrote to science-fiction author Arthur C. Clarke. He explained he was a “a great admirer” of his books, and that he “had always wanted to discuss with [him] the possibility of doing the proverbial really good science-fiction movie.”
Kubrick outlined his ideas:
My main interest lies along these broad areas, naturally assuming great plot and character:
The reasons for believing in the existence of intelligent extra-terrestrial life.
The impact (and perhaps even lack of impact in some quarters) such discovery would have on Earth in the near future.
A space probe with a landing and exploration of the Moon and Mars.
The pair met, and a treatment was written, based around Clarke’s short story, “The Sentinel” (later published as “The Sentinel of Eternity” in 1953), in which a strange, tetrahedral artifact is discovered on the Moon. The story’s narrator speculates that the object has been left as a “warning beacon” for some ancient alien intelligence to signal humanity’s evolutionary advance towards space travel.
At the same time Kubrick was making 2001: A Space Odyssey, Clarke was writing his own version as a novel.
Having viewed Kubrick’s film rushes, Clarke wrote an explicit interpretation of the film, explaining many of the themes left open-ended in the movie. In particular, how the central character, David Bowman ends his days in what is described as a kind of living museum or zoo, where he is observed by alien life forms.
Kubrick was never as explicit, and refused to be fully drawn over the film’s meaning, or its many differences from Clarke’s novel, usually stating that his intention had been to make a “really good science-fiction movie.”
In an interview with Playboy in 1968, Kubrick gave an answer on the meaning and purpose of human existence, which could almost be a description of 2001:
“The very meaninglessness of life forces man to create his own meaning. Children, of course, begin life with an untarnished sense of wonder, a capacity to experience total joy at something as simple as the greenness of a leaf; but as they grow older, the awareness of death and decay begins to impinge on their consciousness and subtly erode their joie de vivre, their idealism – and their assumption of immortality. As a child matures, he sees death and pain everywhere about him, and begins to lose faith in the ultimate goodness of man. But, if he’s reasonably strong – and lucky – he can emerge from this twilight of the soul into a rebirth of life’s elan. Both because of and in spite of his awareness of the meaninglessness of life, he can forge a fresh sense of purpose and affirmation. He may not recapture the same pure sense of wonder he was born with, but he can shape something far more enduring and sustaining. The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent; but if we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death – however mutable man may be able to make them – our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.”
The documentary 2001: The Making of a Myth is introduced by James Cameron, who looks at the stories behind 2001: A Space Odyssey, examining why the film has endured and why it still generates such interest. With contributions form Arthur C. Clarke, Keir Dullea, Elvis Mitchell, and Douglas Trumbull.
Source: dangerousminds.net
How ’2001: A Space Odyssey’ Would Be Advertised in 2012
As brilliant as Stanley Kubrick‘s sci-fi contemplation on everything is, it would be a nightmare to advertise today. Far from high concept, it doesn’t fit neatly into the quadrants that movie marketing teams salivate over winning. So how would they do it?
We’ve asked master mashup artist ChugsTheMonkey to take a shot at it. The result is a bone-crunching, non-stop science fiction explosion of action fit for blockbuster season. Won’t audiences be thrilled!
Source: filmschoolrejects.com

![2001: A Space Odyssey screenplay by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke [pdf]. The complete screenplay of Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. Typographically designed to read during watching the movie [pdf]. (NOTE: For educational purposes only)
Letters of Note:
On March 31st of 1964, Stanley Kubrick initiated contact with author Arthur C. Clarke by way of the following letter, in which the filmmaker declared an interest in the two collaborating to produce, in his words, “the proverbial ‘really good’ science-fiction movie.” Clarke was immediately keen — so much so that just three weeks later, on April 22nd, the pair met at the Plaza Hotel in New York and, according to Clarke, “talked for eight solid hours about science fiction.” Four years later, the groundbreaking result of their partnership — 2001: A Space Odyssey — was released to the public.
SOLARIS PRODUCTIONS, INCMarch 31, 1964 Mr. Arthur C. Clarke[Address redacted]Dear Mr Clarke:It’s a very interesting coincidence that our mutual friend Caras mentioned you in a conversation we were having about a Questar telescope. I had been a great admirer of your books for quite a time and had always wanted to discuss with you the possibility of doing the proverbial “really good” science-fiction movie. My main interest lies along these broad areas, naturally assuming great plot and character: The reasons for believing in the existence of intelligent extra-terrestrial life. The impact (and perhaps even lack of impact in some quarters) such discovery would have on Earth in the near future. A space probe with a landing and exploration of the Moon and Mars. Roger tells me you are planning to come to New York this summer. Do you have an inflexible schedule? If not, would you consider coming sooner with a view to a meeting, the purpose of which would be to determine whether an idea might exist or arise which could sufficiently interest both of us enough to want to collaborate on a screenplay?Incidentally, “Sky & Telescope” advertise a number of scopes. If one has the room for a medium size scope on a pedestal, say the size of a camera tripod, is there any particular model in a class by itself, as the Questar is for small portable scopes?Best regards,(Signed)Stanley Kubrick
A rare video interview with Stanley Kubrick at the 1968 opening of 2001: A Space Odyssey in New York City. Here Kubrick talks about the possibility of life in other planets. Features behind the scenes footage of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ as well as a very insightful interview by Kubrick at the premiere of the film. An interview with proposed star of the unmade ‘Aryan papers’, Johanna ter Steege, who talks about how Schindler’s list effectively caused Kubrick to cancel his own Holocaust epic and Malcolm McDowell talks about working on ‘A Clockwork Orange’ whilst in Venice in 1997. Interviews: Stanley Kubrick, Peter Delpeut, George Sluizer, Harry Kumel, Johanna ter Steege and Malcolm McDowell.
14 Interesting Facts You Don’t Know About 2001: A Space Odyssey
Stanley Kubrick on Mortality, the Fear of Flying, and the Purpose of Existence: 1968 Playboy Interview
The great (now late) Arthur C. Clarke had a longstanding relationship with Playboy magazine: they published the first excerpts of 2010: Odyssey Two, as well as a plethora of his short works, musings, and technical papers. It wasn’t until 1986 that the magazine ran a full-length “Playboy Interview” with Clarke](http://24.media.tumblr.com/0679a36f253e32da93bd2e5fa0bc2677/tumblr_mj1suwmAUi1rovfcgo1_1280.png)



![The great (now late) Arthur C. Clarke had a longstanding relationship with Playboy magazine: they published the first excerpts of 2010: Odyssey Two, as well as a plethora of his short works, musings, and technical papers. It wasn’t until 1986 that the magazine ran a full-length “Playboy Interview” with Clarke (PDF), then living in Sri Lanka in a compound next-door to the country’s prime minister. I recently picked up the July 1986 Playboy at an estate sale. Reading the interview knocked me on the floor a handful of times, so I’ve transcribed some of the many many segments of it here.
PLAYBOY: You’ve said that the famous opening sequence, in which the bone thrown into the air by the prehistoric man-apes becomes the space vehicle Discovery, came about by accident.CLARKE: Yes, Stanley and I were trying to figure out that crucial transition. We were walking back to the studio in London and, for some reason, Stanley had a broomstick in his hand. He threw it up into the air, in a playful way, and he kept doing it, and it was at that moment that the idea of making the broomstick into the bone that gets turned into Discovery came about. I was afraid it was going to hit me in the head. [Laughs] So later we filmed it with some sort of bone. That shot was the only one in the movie done on location. It was shot just outside the studio. There was a platform built and, just beneath it, all the London buses were going by.PLAYBOY: In the postscript to your book Ascent to Orbit, you talk about technology quite a bit. You have a lot of technology in your own home—your John Deere computer “Archie,” your satellite dish, your Kaypro-II computer. Yet you write, “This power over time and space still seems a marvel to me, even though I have been preaching its advent for decades. But the next generation will take it completely for granted and wonder how we ever managed to run the world without it … which we never did. May these new tools help them to succeed where we failed so badly.” Do you still think that way?CLARKE: [Pauses] Absolutely. That’s why I’m so delighted that kids these days are not using their computers strictly to play games but are using them to process information. Knowledge really is power, and computer technology has increased an individual’s potential for power considerably. I still think it’s one’s duty to be optimistic about the possibilities of that power, without being unrealistic. It’s just that if one radiates doom and gloom about the possibilities of technology, one is in danger of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy about self-destruction.”
ON EXTRATERRESTRIAL CONTACT:
CLARKE: I would like to live until we’ve made contact with some extraterrestrials — at least know if they’re there. I’ve had fantasies about that a lot — a spaceship comes down and the first guy off the ship says, “Take me to Arthur C. Clarke.”PLAYBOY: Meaning that they’ve read your books, so they’re saying the proverbial “Take me to your leader” line.CLARKE: Yeah. But then again, of course, he might say, “Take me to Isaac Asimov” — that’s the nightmare, isn’t it?
ON MYSTICISM:
PLAYBOY: You write about the mind’s transcending, leaving behind, its material organic base, as you put it. Why do you regard the departure for the physical realm — leaving planet Earth — as desirable? CLARKE: I guess that it’s just hard to imagine another direction in which to go. I hope I’m making sense. I guess it’s just pure laziness on my part — I should think of a new evolutionary outcome. But I’m very much against any form of irrationality and mysticism. I guess I’m a mystic who’s against mysticism. PLAYBOY: What does that mean?CLARKE: I’m so very sorry you asked that question.PLAYBOY: Why?CLARKE: It’s tough to explain. This universe is so incredible, and we constantly find new things out; but what we know may be such a small part of reality, if, indeed, reality is finite — it may be infinite. But one must always allow for the totally unexpected. So, in a way, talking about things that could be called mystical — well, I guess, I do try to allow for the idea that, as the famous scientist J.B.S. Haldane once said, “The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it’s queerer than we can suppose.” I’ve changed the word queer to strange, because, of course, the word queer has taken on a different context. And that calls to mind what I call Clarke’s Third Law, which is “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” — by which I mean things we take for granted now, such as transistor radios, that would be totally baffling, totally magical to even a man like Thomas Edison. I mean, if he saw a pocket computer, Edison would go totally crazy. He’d spend his whole life trying to figure out, “How does this work?”
ON THE MOON LANDING:
PLAYBOY: Let’s go to the moon.CLARKE: Fine with me.PLAYBOY: You made a bet with the chairman of the Interplanetary Society, of which you were a member in the thirties, about when the first landing on the moon would occur.CLARKE: Yes, I wasn’t very clever. I never really thought a moon landing would occur in my lifetime. But, you know, even the space enthusiasts of my youth didn’t believe it would be in this century. When I wrote my book Prelude to Space in 1948, I put the landing 30 years in the future, in 1978. I remember thinking when I wrote it, “This is hopelessly optimistic.”PLAYBOY: As it turned out, during the moon landing in 1969, you were a commentator for U.S. television, along with your friend Walter Cronkite. You cried then, didn’t you?CLARKE: When you go to a launch, it is an emotional experience. Television doesn’t give you any idea of it, really. Walter wiped away a tear or two, as well — as did Eric Sevareid. The last time I’d cried was when my grandmother died, 20 years before. PLAYBOY: The crew of Apollo Eight circled the moon on Christmas eve, 1968 — the first men ever to see the dark side of the moon. Didn’t the commander of the mission later tell you they’d been tempted to radio back to earth that they’d discovered a large black monolith, as in 2001?CLARKE: Alas, discretion prevailed.PLAYBOY: How do you think 2001, which you began envisioning with director Stanley Kubrick in 1964, inspired actual space exploration?CLARKE: Although most people thought space travel was inevitable by then — President Kennedy had called for a moon landing before the end of the Sixties — I think the movie did stir people’s imaginations about the future. I’m especially proud of how well the film stands up — even the moons-of-Jupiter stuff. The only thing we were wrong about scientifically — everybody was wrong, because the information was incomplete — was the surface of the moon as we depicted it in the film.PLAYBOY: What do you mean?CLARKE: We never dreamed it would be so smoothed.
Tweet
//
Follow @LaFamiliaFilm
//](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdk3m6in651rovfcgo1_1280.png)

