• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Worldbuilding in Season 1

I'll go out on a limb -- I like 2010 more then 2001. It's a great movie.
I absolutely agree. I also agree with @Christopher about the Cold War angle, but overall there's a great sense of chill and mystery throughout. Even David Shire's mostly Synclavier score works. The science feels sound and I love the aero breaking sequence. And that moment when HAL relays the message to Floyd, sitting alone on Discovery, to "look behind you" is an awesome "ooooh crap" moment.

2010 is my favorite non-franchise Sci-Fi film of the early 80's. 2001 is a chore for me to get through, but I enjoyed the book.
 
Although the film version of 2010 was badly dated in retrospect by playing up the Cold War tension angle, what with the Soviet Union ceasing to exist just 5-6 years after the film came out. Okay, the novel had the USSR still existing, but the East-West relations were cordial, at least among the astronauts and scientists that the novel focused on.

I don't consider it dated at all. Just an alternate universe. And for the time it came out, it was a welcome "Screw those crazy guys up top" message.

2010 is my favorite non-franchise Sci-Fi film of the early 80's. 2001 is a chore for me to get through, but I enjoyed the book.

I am looking forward to watching it on the Journey with the gang next year. Maybe we'll drink a lot first.

Actually, I find 2001 is like Blade Runner -- a tedious slog under the wrong circumstances, utterly brilliant under the right ones.
 
Even David Shire's mostly Synclavier score works.

I've never been much of a fan of electronic scores, but Shire's 2010 score was always an exception. I rather liked it, and I still have my LP of the soundtrack. Although my favorite part was when they finally brought in a full orchestra to do the end titles.


The science feels sound and I love the aero breaking sequence.

Well, they took a few liberties, like having gravity throughout Discovery instead of only in the centrifuge. But mostly it was pretty sound. Movies with good science were much rarer back then than they have been in recent years, so that's always been something I appreciated about it.


I don't consider it dated at all. Just an alternate universe.

It's easier to see it that way when its setting is a dozen years in the past and it has to be taken as alternate history anyway. But back in 1991, it was still predicting a possible future, which made it kind of embarrassing that it had the USSR still around and Cold War tensions still 1980s-intense in 2010. (Admittedly, of course, our relations with Russia are pretty terrible right now in 2022, but Russia isn't the USSR.)

Of course, no science fiction writers seemed to predict the fall of the USSR. You can find any number of pre-1991 works assuming it would still be around centuries in the future. Star Trek, for example, had Chekov mention Leningrad in "I, Mudd," and the Tsiolkovsky in TNG's "The Naked Now" mentioned the USSR on its dedication plaque. It always intrigued me that out of all these writers who dedicated themselves to projecting plausible futures, as far as I know, not one of them pegged the USSR collapsing so soon and suddenly. It always seemed like it was too powerful for that.


And for the time it came out, it was a welcome "Screw those crazy guys up top" message.

Exactly. By trying to make it more topical at the time of its release, they made it less timeless. That's what I mean when I say it's dated -- it's blatantly a product of its time, which is incongruous for a story set decades in the future. I mean, every work of science fiction becomes outdated eventually, but the Cold War angle meant that 2010 (the movie) became outdated only 7 years after its release instead of 26 years after. The novel had a longer shelf life because it avoided Cold War politics, so the fact that the cosmonauts were technically Soviet was incidental and easier to shrug off.
 
Exactly. By trying to make it more topical at the time of its release, they made it less timeless. That's what I mean when I say it's dated -- it's blatantly a product of its time, which is incongruous for a story set decades in the future. I mean, every work of science fiction becomes outdated eventually, but the Cold War angle meant that 2010 (the movie) became outdated only 7 years after its release instead of 26 years after. The novel had a longer shelf life because it avoided Cold War politics, so the fact that the cosmonauts were technically Soviet was incidental and easier to shrug off.

That's like saying Trek is dated because Khan didn't control a quarter of the Earth in 1996.

Dated is talking about microfilm in a story set in the latter 21st Century. 2010 is just in a different timeline.
 
Dated is talking about microfilm in a story set in the latter 21st Century. 2010 is just in a different timeline.

I repeat: It is a lot easier for you to say that today than it was for us back in 1991. Being closed-minded to perspectives other than your own does not score any points with me.
 
I've never been much of a fan of electronic scores, but Shire's 2010 score was always an exception. I rather liked it, and I still have my LP of the soundtrack. Although my favorite part was when they finally brought in a full orchestra to do the end titles.

He actually brought in the orchestra for the finale after the explosion and the birth of the new world. It was a stunning switch and really drove home the weight of what just occurred. And then again for the end credits.
 
Do you really think I wasn't alive in 1991?

No, I just think we can get so used to our current perspective that we don't stop to think about alternative ways of seeing something. I'm describing how it felt to me back in 1991 and after, which is different from how you say it seems to you in the present. I'm saying it's easier to see something as an "alternate universe" when it's already in the past than when it's still a prediction of a potential future.

After all, that's part of the game of science fiction writing, certainly the hard-SF genre that Arthur C. Clarke worked in -- to try to offer plausible conjectures about the future. Obviously nobody expects it to really come true exactly as predicted, but the ideal is to present a conjecture that believably seems like it could occur in the future, that's a credible extrapolation from present-day reality, not just some arbitrary "alternate universe" (since alternate history is a distinct subgenre of its own, not just a handwave for getting something wrong). So when a conjecture is proved wrong only a few years after the work is released and well before the time when it takes place, that's losing a point in the credibility game. It doesn't mean the work can't still be enjoyable, but it means it didn't turn out as plausible as the author (or in this case, the director) hoped.
 
No, I just think we can get so used to our current perspective that we don't stop to think about alternative ways of seeing something. I'm describing how it felt to me back in 1991 and after, which is different from how you say it seems to you in the present. I'm saying it's easier to see something as an "alternate universe" when it's already in the past than when it's still a prediction of a potential future.

I get what you're saying. I hear you. I also recall watching the movie after it was no longer possible for it to take place in our reality (in the 90s) and didn't think OMG HOW DATED.

Honestly, I always found the dating of 2001 more jarring. Once I accepted that, 2010 was just fine since it took place in the same universe.

After all, that's part of the game of science fiction writing, certainly the hard-SF genre that Arthur C. Clarke worked in -- to try to offer plausible conjectures about the future. Obviously nobody expects it to really come true exactly as predicted, but the ideal is to present a conjecture that believably seems like it could occur in the future, that's a credible extrapolation from present-day reality, not just some arbitrary "alternate universe" (since alternate history is a distinct subgenre of its own, not just a handwave for getting something wrong). So when a conjecture is proved wrong only a few years after the work is released and well before the time when it takes place, that's losing a point in the credibility game. It doesn't mean the work can't still be enjoyable, but it means it didn't turn out as plausible as the author (or in this case, the director) hoped.

Clarke wrote 2010 as a sequel to 2001, knowing the dates would never work out. Moreover, 2010 was written for a contemporary audience, so it made sense to resonate with them.

And by the way, it echoes strongly with the tension on the ISS what with Russians working side by side with Westerners during this Ukrainian conflict. So I'd say 2010 was extra-timeless.

You are right that, as a science fiction author, there is value to writing things such that they won't age embarrassingly. David Brin is quite good at that, and I try to emulate him in my writing. But there's a difference between extrapolating technology and getting it laughably wrong, and extrapolating culture (especially since, though the players have different names, the dynamic is similar).

Anyway, I've heard your points, you've heard mine.
 
I repeat: It is a lot easier for you to say that today than it was for us back in 1991. Being closed-minded to perspectives other than your own does not score any points with me.

@Neopeius has a differing perspective than yours, merely clarified their position, and that's someone "being closed-minded to perspectives other than your own"? So how is that not you being what you accuse them of?
 
Last edited:
Clarke wrote 2010 as a sequel to 2001, knowing the dates would never work out. Moreover, 2010 was written for a contemporary audience, so it made sense to resonate with them.

But that's my point -- Clarke didn't do that in the novel. He had the US and Soviet characters get along just fine. Peter Hyams added the Cold War tensions for the movie, trying to make it more topical. Which, in retrospect, was not as great an idea as it may have seemed at the time.
 
But that's my point -- Clarke didn't do that in the novel. He had the US and Soviet characters get along just fine. Peter Hyams added the Cold War tensions for the movie, trying to make it more topical. Which, in retrospect, was not as great an idea as it may have seemed at the time.

Except, of course, now it's even more resonant given current US/Russian tensions.

But then, I live in 2022 while you can only see things from a 1991 perspective. Closed-mindedness does not score points with me...

;)
 
Damned slingshotting around the sun...

I prefer leaping into an ancient stone donut time machine. Less rough on the body. Unless you accidentally shoot yourself up with Cordrizine.

Speaking of City and early worldbuilding, his original teleplay very much reads like it would've fit better in the first few episodes. And it also has some interesting Vulcan worldbuilding that's different from what came to be.
 
I prefer leaping into an ancient stone donut time machine. Less rough on the body. Unless you accidentally shoot yourself up with Cordrizine.

Speaking of City and early worldbuilding, his original teleplay very much reads like it would've fit better in the first few episodes. And it also has some interesting Vulcan worldbuilding that's different from what came to be.

eleborations please?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top