What do you think?
Rate this book
The Weirdest Sci-Fi Comic Ever Made: Understanding Jack Kirby's 2001: A Space Odyssey
In 1976-1977, comics legend Jack Kirby, known for his bombastic super-heroes, produced an adaptation and continuation of Stanley Kubrick's cinematic sci-fi masterpiece 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. One could hardly imagine more celebrated creators in their respective fields -- nor a greater clash of personal styles. The result, according to Dr. Julian Darius, was a mad clash of themes and tones that reveals much about Kirby, 2001 itself, and even 2001 novelist Arthur C. Clarke.
90 pages, Paperback
First published May 26, 2013
14 people are currently reading
511 people want to read
About the author
Julian Darius
126 books115 followersA creative writer and comics scholar, Dr. Julian Darius holds degrees in English (Ph.D., M.A.) and French (M.A.).
Darius founded Martian Lit, for which he writes several acclaimed comics titles, including Martian Comics, Necropolitan, Kimot Ren, Forever Man, and The Synthetics. He's also published a novel, some short stories, and a screenplay.
In 1996, while still an undergraduate, Darius founded what would become Sequart Organization, an organization devoted to promoting comic books and pop culture as a legitimate art form. He wrote copiously for Sequart’s website, has authored books on comics, and has produced documentary films for the organization.
He co-hosts the Stories out of Time and Space podcast with Scott Weatherly. It covers science-fiction movies and TV shows.
He currently lives in Illinois.
Darius founded Martian Lit, for which he writes several acclaimed comics titles, including Martian Comics, Necropolitan, Kimot Ren, Forever Man, and The Synthetics. He's also published a novel, some short stories, and a screenplay.
In 1996, while still an undergraduate, Darius founded what would become Sequart Organization, an organization devoted to promoting comic books and pop culture as a legitimate art form. He wrote copiously for Sequart’s website, has authored books on comics, and has produced documentary films for the organization.
He co-hosts the Stories out of Time and Space podcast with Scott Weatherly. It covers science-fiction movies and TV shows.
He currently lives in Illinois.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
February 10, 2018
An exploration of a little known comic book published at a time when comic books were changing, and not necessarily for the better.
Eight years after the movie was made, but six years before the sequel to the original book, and eight years before the sequel to the movie 2001 were made, the comic started with an oversized adaptation of the movie, then segued into a comic book that changed format several times.
While Darius read the comic backwards and forwards, he doesn't really seem to know all that much about Kirby himself, or the environment of the comic industry of the 1970's, or indeed of the Marvel Universe itself.
It almost seems like a parody of itself.
Eight years after the movie was made, but six years before the sequel to the original book, and eight years before the sequel to the movie 2001 were made, the comic started with an oversized adaptation of the movie, then segued into a comic book that changed format several times.
While Darius read the comic backwards and forwards, he doesn't really seem to know all that much about Kirby himself, or the environment of the comic industry of the 1970's, or indeed of the Marvel Universe itself.
It almost seems like a parody of itself.
March 24, 2024
Well, I was a little disappointed. I mean with that title, I was hoping for a bit more.
In all fairness I should offer that I am a huge fan of the work of Jack Kirby. And when I say huge, what I mean is HUGE! He was a force of nature in the comics industry. Kirby is often called the King of Comics, but he was more like the God of Creation of Comics. His track record for characters he created or co-created is unparalleled. The sheer quantity of pages he produced is astonishing, and while the quality of those pages is certainly debatable his influence on the industry as a whole and on creators individually is not. He was one-of-a-kind. So where does this upstart, Julian Darius, get off ragging on Kirby? To be honest, he doesn't. But he does. On one hand Darius offers many excellent points on his analysis of one of Kirby's lesser known works, but he does so with some rather alarming inconsistencies. On the other he does praise Kirby's work, but often for the very things his also ripping apart.
Kirby's 2001 has its faults. I'll be right there toward the head of the line on that one. But the film (Kubrick, 1968) has faults as well. Some pretty big ones too. And Arthur C. Clarke's Space Odyssey series has more than it's fair share of inconsistencies as well, although to be fair Darius does point all this out. Except while giving Clarke a pass-card for his inconsistencies offering the option that each of the four books occurs in it's own alternate reality, he seems unwilling to offer the same consideration to Kirby's 2001 and instead endless lambastes Kirby for not making a more (1) faithful adaptation or (2) more understandable adaptation. Let's get something straight right off the bat: this is an adaptation. That means that the adapter has as much of an opportunity to go in whatever direction they want. Now, was Kirby's adaptation clear about the direction it was going in? No, it wasn't. That's the weakness of the series. Whether Kirby was working with a premise he wasn't exactly sure what to do with or if he was being pressured from the publisher or the copyright owners to take things in a different direction is not clear. What is clear is that Kirby's 2001 was inconsistent. When it was first coming out I bought the original treasury edition adaptation, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and at least the first four issues of the continuation series. I don't recall if I stopped with the 4th, 5th or 6th issue, as there are aspects of Darius' recaps that seem familiar and aspects that don't (it was almost 40 years ago, so give me a break). I remember enjoying the adaptation although not as much as the original film, and getting extremely frustrated with the continuation series. A lot of that was because of many of the points that Darius brings up.
The problem is that while Darius rips the adaptation and continuations apart, he also offers explanations as to why these might not be as worthy of complaints as they seem, but then ignores these points entirely. If you're going to bring them up, why bother to then ignore them? And most annoying for me was how he gave Clarke a pass for the inconsistencies between the various sequels and yet refused to offer the same consideration to Kirby. The only reason for this seemingly is that Clarke, as originator of the concept (the short story The Sentinel), can do as he pleases when adapting the concept to sequels but Kirby, a mere comic book artist(?), has to adapt it in an appropriate manner. Like I said, it was frustrating. BUT it did make me want to dig out my copy of 2001: A Space Odyssey and see if I still have any issues of the continuation series (I don't think I do). Who knows, maybe I'll even dig out my copy of Kubrick's film and watch it again.
In all fairness I should offer that I am a huge fan of the work of Jack Kirby. And when I say huge, what I mean is HUGE! He was a force of nature in the comics industry. Kirby is often called the King of Comics, but he was more like the God of Creation of Comics. His track record for characters he created or co-created is unparalleled. The sheer quantity of pages he produced is astonishing, and while the quality of those pages is certainly debatable his influence on the industry as a whole and on creators individually is not. He was one-of-a-kind. So where does this upstart, Julian Darius, get off ragging on Kirby? To be honest, he doesn't. But he does. On one hand Darius offers many excellent points on his analysis of one of Kirby's lesser known works, but he does so with some rather alarming inconsistencies. On the other he does praise Kirby's work, but often for the very things his also ripping apart.
Kirby's 2001 has its faults. I'll be right there toward the head of the line on that one. But the film (Kubrick, 1968) has faults as well. Some pretty big ones too. And Arthur C. Clarke's Space Odyssey series has more than it's fair share of inconsistencies as well, although to be fair Darius does point all this out. Except while giving Clarke a pass-card for his inconsistencies offering the option that each of the four books occurs in it's own alternate reality, he seems unwilling to offer the same consideration to Kirby's 2001 and instead endless lambastes Kirby for not making a more (1) faithful adaptation or (2) more understandable adaptation. Let's get something straight right off the bat: this is an adaptation. That means that the adapter has as much of an opportunity to go in whatever direction they want. Now, was Kirby's adaptation clear about the direction it was going in? No, it wasn't. That's the weakness of the series. Whether Kirby was working with a premise he wasn't exactly sure what to do with or if he was being pressured from the publisher or the copyright owners to take things in a different direction is not clear. What is clear is that Kirby's 2001 was inconsistent. When it was first coming out I bought the original treasury edition adaptation, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and at least the first four issues of the continuation series. I don't recall if I stopped with the 4th, 5th or 6th issue, as there are aspects of Darius' recaps that seem familiar and aspects that don't (it was almost 40 years ago, so give me a break). I remember enjoying the adaptation although not as much as the original film, and getting extremely frustrated with the continuation series. A lot of that was because of many of the points that Darius brings up.
The problem is that while Darius rips the adaptation and continuations apart, he also offers explanations as to why these might not be as worthy of complaints as they seem, but then ignores these points entirely. If you're going to bring them up, why bother to then ignore them? And most annoying for me was how he gave Clarke a pass for the inconsistencies between the various sequels and yet refused to offer the same consideration to Kirby. The only reason for this seemingly is that Clarke, as originator of the concept (the short story The Sentinel), can do as he pleases when adapting the concept to sequels but Kirby, a mere comic book artist(?), has to adapt it in an appropriate manner. Like I said, it was frustrating. BUT it did make me want to dig out my copy of 2001: A Space Odyssey and see if I still have any issues of the continuation series (I don't think I do). Who knows, maybe I'll even dig out my copy of Kubrick's film and watch it again.
April 18, 2020
The segment entitled "Jack Kirby Vs. Arthur C. Clarke: A Tale of Two 2001 Continuations" is quite insightful in its analyses of the two creators' wildly different approaches to following up on 2001: A Space Odyssey. Unfortunately, those few pages are as close as this book comes to living up to its titular promise.
This long-winded paragraph sets the tone for the rest of the volume:
"Corporate American comics, in which Kirby had worked most of his life, routinely combine genres that really shouldn't go together. Thus, a hard-boiled detective comic can share the same universe with an alien invasion comic -- even though the insertion of aliens into the universe of the hard-boiled detective effectively destroys the realistic ambiance on which the detective depends. In the same way, characters relying on magic mix with realistic science-fiction characters, despite that the insertion of magic into realistic science fiction transforms that genre into something closer to science fantasy. Control over genre -- and with it tone -- is crucial to any story, and the more unrealistic genre typically suffers when unrealistic characters or elements are introduced. Popeye may be great, and the Great Gatsby may be too, but the latter's universe is shattered by Popeye's insertion. Corporate American comics, don't usually know, or at least care, about this dynamic. But literary works, whether in prose or film or comics, typically care a great deal about this careful control of genre, tone, and realism."
Besides belching up the term "Corporate American" like an angry college sophomore, he attacks one of the greatest strengths of shared universe comics. It's not simply a matter of not caring about genre rules. It's about not being constrained by tired conventions that get in the way of potential. It's called imagination, Doc. Try getting some.
If you can choke back the bile from reading that bit, you'll be in store for a lot more of the same. By the end of the book, the author becomes so full of himself and so condescending that, no matter what good points he made in his critiques (and, to be fair, he does make a few), I just can not care.
This an 82-page equivalent of an "UNPOPULAR OPINION" Facebook post, barely worthy of an eye roll. It's performative snobbery at its worst, and I'm sure the author feels very smart for having written it.
This long-winded paragraph sets the tone for the rest of the volume:
"Corporate American comics, in which Kirby had worked most of his life, routinely combine genres that really shouldn't go together. Thus, a hard-boiled detective comic can share the same universe with an alien invasion comic -- even though the insertion of aliens into the universe of the hard-boiled detective effectively destroys the realistic ambiance on which the detective depends. In the same way, characters relying on magic mix with realistic science-fiction characters, despite that the insertion of magic into realistic science fiction transforms that genre into something closer to science fantasy. Control over genre -- and with it tone -- is crucial to any story, and the more unrealistic genre typically suffers when unrealistic characters or elements are introduced. Popeye may be great, and the Great Gatsby may be too, but the latter's universe is shattered by Popeye's insertion. Corporate American comics, don't usually know, or at least care, about this dynamic. But literary works, whether in prose or film or comics, typically care a great deal about this careful control of genre, tone, and realism."
Besides belching up the term "Corporate American" like an angry college sophomore, he attacks one of the greatest strengths of shared universe comics. It's not simply a matter of not caring about genre rules. It's about not being constrained by tired conventions that get in the way of potential. It's called imagination, Doc. Try getting some.
If you can choke back the bile from reading that bit, you'll be in store for a lot more of the same. By the end of the book, the author becomes so full of himself and so condescending that, no matter what good points he made in his critiques (and, to be fair, he does make a few), I just can not care.
This an 82-page equivalent of an "UNPOPULAR OPINION" Facebook post, barely worthy of an eye roll. It's performative snobbery at its worst, and I'm sure the author feels very smart for having written it.
July 21, 2014
This was an interesting treatise on a comic book series. I'll give anyone props for writing about Jack Kirby (or any of the classic comic book art legends of the day), and this is one of Kirby's stranger works. Not sure if it qualifies as "weirdest" even in Jack's oeuvre, considering "Devil Dinosaur" and "The Eternals" from the same period.
The author does a good job covering the treasury-sized special and the individual issues of the short-lived series. Few non-comic fans will probably even remember the series, having been produced nearly a decade after the original movie had premiered. The only thing of note about it, besides Jack Kirby's work, was the introduction of the character that would become known as Machine Man. The rest was all Kirby - his take on another form of science fiction (he'd already done the ancient astronaut/Chariots of the Gods thing with The Eternals and his own unique mythos with the Fourth World/New Gods over at DC Comics).
It's an interesting and nearly enlightening read, but this is definitely just something for the comic book fan or the niche Arthur C. Clarke/Odyssey aficionado.
The author does a good job covering the treasury-sized special and the individual issues of the short-lived series. Few non-comic fans will probably even remember the series, having been produced nearly a decade after the original movie had premiered. The only thing of note about it, besides Jack Kirby's work, was the introduction of the character that would become known as Machine Man. The rest was all Kirby - his take on another form of science fiction (he'd already done the ancient astronaut/Chariots of the Gods thing with The Eternals and his own unique mythos with the Fourth World/New Gods over at DC Comics).
It's an interesting and nearly enlightening read, but this is definitely just something for the comic book fan or the niche Arthur C. Clarke/Odyssey aficionado.
September 21, 2019
On the whole, this was a pretty cruel attack piece on Jack Kirby by some guy named Julian Darius. Darius is someone who in this little book failed to demonstrate a real understanding of the comics medium, or demonstrate that he performed any actual research of any kind outside of reading the eleven comics book issues discussed in the book.
I was actually looking forward to reading this little book. The idea of a book being written about such an odd topic as Kirby’s equally odd 2001: A Space Odyssey comic series sounded really intriguing. However, I found myself sadly disappointed with the experience of reading this book. Most of the book is Darius giving a slavish summary of each issue, then asking “what was Kirby thinking?”. That’s honestly almost the entirety of the book. Summary, then attack. That’s it. For ninety pages. Summary and attack. It does not get really bad though, until the last chapter where Darius talks about the last three issues, the Mister Machine/Machine Man issues. That’s where Darius really takes the cloves off, puts on his brass knuckles, and starts beating the tar out of an old man while he’s down.
My opinion of the book was not so bad until reading this last chapter. This is also the chapter where Darius goes out of his way to make himself look ridicules, obsessing about whether or not 2001 takes place in the Earth-616 Marvel universe. He obsesses over a single line of dialog for evidence in a way that seems to indicate that Darius thinks Marvel universe question is that most important question of the entire series, but its not. It does not matter. Perhaps if Darius had actually done some actual research he may have gotten some insights that may have informed his analysis. For example, Kirby was someone who liked creating and interpreting old ideas in new ways, and at the time Kirby was doing 2001, he was also doing The Eternals. The Eternals was a book with very few, if any at all, connections to the Earth-616 Marvel Universe. Kirby probably did not consider 2001 to be part of the Marvel universe, but more importantly, he probably didn’t care. What should be more important to a book like this would be trying to figure out what Kirby did care about.
Darius does not give the impression he has any apparition for who Kirby even was. Jack Kirby was one of the most important and influential creative artists who ever worked in the field of comics. Darius gives the impression he did little more than give a superficial glance at Kirby’s Wikipedia page before writing this book. This book does not put Kirby’s 2001 series into some kind of actual context of his career, it just paints Kirby as a clown. Someone reading this book who knew nothing of comics would likely come away with the impression that Kirby was a lazy hack artist and creator. This is inexcusable.
The real problem with this book is the impression Darius gives, that he performed no research. It gives the impression that the only research Darius performed, was reading Kirby’s eleven 2001: A Space Odyssey comics. There is nothing suggesting he may have tried to contact anyone who worked with Kirby at the time Kirby was working on 2001. There is nothing suggesting he looked for old interviews with Kirby where it shared what his ideas about his 2001 series were. Not even references to advertisements or catalog listings for the book. Granted old interviews, advertisements, catalog listings, might not even exist, but reading Darius’s book one gets the impression that looking for those things didn’t even cross his mind. He almost certainly just read Kirby’s eleven 2001 comic book issues. On the other hand, there are several references Arthur C. Clarke’s sequels to 2001, so he probably spent more time reading Clarke’s sequel novels than reading Kirby’s comics. Sadly, Darius wrath is not restricted to just Kirby, he trashes Clarke pretty good as well. For those keeping score, Clarke happens to have been one of the greatest and most influential science fiction writers of all time.
Anyone who has read any of Kirby’s brief 2001 series is perfectly aware of the fact that this series was very odd, and pretty ill conceived. It actually is not very good, but Darius’s attack book is never the less shallow, un-insightful, and cruel when it did not need to be any of those things.
I was actually looking forward to reading this little book. The idea of a book being written about such an odd topic as Kirby’s equally odd 2001: A Space Odyssey comic series sounded really intriguing. However, I found myself sadly disappointed with the experience of reading this book. Most of the book is Darius giving a slavish summary of each issue, then asking “what was Kirby thinking?”. That’s honestly almost the entirety of the book. Summary, then attack. That’s it. For ninety pages. Summary and attack. It does not get really bad though, until the last chapter where Darius talks about the last three issues, the Mister Machine/Machine Man issues. That’s where Darius really takes the cloves off, puts on his brass knuckles, and starts beating the tar out of an old man while he’s down.
My opinion of the book was not so bad until reading this last chapter. This is also the chapter where Darius goes out of his way to make himself look ridicules, obsessing about whether or not 2001 takes place in the Earth-616 Marvel universe. He obsesses over a single line of dialog for evidence in a way that seems to indicate that Darius thinks Marvel universe question is that most important question of the entire series, but its not. It does not matter. Perhaps if Darius had actually done some actual research he may have gotten some insights that may have informed his analysis. For example, Kirby was someone who liked creating and interpreting old ideas in new ways, and at the time Kirby was doing 2001, he was also doing The Eternals. The Eternals was a book with very few, if any at all, connections to the Earth-616 Marvel Universe. Kirby probably did not consider 2001 to be part of the Marvel universe, but more importantly, he probably didn’t care. What should be more important to a book like this would be trying to figure out what Kirby did care about.
Darius does not give the impression he has any apparition for who Kirby even was. Jack Kirby was one of the most important and influential creative artists who ever worked in the field of comics. Darius gives the impression he did little more than give a superficial glance at Kirby’s Wikipedia page before writing this book. This book does not put Kirby’s 2001 series into some kind of actual context of his career, it just paints Kirby as a clown. Someone reading this book who knew nothing of comics would likely come away with the impression that Kirby was a lazy hack artist and creator. This is inexcusable.
The real problem with this book is the impression Darius gives, that he performed no research. It gives the impression that the only research Darius performed, was reading Kirby’s eleven 2001: A Space Odyssey comics. There is nothing suggesting he may have tried to contact anyone who worked with Kirby at the time Kirby was working on 2001. There is nothing suggesting he looked for old interviews with Kirby where it shared what his ideas about his 2001 series were. Not even references to advertisements or catalog listings for the book. Granted old interviews, advertisements, catalog listings, might not even exist, but reading Darius’s book one gets the impression that looking for those things didn’t even cross his mind. He almost certainly just read Kirby’s eleven 2001 comic book issues. On the other hand, there are several references Arthur C. Clarke’s sequels to 2001, so he probably spent more time reading Clarke’s sequel novels than reading Kirby’s comics. Sadly, Darius wrath is not restricted to just Kirby, he trashes Clarke pretty good as well. For those keeping score, Clarke happens to have been one of the greatest and most influential science fiction writers of all time.
Anyone who has read any of Kirby’s brief 2001 series is perfectly aware of the fact that this series was very odd, and pretty ill conceived. It actually is not very good, but Darius’s attack book is never the less shallow, un-insightful, and cruel when it did not need to be any of those things.
May 28, 2020
I've never "hate read" a book to completion, so this was a new experience for me.
The author states at the beginning that the work is neither "pro-Kubrick or anti-Kirby", and I believe he wanted this to be the case. The text, though, says otherwise, offering a profoundly disdainful reading of Jack Kirby's oeuvre in the guise of critiquing a single work. It's an astonishingly snotty hitjob on one of the founding fathers of comics, and the only reason I made it to the final page is that it is mercifully short.
The author states at the beginning that the work is neither "pro-Kubrick or anti-Kirby", and I believe he wanted this to be the case. The text, though, says otherwise, offering a profoundly disdainful reading of Jack Kirby's oeuvre in the guise of critiquing a single work. It's an astonishingly snotty hitjob on one of the founding fathers of comics, and the only reason I made it to the final page is that it is mercifully short.
November 10, 2024
This book dives deep into the fascinating, yet often overlooked, world of Jack Kirby's comic book adaptation of Stanley Kubrick's iconic film, 2001: A Space Odyssey. Kirby, known for his wildly imaginative storytelling and innovative artwork, took on the daunting task of translating a cerebral, visually driven movie into a comic book format. What this book does exceptionally well is not just chronicle Kirby’s attempt but also explore the challenges and creative liberties he took in bringing this sci-fi masterpiece to the comic book medium. The author provides insightful commentary on how Kirby’s cosmic visions aligned with, diverged from, and even expanded upon Kubrick’s original vision, transforming the abstract philosophical themes of the film into something uniquely Kirby-esque.
The book is meticulously researched, drawing from various interviews, archival material, and previous analyses to provide a comprehensive understanding of Kirby’s artistic choices. It explores the complexity of adapting such a dense and symbolic work, emphasizing Kirby’s unique approach to storytelling through bold, kinetic artwork and often cryptic narrative choices. One of the highlights of the book is its deep dive into the artistic techniques Kirby used to capture the cosmic grandeur of the source material, from his use of "Kirby Krackle" to his dynamic panel layouts that pushed the boundaries of traditional comic book storytelling. The discussion around the themes of evolution, technology, and the unknown are particularly compelling, showcasing how Kirby infused his work with a sense of cosmic wonder that was distinctly different from the film yet retained its spirit.
For fans of both sci-fi and comic books, this exploration of Kirby’s adaptation offers a fascinating intersection of two cultural giants: Kubrick and Kirby. It’s not just a critique but a celebration of Kirby’s audacious vision, highlighting how his work stands as a unique artistic artifact in its own right. Even if you’re not familiar with Kirby’s comic adaptation, this book serves as a perfect entry point, providing a thorough yet accessible analysis that will leave readers with a newfound appreciation for one of the most ambitious, strange, and wonderfully weird adaptations in comic book history.
The book is meticulously researched, drawing from various interviews, archival material, and previous analyses to provide a comprehensive understanding of Kirby’s artistic choices. It explores the complexity of adapting such a dense and symbolic work, emphasizing Kirby’s unique approach to storytelling through bold, kinetic artwork and often cryptic narrative choices. One of the highlights of the book is its deep dive into the artistic techniques Kirby used to capture the cosmic grandeur of the source material, from his use of "Kirby Krackle" to his dynamic panel layouts that pushed the boundaries of traditional comic book storytelling. The discussion around the themes of evolution, technology, and the unknown are particularly compelling, showcasing how Kirby infused his work with a sense of cosmic wonder that was distinctly different from the film yet retained its spirit.
For fans of both sci-fi and comic books, this exploration of Kirby’s adaptation offers a fascinating intersection of two cultural giants: Kubrick and Kirby. It’s not just a critique but a celebration of Kirby’s audacious vision, highlighting how his work stands as a unique artistic artifact in its own right. Even if you’re not familiar with Kirby’s comic adaptation, this book serves as a perfect entry point, providing a thorough yet accessible analysis that will leave readers with a newfound appreciation for one of the most ambitious, strange, and wonderfully weird adaptations in comic book history.
November 9, 2024
This was a captivating journey that I didn’t want to end. The author’s talent for world-building is extraordinary, pulling you into a vibrant and engaging setting. The characters were well-developed, with rich backstories that made them feel real. I’m still thinking about it days later. Simply outstanding!
October 28, 2022
Fantastic analysis
I really enjoyed this breakdown and comparison of movie, novel, comic. Fascinating how far ahead of its time Kirby,a mega superheroes stuff in the sequels.
I really enjoyed this breakdown and comparison of movie, novel, comic. Fascinating how far ahead of its time Kirby,a mega superheroes stuff in the sequels.
October 29, 2014
The subject of this book seems an odd choice, even for an academic paper. It's a critique written in 2013 of a relatively obscure comic book series published in 1976-77 that is based on a movie released in 1968. Nevertheless, this is a book written with someone like me in mind: 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of my favorite films, and although I am not a Jack Kirby fan, I am a lifelong comic book reader who is always interested in intelligent analysis of the medium.
Darius rightfully points out the sheer insanity of Marvel greenlighting a comic book adaptation of a movie almost ten years after it was released, a movie that has virtually no comic book action. That Jack Kirby was the one to adapt the movie is even stranger, as Darius notes. During the 1970s Kirby unsuccessfully experimented with a lot of strange concepts such as Kamandi, The New Gods, and OMAC for DC, and the likes of Devil Dinosaur and The Eternals for Marvel. Kirby's bombastic style was a far cry from Stanley Kubrick's staid film.
This book gives a very detailed description of the Kirby comics in the context of the film. I found this interesting enough, but I can imagine someone not familiar with either the film or the comic book would be lost. I felt that Darius spent too much time espousing his opinions rather than a more objective approach. This book screams for quotes from Kirby and other involved parties who were privy to the behind-the-scenes actions at Marvel during this period. Those insights would have undoubtedly strengthened Darius's thesis and provided needed context for what Kirby created. Without those interviews, Darius can only speculate on what motivated Kirby, and this book is the poorer for that lack.
One very interesting observation Darius makes is how Kirby's extension of the film differs from Arthur C. Clarke's sequels published in the 1980s. Darius shows that Kirby essentially ignored the entire middle of the film, using the alien transformations in the beginning and ending as his springboard, whereas Clarke concentrated his sequels on a nuts and bolts extrapolation of the space exploration aspects in the middle of the film. Darius argues that as wildly divergent Kirby's comics are from the original film, Clarke doesn't do much better, creating continuity inconsistencies on a par with Kirby's.
Darius rightfully points out the sheer insanity of Marvel greenlighting a comic book adaptation of a movie almost ten years after it was released, a movie that has virtually no comic book action. That Jack Kirby was the one to adapt the movie is even stranger, as Darius notes. During the 1970s Kirby unsuccessfully experimented with a lot of strange concepts such as Kamandi, The New Gods, and OMAC for DC, and the likes of Devil Dinosaur and The Eternals for Marvel. Kirby's bombastic style was a far cry from Stanley Kubrick's staid film.
This book gives a very detailed description of the Kirby comics in the context of the film. I found this interesting enough, but I can imagine someone not familiar with either the film or the comic book would be lost. I felt that Darius spent too much time espousing his opinions rather than a more objective approach. This book screams for quotes from Kirby and other involved parties who were privy to the behind-the-scenes actions at Marvel during this period. Those insights would have undoubtedly strengthened Darius's thesis and provided needed context for what Kirby created. Without those interviews, Darius can only speculate on what motivated Kirby, and this book is the poorer for that lack.
One very interesting observation Darius makes is how Kirby's extension of the film differs from Arthur C. Clarke's sequels published in the 1980s. Darius shows that Kirby essentially ignored the entire middle of the film, using the alien transformations in the beginning and ending as his springboard, whereas Clarke concentrated his sequels on a nuts and bolts extrapolation of the space exploration aspects in the middle of the film. Darius argues that as wildly divergent Kirby's comics are from the original film, Clarke doesn't do much better, creating continuity inconsistencies on a par with Kirby's.
July 20, 2016
I received a free copy in exchange for a review. I don't feel like I can give a truly fair review as I am not actually a member of the book's intended audience. (I'm a comic book geek, but I've never cared for most comic adaptations of books or movies. After this book, I'm honestly rather glad that I never read Kirby's adaptation of 2001. It might have turned me off the movie or Clarke's novel.)
This book reads like a Doctoral Thesis, so if you're not up for academic texts, this can be a bit of a slog. It's a thin book, but very heavy on the detail. On the other hand, if you like in-depth analyses of obscure graphic novels? Run, don't walk, to your nearest bookseller and get a copy!
This book reads like a Doctoral Thesis, so if you're not up for academic texts, this can be a bit of a slog. It's a thin book, but very heavy on the detail. On the other hand, if you like in-depth analyses of obscure graphic novels? Run, don't walk, to your nearest bookseller and get a copy!
August 8, 2013
This was a good look at an obscure comic book series from the seventies. I even had a few of these books so I am the right audience for this. It was a slight book but well written and smart. It reminded me of the articles I used to love reading in Amazing Heroes. I wish there was some interviews by those involved with the book's production back in the day, but it was a fun smart look at something little known but different. I wouldn't mind more in depth books on weird comic series.
February 28, 2015
Darius gives more thought to Kirby's 2001 than Kirby himself probably did. That Kubrick and Kirby were the literary (?)(media?) antithesis of each other is evidenced quite well by Darius' examples of how each auteur pictured outer space and the "monolith."
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews