Movie News

Tom Hanks wants to direct 3001!!!

Published at: June 27, 2001, 3:06 p.m. CST

Hey folks, Harry here at Geek Headquarters: West Coast.... our actual real offices here in smog ladened Los Angeles... and this news gets me excited as a mosquito on an open wound... Tom Hanks did a great job on THAT THING YOU DO... And then there is PASSION! Tom would put everything in him into this project... What do you folks think?

hi there!

i'm a french geek who just heard a news to a supposly "Arthur C. Clark's 3001" movie it was on the french Entermaint Tonight it was said that Tom Hanks want to direct the screen adaptation of 3001. since i've never heard about the project before i wondered if you did. approximativly englishly yours, but sincerly

Capytal

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • June 27, 2001, 3:09 p.m. CST

    Old News......

    by Shuvo

    I think I have heard that rumor 3001 years ago.....Tom Hanks bought the rights for 3001 and I am not too sure If its gonna make a very good movie...cause the book sucked bigt time

  • June 27, 2001, 3:09 p.m. CST

    what about 2064?

    by mcarbone

    i guess they'll skip right over that one... 3001 isn't very good, by the way, though it had some interesting ideas.

  • June 27, 2001, 3:10 p.m. CST

    Gee, that sounds like a reliable source.

    by madkinski

    don't you think.

  • June 27, 2001, 3:11 p.m. CST

    There was one?

    by birdland

  • June 27, 2001, 3:11 p.m. CST

    More power to Tom in anything he does...

    by SethShandor

    There a reason he has those oscars and earns the money he does. Unlike some "stars."

  • June 27, 2001, 3:30 p.m. CST

    Kubrick ,always wanted Hanks to direct it!.

    by Horus

    Its well known that Kubrick was a huge fan of The man with one red shoe and Joe Vs the Volcanoe, and he always said , thay if he didn't get to make his own sequel to 2001 , then he wanted Tom to do it.At least that's what Spielberg says!!Is Hanks going to direct it how Kubrick would have ..or sort of how Spielberg attempting to be kubrick would do it.?What ever he doe's it can't be any worse than 2010.What a piss poor effort that was!

  • June 27, 2001, 3:35 p.m. CST

    Hanks

    by Andy Dufresne

    I was directed by Hanks in Band of Brothers and the man knows his shit.

  • June 27, 2001, 3:45 p.m. CST

    I'm going to direct...

    by slav

    ... a remake of 2001 because that's what Kubrick has always wanted. That's what he told Hanks. I really hope that this whole 'Kubrick had always wanted' bullshit drops off soon. It always sounds like a weak compromised arguement when a lesser director (c'mon, That Thing You Do was pure bubblegum with straight forward direction. But hey, I still love Bachelor Party!) is to direct a movie following on from a classic (like 2010??). But if Hanks wants to do it, fine. I just don't want to hear that Kubrick would 'approve'. Because no one here knows shit of what he thought...

  • June 27, 2001, 3:55 p.m. CST

    Its not 2064

    by Jedi Tim

    Its "2061". Are they gonna do it? I dont know, but I think they should. Anyhow, I think Tom Hanks would be awesome; he loves space and "From the Earth To The Moon" rocked.

  • June 27, 2001, 4:09 p.m. CST

    The human race will probably be wiped out by 3001 anyway, so it'

    by IAmLegolas

    I'm sure BattlePoster is around here to drop science on that one.

  • June 27, 2001, 4:34 p.m. CST

    Yeah!

    by ArchDiver

    Where the hell is Battleposter?

  • June 27, 2001, 4:37 p.m. CST

    3001 Miles to Graceland

    by Uga

    Well I haven't heard this rumor before, and it makes me go happy all over the place. "2001" is one of my favorites, and "2010" is damn good as well. Hanks might screw up, but I for one would sincerely appreciate his bravery either way.

  • June 27, 2001, 4:44 p.m. CST

    Jim Cameron is going to direct the next 2001 sequel

    by Milktoast

    Because Kubrick told me that's what he always wanted.

  • June 27, 2001, 4:59 p.m. CST

    Drat! Now I've got to read the book!

    by Sith Lord Jesus

    And my "to read" list is already a mile long! I've heard it sux, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Eventually.

  • June 27, 2001, 5 p.m. CST

    2061

    by meroneysw

    2061 needs to be made before 3001, obviously, get David Fincher to direct it!!

  • June 27, 2001, 5:12 p.m. CST

    I asked my Magic 8 Ball if Tom Hanks doing 3001 was a good idea.

    by JefferyLebowski

    The 8 Ball said "All signs point to yes." Then I got a little greedy and asked the 8 Ball if it would be a masterpiece on the scale of 2001. The 8 Ball said "Dont get carried away. We both know this will probably never happen anyway, so let's just go watch the Burbs on DVD again." And so we did. Love them wacky Klopeks, with their mass-murdering ways.

  • June 27, 2001, 5:15 p.m. CST

    Mystery Science Theater 3001

    by SethShandor

    "The monkey with the bone, Mike, is that a sexual reference?"

  • June 27, 2001, 5:20 p.m. CST

    Why make it at all?

    by lonelyguy

    No Gary Lockwood, no movie. 2010 was horrible, guys -- what was that Cold War storyline, anyway? The book wasn't plagues by that. 2061 was dull - comet chasing isn't that exciting. If Frank Poole wakes up in 3001, he has no ability to return to Earth proper, but we can see dinosaur gardeners and diamond space elevators. It's unique, but unfortunately, not worth the budget. Try again, Tom - we want to see you direct a GOOD movie!

  • June 27, 2001, 5:47 p.m. CST

    Life is like a box of mars bars

    by droog1

  • June 27, 2001, 6:07 p.m. CST

    What I heard:

    by WFCall

    I heard from a friend of the brother of the cousin of the uncle of a guy I went to junior high with that this dude named Buck....or something like that wants to direct the Episode 3. WTF?!?! I know this is a rumor site, but are ya just throwing up anything that some frog e-mails you guys? And does anyone REALLY think this will get pulled off? And is there a clamor out there for a 3001 film? Nope.

  • June 27, 2001, 6:26 p.m. CST

    The best director couldn't save that trash...

    by emarkp

    3001: Clarke's Vision of His Perfect Future. The book was a bit SCA'ish and self-aggrandizing for my tastes. It was a waste of paper, and the movie would be a waste of celluloid. Flee! Flee!

  • June 27, 2001, 6:30 p.m. CST

    Clarke

    by Manos

    Clarke's 3001 actually got me angry. He managed to take the wonder and awe of the transformed Bowman, the starchild, and reduce it (him) to a computer program. Some books and movies should NEVER have sequels. Clarke was one of the giants in the SF field, but between 3001 and the Ghost of the Grand Banks, he is clearly showing his age. Its time for him to bow out gracefully.

  • June 27, 2001, 6:35 p.m. CST

    IAmLegolas I find your views compelling.

    by Wee Willie

    I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  • June 27, 2001, 7:18 p.m. CST

    "ohhh, doin that thing that HAL does.. .."

    by Tall_Boy

    oh, c'mon, SOMEONE had to say it!

  • June 27, 2001, 7:29 p.m. CST

    geez...

    by Uga

    No, Tall Boy, NO ONE had to say that. In fact, I'm sure you're the only one that even thought it. And we are all a little bit dumber because of you. Thaynkes.

  • June 27, 2001, 7:29 p.m. CST

    Holy Fucking Shit Balls Batman!

    by Neosamurai85

    I just read this. I've been off in lala land and have never herd anything about this before. sure i new about the book. but a film!? there was a book between 2010 and 3001? how... what... AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I think i need to stand up soth at i can sit down again and take this all in... brain broke. Plese hang on a sec....

  • June 27, 2001, 7:35 p.m. CST

    PLEASE GOD NO

    by Andy_Christ

    3001 was an absolutely horrible book. I loved the first three. But the connections with this book are tenuous at best, and at worst, in name (and names) only. 3001 is just a future-tech showcase. It has no plot, it has no point other than to ooo-ahh at what the future has become... "WELCOME...TO THE WOOORLD OF TOMORROW!" To quote the cryogenic technician from the first ep of futurama. Pohl's "The World At the End of Time" (I hope I'm not mixing that title up with a different book) was a similar, but INFINITELY superior book. And it sucked, too. But what was most disappointing is that it didn't tie up any of the loose ends from the other books, save ones that were already tied up, but which clarke decided he'd untie again. Mr. Hanks, please, if you are going to direct something of Clarke's, direct 2061. Oh, and Clarke's degeneration is to be expected. It happened with Heinlein, too. The only reason it didn't get this bad with Asimov is that he died before it could really get going. (Read Foundation and Earth and tell me he wasn't slipping.)

  • June 27, 2001, 8:03 p.m. CST

    grrrrr

    by jeff bailey

    I can't even remember the last time I wanted to post. Can we get some interesting news on here?

  • June 27, 2001, 8:10 p.m. CST

    bwan bwoke

    by Neosamurai85

    wHAAHOO BSARTHS GFFS ZDFGSDG VC FISH DSH BS%SE$^*N^RB BOB STHSDVB LIKES DGHNBS TW$%EWSB FISH DSRHFFTJDG RAW HGDGXH SR%^YE^%YW HE CALLS SDFHS ^TYWE%V IT ZDHFBEVB%ED SUSHI ARGE%RYA% D AWE%W%DG E%SGFW#$^*47yw45ya vrgdADGAE%aergzDFGS%EYstyhdR%^YRD^YHfGxsr5ys%YGDFHGdsr57ystf DUEDSDHT TTEywq54 WE APOLOGIZE FOTR DEE IN CON VEEN YENCE

  • June 27, 2001, 8:10 p.m. CST

    3001

    by Dave Bowman

    3001 was perhaps the worst novel I ever read. There are Bazooka Joe comics which are more worthy of film versions than this execrable, formless, pointless mass of anti-imagination.

  • June 27, 2001, 8:13 p.m. CST

    brain starting to work.... iahgaijn i49875tw9g soituhg9 almost..

    by Neosamurai85

    Ok I fixed my brain. I read the talkbacks and contemplated it all. It

  • June 27, 2001, 8:19 p.m. CST

    Bozooka

    by Neosamurai85

    Hey David Bowman... I may be wroung... but I think MIB came from Bozooka Joe! No joke It was based on a bubble gum comic. I just can't remember which.

  • June 27, 2001, 8:23 p.m. CST

    Correction

    by Neosamurai85

    and more clueless then a Brittany Spears fan at a Bob Dylan concert.

  • June 27, 2001, 8:26 p.m. CST

    Holy Shit

    by SamWave

    the new making of episode 2 video rocks! Well, most of it. Oh, 3001 sucks....

  • June 27, 2001, 8:47 p.m. CST

    Tom Hanks Sucks

    by Gengar

  • June 27, 2001, 9:04 p.m. CST

    2061 directed by Fincher

    by PurpleEyeScream

  • June 27, 2001, 9:10 p.m. CST

    2061 directed by Fincher.......

    by PurpleEyeScream

    ...remember the last time he directed a second sequal, Alien 3? I like Fincher but would much rather see him sink his teeth into something like a film version of "Choke" by Chuck Palahnuik. Which I think is a much better book than either "2061" or "3001". And Tom Hanks needs to really break away from trying to emulate other directors or actors in the projects he choses. "That thing you do" may have not been the best film, but at least it was something he believed in and was different than the films he was making as an actor at that time.

  • June 27, 2001, 9:20 p.m. CST

    Well this sounds useless.

    by Billy Talent

    '2001' is my favorite film, and I've heard it's Hanks' as well, so why does he wanna go mucking it up with this? 'That Thing You Do' was a very modest little bit of tripe; does he think that he can outdo Big Stan? Did Peter Hyams? How would you like it if your first film was a collaboration with Stanley Kubrick, and your subsequent partners were Fincher, Hanks, and Hyams (or was it Yates? One of those Peter guys). When does Kevin Costner start work on 'Barry Lyndon II'? How about Mel Gibson's 'More Paths of Glory'? Why doesn't 'Tom Cruise make his directorial debut with 'Eyes Wide Shut Two Much!'? "This time, I get laid!" Everyone loved George Clooney's Live TV remake of 'Fail Safe', so why doesn't he do 'Dr. Strangelove'? It would be better than the original and we'd all be richer for it. I've forgotten '2010' and I've never read any of Clarke's 'Oddyssey' novels (I believe his '2001' is much more conventional than the film, and explains away most of its mystery). As with 'The Godfather 3' and the original novel 'The Godfather', both adequate pulp, I won't allow my appreciation for an exquisite film to be tainted by a bunch of associated junk. Still, this is one of those films that just really really doesn't need to be made.

  • June 27, 2001, 9:46 p.m. CST

    What Kubrick wanted

    by hktelemacher

    Who gives a shit?! I don't think he would have cared. As he gave Peter Hyams, of all people, his blessing for 2010, I don't think he had an interest in revisiting any old material. If anything, Kubrick's body of work reflects that he was always looking to do new things and not repeat himself. Though he did two crime movies, two sci-fi movies, two costume period epics and two sex movies (bare bones descriptions) his approach to each, and others, was always different. His work continues to be refreshing in my eyes. But 2001 isn't a Kubrick property, it's a series of Clark books, and let's all admit that Tom Hanks doing 3001 is a helluva lot better than Bret Ratner or Simon West or some other piss poor excuse for a filmmaker. At the very least Hanks should be able to direct actors. I for one dug "That Thing You Do" for what it was, and he proved himself as a competent director. Heavier material might suit him. But we don't compare Peter Hyams to Kubrick, and we all know that Tom Hanks could never direct as well as Kubrick, just as we should admit that Kubrick probably couldn't act as well as Tom Hanks. They aren't sequelizing Clockwork or Strangelove - nobody's cashing in on Kubrick - 3001 is a property unto itself. The real question is - Does anybody care if this gets made or not?

  • June 27, 2001, 9:51 p.m. CST

    They'd better...

    by MeddleHead

    do a SHITLOAD of story work on this one, because the book REALLY sucked. I got it in hardback when it first came out, and while the beginning is pretty interesting, it turns into liquid shit printed onto paper a little over halfway through. There's plenty of opportunity to show off some CGI, but they'd better rewrite nearly the entire fucked up story before it gets onto film. P.S. - I bet Hanks is also wanting to take the lead role...

  • June 27, 2001, 10:35 p.m. CST

    That Thing You Don't

    by Freya

    OK, so maybe he directed That Thing You Do well... who cares? Sure, Kubrick just couldn't have done it!

  • June 27, 2001, 10:39 p.m. CST

    DDDDDAAAAAAAAIIIIIIISSSSYYYYY, DDDDAAAAAAAAAIIIIISSSSSSSYYYYYY,

    by Jonny Quest

    I say make 3001, but have the Monolith meet the gang from Mystery Science Theatre 3000! Joel, Mike and the Bots could find Frank Poole's body floating by the Satellite of Love! Dr Clayton Forrester and TV's Frank could compare notes with Dr. Heywood Floyd! Gypsy could fall in love with HAL!! Now THAT is a movie I would plunk down some serious cash to see!

  • June 27, 2001, 11:26 p.m. CST

    This is wayyyyyyyy cool!

    by thx777b

    As the bigest fan of stankey kubrick and in the space oddesey saga i only have this comments: 1)Stanley Kubrick with 2001 created the best sci-fi movie of all times and one of the best movies in general. 2)Peter Hymes did a very good job on 2010 doing an entertaining movie with more action than than the original but less artistic!2010 was fun but not the masterpiece 2001 was, it was just an ok sci-fi flic! 3)I hope if Tom Hanks(one of my favorite modern actors)does 3001, to do something in the middle of those two!

  • June 27, 2001, 11:54 p.m. CST

    Lighten up

    by viggo_mortensen

    Can I just say, Tom Hanks needs to seriously lighten up. Ok, so he's won two oscars. You've done the serious bit. It's getting boring now. LIGHTEN UP! Do a comedy again or something. Don't give me the Toy Story 2 line. An actual film Tom. A light-hearted funny film. Restore some faith in your bloated paycheck. You're not the greatest actor ever. You should never have got that first oscar for Philadelphia. It was just the PC thing to do. Liam Neeson was miles better. Thank you. Rant finished. Preparing for retaliation from Hanks fans....

  • June 28, 2001, 12:25 a.m. CST

    Bran Hanks 3000 - and one?

    by dastickboy

    Well, everyone else was doing it.

  • June 28, 2001, 1:59 a.m. CST

    This news is over 3 years old

    by Gag Halfrunt

    Harry, have you any idea how old this news is? It's been knocking around since shortly after the books release. Engage brain before making posts please.

  • June 28, 2001, 2:08 a.m. CST

    Hanks would be ideal!

    by Magic Milkmaid

    I think Tom Hanks would be a perfect choice. "That thing you do" really showcased his ability to handle artful, special effects laden, big budget sci-fi in the vein of Stanley Kubrick...

  • June 28, 2001, 3:56 a.m. CST

    in defense of 2010

    by Teko

    The folks who put 2010 together KNEW they could never do a sequel on the level of 2001...any attempt they'd make would obviously fail. So why bother? Well, when you can make a top-notch scifi film with groundbreaking effects, great characterizations, and some terrific action sequences, what does it matter that it's following the unfollowable? I love 2010 on its own merits.

  • June 28, 2001, 5:26 a.m. CST

    Tall Boy, What are you talking about?

    by Sith Witch

    Why did someone HAVE to say, "ohhh, doin that thing that HAL does.. .." What the hell does THAT mean? Some obscure South Park reference I wager...

  • June 28, 2001, 6:08 a.m. CST

    Terrible news!

    by ewem

    I remember hearing a rumor about this a few years ago and I will say now what I said back then. 2061 was a barely decent read. 3001 was an abomination of an author well passed his prime who pretty much raped his own creation. (deja vu, Lucas.) I read this book not once, but actually twice because I just had to convince myself that, yes, it really was this bad. God there's no story here, no characters, no nothing. Everything described in this book is almost all stream of consciousness and abstract, how in the hell are they going they going to film this thing? I smell another CGI jerk off coming... This movie should not be made...there's just nothing here. I wish someone would have the balls to make a sequel not based on either 2061 or 3001, because they both suck. Read the 2010 book and compare the difference! It doesn't matter who wants to be behind the camera...there's nothing to work with here.

  • June 28, 2001, 6:20 a.m. CST

    2064 vs. 2061

    by slampton

    It was originally published as 2064 but I assume it was changed when they realized there was already a scifi book by that name published in the 60's.

  • June 28, 2001, 7:01 a.m. CST

    Are all books meant for translation to film?

    by Dr.XerxesMulcahy

    The answer is no. But before I pontificate: Those of you who claim that '3001' is "the worst book [you] ever read" need to read more. Or write a book yourself if your perspective is so supreme. Clarke offers a valid vision of a utopic future as a solid epilogue to the series. Does is translate well to film, though? I do not think it does - certainly not in the format we have come to expect from the other two films. Were this project a good idea, I think Hanks would be an excellent choice. His treatment of history in 'From Earth to the Moon' suggests that he would not bastardize the text to score a money shot. However, I think he bought the right to the wrong book. 2061 is the next logical step in the film franchise. Aside from the fact that it is a better book, it also delivers the story we want continued. Heywood Floyd and his final revelations of our role in the galactic plan would be a far better two hours than Frank Poole sitting in a hospital bed or wandering random rooms of a space station. ~The Doctor.

  • June 28, 2001, 7:41 a.m. CST

    Dirty Talk Back?

    by earthlingdave

    Can people voice their opinions without resorting to saying "fuck" this actor and "shit" on this director, and so and so "sucks moose dick." What is with you people. If you don't agree than say so in an intelligent way, don't whine like some child.

  • June 28, 2001, 8:15 a.m. CST

    Re: Dirty Talk Back?

    by IAmLegolas

    Ha! As soon as Harry and Co. can post and write reviews with out being vulgar as well(sometimes even worse than 'us'). It might kick this site up a notch if all the profanity was gone... "I learned it from watching YOU!" - that anti-drug commercial from the late 70's early 80's with the "Welcome Back, Kotter" look-a-like.

  • June 28, 2001, 8:43 a.m. CST

    Please God...

    by QuarkLord

    Why the hell would anyone want to make this movie. The novel was a complete snore. And I'm not talking about a lack of action

  • June 28, 2001, 10:08 a.m. CST

    Hanks directing 3001? Please God, flood the earth NOW!!!!

    by Fandude

  • June 28, 2001, 10:10 a.m. CST

    I HATE HANKS

    by MOVIE WRITER

    He sucks. bad actor, thinks he's DeNiro

  • June 28, 2001, 11:05 a.m. CST

    Paula Poundstone want to direst "Spy Kids 2."

    by Rufus_T_Firefly

    Expect an NC-17.

  • June 28, 2001, 12:19 p.m. CST

    Paula Poundstone has been arrested for child molestation

    by B A Fett

  • June 28, 2001, 12:50 p.m. CST

    3001: The Final Odyssey

    by xlcr

    Bringing back Gary Lockwood as Frank Poole is possible. In the book doctors have to explain to him that although he has been in suspended animation for 1,000 years, he has slowly aged to somewhere between the age of 50 and 70. Lockwood is 64 years old. The problem I have with Clarke's book is that he made the outrageous and insulting comparison of apes to retarded children.

  • June 28, 2001, 12:54 p.m. CST

    tarantino should do it

    by popefiction

    how about we get Tarantino to do it so we could have cool sci fi violence, a good story, great and unique music, and a DVD with a director that talks way too much during the commentary.

  • June 28, 2001, 2:29 p.m. CST

    Tarantino?!

    by Hippie

    yea, then the movie would suck worse than 2010. And the monolith would decapitate people instead of making the star-children. Depending on A.I. it should either be spielberg or hanks. Besides, Hanks is a huge fan of 2001.

  • June 28, 2001, 2:54 p.m. CST

    Old news, wrong news

    by twolone

    Harry, this is embarrasing. Coming Attractions reported this more than a year ago, and guess what...go over there now and they are debunking AICN's reporting of this "new story." It is some geek fanboy's wet dream and he put it on a website. Gee that sounds familiar. Also, 2061 was never published as 2064. The premise of the book revolves around space terrorism and the return of Halley's Comet, which strangely enough is in 2061. Besides, you can't copyright a title. Clarke could have named 2061 'Gone With The Wind' if he wanted.

  • June 28, 2001, 6:28 p.m. CST

    NO ONE SHOULD MAKE THIS MOVIE!!!!

    by Batutta

    2010 was bad enough.

  • June 28, 2001, 6:30 p.m. CST

    glad its continuing

    by kevnsmithfan4evr

    I am glad and hope this series never stops

  • June 28, 2001, 8:13 p.m. CST

    This "scoop" blows, I had a better one

    by TisketMaster

    I've never been so pissed, I should barbeque Harry Knowles for this one! Well, maybe not, even psychotic film geeks should be allowed a few mistakes now and then. But anyway, this scoop sucks. It was one little bitty tenuous tidbit from a pretty shaky source, and as the climate in this talkback suggests, really isn't that interesting if true. But a few weeks ago, I attended a National Space Society conference in Albuquerque to watch 2001 presented by Keir Dullea (Dave Bowman), Moonwatcher, the tech advisor for the movie, and the conceptual artist for the movie. Arthur C. Clarke even addressed the group by a live satellite feed. I heard many cool film geek worthy anecdotes about 2001 and Kubrick from all of them, so I sent my account to Harry. Well, he never posted it...but I accepted that. I thought it must not have been up to the literary standards of aintitcool. However, I see this pitiful excuse for a story and think I may have been the victim of Lord Knowles' royal shafting apparatus. If some of this seems delirious, I've been in a 12 hour meeting all day, so I have my reasons. All Hail the wormy Rance who screams.....GIIIIZZZEE!

  • June 28, 2001, 8:27 p.m. CST

    thanks Uga

    by Tall_Boy

    I'm just trying to do my part to lower the IQ quotient of myself and all of AICN. "My moma always said, Dave, My mind is going. . ."

  • June 28, 2001, 8:31 p.m. CST

    Neosamurai85

    by Tall_Boy

    =W= rocks.

  • June 28, 2001, 9:19 p.m. CST

    I'd like to retract.....

    by TisketMaster

    Oh sorry, my apologies to Harry. I searched the site and saw way back in April that someone offered up a story about their 2001 experience in this year of 2001...and it sounds frighteningly similar to mine. It just happened to be in a different city...Urbana as opposed to Albuquerque. Oops. To think that I actually thought I had a unique geek story to tell....ahem. anyway, I guess Harry had a good reason for not posting my story. He probably thought mine was a lie plagarized from the original. Well, it wasn't. I have the autographed 2001 postcard with Keir Dullea's signiture on it to prove it! But still, we can all Hail the wormy Rance that screams....GIIIZZZEE!

  • June 28, 2001, 9:36 p.m. CST

    ...and...

    by TisketMaster

    And yes, I know I wrote a few convoluted sentences and misspelled some words! I don't have the heart to edit A DAMN THING on this site because the HEAD GEEK himself doesn't even care to with what he writes! So lay off you tenacious, vicious people who email me personally to criticize my writing, rather than posting your complaints in public! What's wrong?! Don't you want everyone to see how asinine your nitpickings are?! And how smart are you anyway? Do you know what a double differential neutron elastic scattering cross section is?! HA! You know the routine...GIIIZZZEE!

  • June 28, 2001, 10:48 p.m. CST

    The film I REALLY want Hanks to direct is...

    by Jonny Quest

    Bosom Buddies: The Motion Picture! Starring Tom Everett Scott as Kip/Buffy and Steve Zahn as Henry/Hildeguard. Hanks & Scolari can star as their distgruntled Dads. I loved this show. Hanks & Scorali had a terrific chemistry together. I still think that that show is one of the best things Hanks has ever done.

  • June 29, 2001, 12:50 a.m. CST

    twolone: what makes you so sure?

    by slampton

    I have found references to both 2064 and 2063 on the internet. Now that I think about, the copy I read was called 2063. I bet if you go to your local library you will be able to find an old copy with one of these other names. So maybe you're right that he didn't change the name because of the other book (that was just a guess), maybe he changed it due to a recalculation of Haley's return. 2061 is still considered to be just an estimate.

  • June 29, 2001, 2:13 a.m. CST

    hold on 3001 was crap

    by gibreel

    no really it was a really really bad book..and it'll make a really really bad film...no matter who directs it.

  • June 29, 2001, 2:54 a.m. CST

    the lizards have got us

    by Gus Goldby

    David Icke must be shittin himself, I know I am.

  • June 29, 2001, 5:39 a.m. CST

    WOAH, WOAH, WOAH!!!....

    by Gregzero

    I hate to be the one who says it, but wasn't that book kind of a stinker?

  • June 29, 2001, 6:37 a.m. CST

    Relax people

    by Joejoesan

    Everybody knows this thing will never happen. But hey, it's great to joke about it! I liked the book 3001 though. Resurrecting Frank Poole and to see the future through his eyes was a great idea. Too bad Independence Day has the same ending.

  • June 29, 2001, 8:38 a.m. CST

    3001 is more relevent than 2061

    by AgentSix

    In the wake of this being 2001, i recently read all four books, back to back to back to back, and I feel that even though 2061 had an exellent plot, for the average viewer, 3001 has much more relevence to the first film than 3001.

  • June 29, 2001, 9:22 a.m. CST

    Who cares what Kubrick would want

    by HeadlessHorseman

    I cound care less who Kubrick would have wanted to direct 3001. Kubrick made 2001, and it was incredible, and a true collaboration between Clarke and himself.... 3001 was in no way a collaboration with Kubrick. If Clarke wants Hanks (I don't know if he does or not), Hanks should get the job.

  • June 29, 2001, 9:59 a.m. CST

    2061 is it there never was a 2064 or 2064

    by Henry Jones Jr.

    2061 was the only published title that novel is known by. I checked OCLC's World Cat (a database of 95 percent of the public libraries in the USA) and no library had a book by Clarke with the title 2063 or 2064. (there goes that theory.) I also check www.abebooks.com (a rare book website) and they had over 700 hits on clarke and 2061, zero (O) for 2064 and 2064. You must be taking too many drugs if you are remember it as anything but 2061. Don't mess with librarians.

  • June 29, 2001, 10:12 a.m. CST

    3001 stank

    by Alex Rogan

    Clarke used 3001 as a soapbox to spout off his own political and social views (which I think are crap, but that's another story). If he actually focused on telling a great story it might have been worth making a movie out of it.

  • June 29, 2001, 10:20 a.m. CST

    search talkbalks?

    by Henry Jones Jr.

    BTW, can you search the talkbalks? I did some searches and only seemed to be picking up the actual news stories, and Harry's reviews.

  • June 30, 2001, 7:01 a.m. CST

    How to save money this winter...

    by Roosterbooster

    Instead of turning up the thermostat simply remember Tom's Oscar acceptance speech for "Philadelphia". The thought of it will make you glow from head to foot with embarrassment.

  • June 30, 2001, 12:48 p.m. CST

    Kubrick had nothing to do with it, and this is OLD OLD news

    by Flim

    Kubrick had absolutely NOTHING to do with 2010, 2064, or 3001. They are all A. C. Clarke ventures, and of all of them, 2064 should be the one made into a film. 3001 is weak at best, I'm sorry to say - and I am a HUGE fan of them all. If anyone with clout is reading this, MAKE 2064 FIRST!!! Oh yeah, and fuck Michael Bay.

  • June 30, 2001, 12:50 p.m. CST

    er..

    by Flim

    2061, that is. <blush>

  • June 30, 2001, 2:49 p.m. CST

    In defense of 2010

    by ar42

    Just because it's a sequel to one of the greatest movies of all time, and just because it obviously fails to live up to the first film, by no means makes it a failure. The scientific accuracy shown in 2010 is perhaps the best every portrayed in a Hollywood movie (along with 2001, of course). The special effects are remarkable, the story is fascinating. (And why all the complains about the dated Cold War scenario? It's 2001 right now and nobody's snickering because we don't have manned missions to Jupiter...) If 2001 had never been made, 2010 would probably be much more famous. -----> As for 2061, that really shouldn't have been a book at all... it would have been a great short story, though. 3001 was fine, but forgettable. I agree with the comments that there really wouldn't be any reason to justify the expense to bring it to the screen. But as for the Clarke/Fincher/Moebius/Freeman combo that is Rendezvous With Rama... *that* is going to kick some major ass. :-)

  • June 30, 2001, 2:53 p.m. CST

    searching talkbacks....

    by ar42

    I don't know if that's such a good idea. If you searched for, say, "Lord of the Rings," you would get back 773,209 messages saying "Lord of the Rings is gonna suck ass cuz Peter Jack$on is a sell-out whore."

  • June 30, 2001, 5:53 p.m. CST

    2064: I'm not the only one smoking crack

    by slampton

    http://www.mit.edu/people/vishal/books.html

  • June 30, 2001, 5:58 p.m. CST

    There is no 2064!!!

    by ewem

    The book is called 2061! I swear!

  • June 30, 2001, 9:35 p.m. CST

    Castaway 2: Wilson's Revenge

    by Petros000

  • June 30, 2001, 9:36 p.m. CST

    Matt Groehning to design '3001'?

    by Petros000

  • June 30, 2001, 10:26 p.m. CST

    2010 was a piece of garbage

    by fidelio1st

    It wasn't so much just the Cold War aspect that made it bad, it was we all have to work together sentimental bs that made 2010 garbage. And come on, all those monoliths flying around. If 2001 had never been made, we wouldn't even be talking about 2010 now.

  • July 1, 2001, 1:59 a.m. CST

    Aren't they forgetting something?

    by bighojo

    "2061: Odyssey Three," the best and most deserving of having a quality film made of it, comes before 3001. That's hollywood for ya, always screw up a good thing and do it wrong 99% of the time, for the big $$$

  • July 1, 2001, 11:30 p.m. CST

    4001: The Absolute Very Final Odyssey - directed by JOHN TRAVOLT

    by MarvinofMars

    "But wait" you say "Clarke has not written that yet". That's ok because Travolta announces that he will adapt a screenplay from one of the novels by Scientology huckster L. Ron Hubbard.

  • July 2, 2001, 7:18 a.m. CST

    William Shanter Dierects Red Planet Sequel

    by ftumog

    While outside, on the hilltop complex, on break from my truely exciting job, I overheard the following tidbit. A small, humaniod grasshopper was telling his friend an amubulatory bloodmass patch that his ant that was visiting a fern at Stanely Kubrick's house cleaner's sisters cardboard box and she told her that Kubrick was heard mumbling in a drunken stupor that he wanted William Shanter to direct the sequel to Red Planet. Red Planet Too: The Search for a Hideous Sequel. Thought this should be passed on for all those big Red Planet and Shatner fans.

  • While outside, on the hilltop complex, on break from my truly exciting job, I overheard the following tidbit. A small, humanoid grasshopper was telling his friend an ambulatory bloodmoss patch that his ant that was visiting a fern at Stanely Kubrick's house cleaner's sisters cardboard box and she told her that Kubrick was heard mumbling in a drunken stupor that he wanted William Shatner to direct the sequel to Red Planet. Red Planet Too: The Search for a Hideous Sequel. Thought this should be passed on for all those big Red Planet and Shatner fans.