@Nexus71 said:

I knew of the existence of a fourth novel 3001 because I read an excerpt in some magazine around the time the book was published and had known about Poole being resurrected .but i never got to reading the book but I did read the other three novels.

Hey Nexus, old thread but I just stumbled on it. I've also read the first 3 Clarke novels (as well as his original short story "The Sentinel") and was wondering if you or anyone who's also read them would be up for a chat about the differences between Kubrick's & Clarke's different presentations of the story... especially relating to the intentions of the star baby.

Backstory: Clarke wrote "The Sentinel" which was just a sketch about a Monolith left on the moon by alien life, awakening after being discovered. Kubrick got the rights to adapt it, expanding on the story to form the evolutionary saga, apes, the Cold War, Hal & the Discovery, and the cryptic final act "Jupiter and Beyond". Kubrick hired Clarke as a technical consultant, later to become credited as co-screenwriter of the film and author of the novel(ization?) 2001: A Space Odyssey which was published at the same time as the film's release.

In other words I believe, in the tradition of film adaptations, the director Kubrick came up with the bulk of the story as we see it on screen. The writer typically has a very subordinate role to the director and producer (both Kubrick in this case). So while Clarke concurrently wrote his novel which expanded/explained/interpreted Kubrick's vision, we have to be careful because Kubrick himself was notoriously tight lipped about his artistic intent.

Here's where it gets interesting.

I strongly believe that Kubrick and Clarke disagreed on a few key points. Well, 'disagreed' may be a strong word; I think they saw things differently. Most notably, in Clarke's version one thing you probably noticed immediately is that the aliens are directly involved and present the whole time. They "teach" the ape by showing him symbols and visions in a very hands-on way. And in the final act, Clarke shows the aliens as menagerie keepers who take Bowman to a sort of intergalactic zoo where he is kept in a (flawed) replica of an earth style hotel room. Both of these points were avoided by Kubrick who presented the monoliths as passive markers or buoys left by a possibly-long-gone race. And even Kubrick's final act avoids the presence of aliens, instead presenting something more like a psychological mind trip within Bowman's head, brought on by the incomprehensible experience of seeing the Jupiter monolith.

Clarke wants us to think aliens are among us. Kubrick wants us to think aliens were once here, but not necessarily any more. And if we take this metaphor as a model for god/gods (which Kubrick did say was his intent), then we see Clarke's statement is that that God is watching (theism) while Kubrick is saying that while gods may have left clues and guidelines, there is currently no tangible presence of any gods (agnosticism).

So now to bring it all back to the point of this thread: What does the star baby do next?

At the end of Clarke's book, I believe the Star Baby destroys all the orbiting missile platforms, thus stopping armageddon. The last line of the book is:

"Then he waited, marshaling his thoughts and brooding over his still untested powers. For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next. But he would think of something."

If you follow my train of thought, I think this is the exact opposite of what Kubrick had in mind. Kubrick was very careful to avoid showing any gods or aliens meddling in human affairs, aside from the monolith relics left behind. Kubrick also--very conspicuously--avoided any hint of gods imposing moral law, or dictating what's right or wrong (such as killing). In fact one cynical interpretation of the story which I've often heard is that this entire evolutionary journey is rooted in violence. The bone becomes the orbiting missile. The orbiting missile becomes the Discovery, and each time mankind survives by killing his enemies, be they rival apes, rival countries, or a rival lifeform: HAL.

I think Kubrick intended the ending to have a slightly sinister air. Is the star baby going to conquer and subjugate the lesser species (humans) just as humans learned to kill and eat pigs? That's very much a possibility, especially when we consider that literally all of Kubrick's works have a cynical edge to them. The deus ex machina ending of Clarke's story (starbaby ex machina? 😅) was almost certainly not in Kubrick's cinematic vocabulary. No Hollywood endings for planet earth; I think the pattern that Kubrick is showing us indicates that the starbaby is just another evolutionary step forward, wrought from conquering all threats and the inferior species. In short: Yes, ATTACK OF THE GIANT BABY.