>mfw i found out 2001: a space odyssey has a sequel
>>69875292
>it's real
Which is also a better movie
>>69875292
It's better than you think
>>69875356
This.
2001 is a shit movie. Because it's kino
>>69875292
and it's pretty good
>yfw you watch it and realise it's a better movie
Arthur C. Clarke was a hack. Krubrick salvaged a masterpiece out of his tedious and bloviating mess of a book. The sequel is more indicative of the quality of original material.
>>69875356
lol absolutely not.
There's also a series of books and there are 4 of those. I read them when I was like 15 so I barely remember anything about them except there was a diamond the size of a planet inside Jupiter in one of them
>>69875436
Those books really piss me off. Who the fuck writes sequels with absolutely no continuity from book to book?
>there are people who think the sequel is better
>There are people that think 2001 is better than Solaris
>>69875292
Exact same face I was making beforeI had enough at started fast forwarding through the acid trip space travel sequence.
>>69875292
A question to all anons. Let me phrase this very carefully.
Among all the works of Stanley Kubrick, is 2001 the only one to be followed by a /film/ sequel of any kind?
In other words, we don't care about book sequels (2010, 2061, 3001, etc.)
>>69875292
it's actually not bad though
>/tv/ tells me 2010 is better than 2001, or that it at least explains 2001 for people who are confused about it
>it's shit and it only makes it all more confusing
