Just watched "2010"

[Tulin]

So I watched "2001" a few months back and yes, it not only lived up to all the hype, it was actually BETTER than what I had been told. One of the most amazing films I have ever seen.

So last night I popped in "2010". Bear in mind I read the comic back when the film originally came out - remember those comics of the film they used to put out? I had a "Dune" one too and they were pretty good. Point is, I knew about the second sun at the end and all. I also knew about the heavy Cold War angle. No biggie.

Anyway, this film was SO different and not in a good way.

Way too much dumbed down exposition. Really got annoying after a while. The whole "Heywood records a letter home and plays Captain Exposition" was almost funny after a while.

Anyway, NOWHERE near as good as the original(but then I didn't expect it to be). Not the worst film ever made but still, a little disappointing.

 

[Steve Roby]

I liked 2010, in no small part because it didn't try to be the same kind of movie 2001 was. We already had 2001. Jack Kirby's 2001 comic book series for Marvel, published circa 1976, demonstrated how pointless it'd be to do the same thing over again.

 

[shivkala]

For some reason, and maybe it's just the kind of thing you misremember, but 2010 always seemed to be on TV during the summer when my family would visit my grandfather's house. I feel like I saw it several times over the years and as I grew older, I appreciated it more.

It wasn't until I went to college and read 2001: A Space Odyssey (actually the entire series) and saw both movies that I realized the stark difference. I thought 2010 was a good movie for what it was, namely not in the same vein as 2001. Tonally, even the books are different.

I guess I'm glad they didn't make movies of 2061 and 3001, because, though I enjoyed the books, they were of a lesser quality than the first two (especially the first one). The internet debates over movies of those two books probably would have cracked the internet in half.

 

[Neroon]

"2010" was a different kind of film, and it seeed as if they set out to be just that. Which was a wise move, if that was the case. I enjoyed it a great deal, but there were a few things that annoyed me greatly. The most was the overt politicizing, the Cold War angle just did not work. In fact, I don't recall any of that in the novelization/book.

Gotta give them credt for bringing back Keir Dullea, though.

 

[Shaw]

"2010" was a different kind of film, and it seeed as if they set out to be just that. Which was a wise move, if that was the case. I enjoyed it a great deal, but there were a few things that annoyed me greatly. The most was the overt politicizing, the Cold War angle just did not work. In fact, I don't recall any of that in the novelization/book.

The novel 2010: Odyssey Two was released in 1982, the film 2010 came out in 1984. The novel isn't based on the film nor was it a novelization, it was an original work by Arthur C. Clarke which the film was loosely based on.

But no, there wasn't a lot of politicization done in the novel other than a space race with the Chinese (which never appeared in the film).

Gotta give them credt for bringing back Keir Dullea, though.

Which was sort of odd as he was a minor character, they should have taken as much care by bring back William Sylvester as Floyed.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

But no, there wasn't a lot of politicization done in the novel other than a space race with the Chinese (which never appeared in the film).

Which would have been a lot less dated as it's turns out.

I always thought Helen Mirren looked pretty good in this movie, crazy Russian accent and all.

 

[Neroon]

I couldn't remember which came first, the book or the film, hence my inclusion of both terms.

As to who they brought back, well.... you can go a number of ways, but I think having Bowman was interesting. After all, what had happened to him was a complete mystery as far as Earth was concerned. Might have been interesting to have Sylvester back, though. How old would he have been?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Might have been interesting to have Sylvester back, though. How old would he have been?

WS would have been 62 when 2010 came out since he was born in 1922. The last acting he ever did was in '83, so I'm guessing he retired at that point (he died in '95).

That being said, I thought Roy Scheider was totally cool as Floyd.

And I cannot WAIT till this movie comes out on Blu-Ray. (Its existing DVD versions are so crappy, they're an insult to crap).

 

[Neroon]

The scene as the Lianov was air-braking through the Jovian atmosphere was VERY impressive on the big screen. Most of the shots in orbit were very polished looking, in fact. I might still get the DVD one day, just because I liek the film. I haven't seen a "remastered" version anywhere. Doubt if I will ever go Blu-Ray, though.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I might still get the DVD one day, just because I liek the film.

Remember what I said about the existing DVDs. (they're not even anamorphic, how pathetic is that?)

I bought the film through the iTunes Store. MUCH better quality than any existing DVD versions of this film.

 

[Neroon]

Yes I did remember what you said. But I have an up-converting DVD player right now. By the time I could afford a Blu-Ray player, I'm expecting someting new on the horizon. That said, I'd still like to have "2001" and "2010" on disc to have as reference material. Do you recommend any particular version of "2001"?

 

[DWF]

Yes I did remember what you said. But I have an up-converting DVD player right now. By the time I could afford a Blu-Ray player, I'm expecting someting new on the horizon. That said, I'd still like to have "2001" and "2010" on disc to have as reference material. Do you recommend any particular version of "2001"?

Get the anniversary addition of 2001, it's got a commentary and making of documentary with it.

 

[trekjiro]

I also watched 2001/2010 a few months ago first time.
I was totally blown away with 2001. It exceeded all the hype
and legendary status and was/is an incredibly beautiful peace
of art. As was said in the documentary describing Kubrick, 'every scene
he treated like a painting and peace of art.' You talk about making the most of each shot to the nth degree. Visual story-making as Lucas mentioned.

I didn't expect 2010 to be near the same but i actually liked it alot.
I like Roy Scheider. He has a kind of vulnerable side or something that gives his characters credibility. I also liked the ship designs. Back at that time, it was when they were starting to go experimental with interior design. Alot of nice tile work with monitors, wacked hull design, etc. I'll have to watch it again.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Yes I did remember what you said. But I have an up-converting DVD player right now.

That won't make much difference here. Not with DVDs as crappy as the existing versions of 2010. Remember: *they aren't anamorphic*.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

the original is superb filmmaking. It was wise to try not to imitate it. It would have failed.

What makes the sequel work, among toher things, is

1) The fantastic effects. Our solor system is gorgeous, particularly Jupiter, and the film really cattches the wonder of this magnificent planet. Wehn I went to Jupiter I was amazed how close the filmmmakers weere able to get.

2) Scheider. he is just a fantastic every man, a sincere actor, you always know what he's thinking. My favorite moment was him trying to separate the crew from the politics to learn about the discovery on the moon.

 

[Subjective]

I love both films for very different reasons. 2001 stands the test of time a hell of a lot better than 2010 but they're so different you can't really compare them.

I'd love for one more sequel that would be a merging of 2061 and 3001. 2061 had a better plot but I felt never pushed the overarching story forward while 3001 had no plot but had a satisfactory conclusion (minus the retarded computer virus). Both sequels were weak compared to what came before but a good third film could be made by combining the two.

Has anyone read the Time Odyssey series? I know it's based on the space odyssey series but have no idea if it's any good.

 

[TGTheodore]

The time between the releases of 2001 and 2010 makes a big difference in the enjoyment of 2010.

Seeing them one right after the other would lose the effect of first, not knowing if there'd ever be a sequel, second, decades of discussing 2001, and third, the absolute joy of being back aboard the main ship and encountering HAL after so many years and seeing it on the gigantic screen again.

It would be akin to watching "Turnabout Intruder" and then popping in TMP, and never having seen either.

--Ted

 

[Tulin]

2001 is no "Turnabout Intruder".

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

Anyway, this film was SO different and not in a good way.

Way too much dumbed down exposition. Really got annoying after a while. The whole "Heywood records a letter home and plays Captain Exposition" was almost funny after a while.

Anyway, NOWHERE near as good as the original(but then I didn't expect it to be). Not the worst film ever made but still, a little disappointing.

I'm with you on this. I never understood the love for 2010. To me it always seemed like a bad B-movie. Whenever you see the Russian ship, there's always this low BWAAAAH note on the synthesizer. That and the design of the ship just makes me feel like I'm watching a Roger Corman movie.

And is there gravity on the ship or not? There's a part where Scheider explains the slingshot thing and he's got ballpoint pens floating in midair. And yet, nothing else in the scene is floating around.

And that part where the Russian girl is scared during the slingshot and cuddles up with Scheider... That just made me cringe. I know it happens in the novel, but seeing it on the screen just makes it ten times worse.

 

[MyCylon]

I used to enjoy the movie 2010 quite a bit in the past, but I've really come to find it rather poor more recently. I DO appreciate the fact that it's very different from 2001. That's certainly the way to go. However, there's a number of things that really drag it down in my view:

- 2010 dated itself incredibly by introducing the Cold War angle.

- It also makes the mistake IMHO of not paying attention to details and design the way 2001 did. It's very possible Hyams couldn't afford to. But all I have to go on is what's on screen. One example (and it may seem small but I think it's important) is the monitors on Discovery. In 2001, the monitors look like flatscreen displays (achieved through rear projection). They look incredibly sleek and in some cases almost look like very flat Tablet-PCs. In 2010, you can cleary see they simply used CRT monitors or television sets (the screen bulges somewhat). The result is (for me anyway) that 2001 still feels modern technologically while 2010 feels like what it is: An 80's movie. This is just one example but there are more, particularly on earth.

- It missed out on a golden opportunity on being almost prophetic the way the book was by including the Chinese and presenting their challenge the way it did. That was a very important angle to the book, and I think it's a shame they missed out on that opportunity for whatever reasons (playing it safe, maybe, I don't know).

- I always thought Roy Scheider was a great actor, and he certainly gives a strong performance here. Still, I can't help but miss Sylvester as Floyd. The change here is just incredibly distracting IMHO. It just doesn't feel like the same character at all.

- Max's death is just dumb and unnecessary IMHO. The book didn't have it, and it was clear it didn't need it. As far as I can see it only serves as a means of making Tanya look bad compared to Floyd who has more 'common sense'.

- The more I see the movie the more the 'running gag' of the movie annoys me. Max will use an English proverb incorrectly, and Walter will correct me, becoming more and more fed up (that is until just before Max goes out on his fatal mission). So then, Walter, how's your Russian?


One thing I didn't list here is something from the book I really missed. I didn't list it because I actually think it was good they didn't include it: The alien life form encountered by the Chinese on Europa. I think it's good they didn't include it because chances are the movie making technologies in that day and age would not have allowed them to do it very convincingly.

This (along with my 'real' complaints) is why I think the novel 2010 should be made into a film again today. It could include more aspects from the book (including, for example, Walter's and Max's true relationship) and present things like the surface of Europa and its inhabitants with modern technology.

Oh, and I think it's a good thing they never made 2061 or 3001 into a movie. Neither one warrents it IMHO. 2061 was so incredibly boring, I thought. It just seemed to completely ignore the aspects that were interesting about 2001 and 2010 in favor of Floyd's 'space vacation'. 3001 was better but had some really goofy aspects as well as a rather dissapointing resolution IMHO which is only possible in the first place because Clarke says it takes place in a different continuity, universe, whatever.