Although I enjoy film criticism and comparison on RU-vid, I think this was a waste of your time. Nobody has ever held up 2010 as high art as they do 2001. It’s like comparing spaceships and bones. ;) Personally, I find 2001 easier to admire than actually enjoy. Like most Kubrick films, it has greatness (the HAL scenes) buried within layers of good-looking, self-indulgent, pretentious, often quite boring twaddle. Peter Hyams, on the other hand, was always a very limited B-movie Director…he’s just telling Clarke’s story, a story I think has a fascinating hard-SF message by its ending. No, it’s not a great movie, but yes, it is underrated, because it is better and more interesting and more entertaining than you expect given its complete disappearance from pop culture history. It’s kind of absurd to go into it expecting the kind of seminal cinema that 2001 was in 1968.
While I enjoyed the end of the first movie it didn't make any sense. It just didn't. So, i was less critical of the sequel. Symbolic metaphor can only be piled up so high.
Fair enough. But no one was gonna equal or sequel 2001. 2010 was well done. Its source material was very different. Who could've done better? I like it. tavi.
I've never been a particular fan of 2001, but there was no denying that it had a god-tier presentation. It was mostly the overdose of ambiguity that I've never connected to. 2010, on the other hand, is fine. It's okay. It tells a mid-tier plot that explains everything so you never have to think about it again. And, after watching it in the theater during It's initial run, I've never once considered it to be worth re-experiencing. I do understand why it's been reappraised as it tics all those boxes on the list of things that so many internet film critics have mistaken as good writing... never wondering if answering every question makes the story more or less interesting. It's surface-level competence makes it an easy experience for "it's not as bad as they say" or "it's actually good" content that passes for film discussion in certain circles.
Totally agree. 2010 is mediocre and bloated, with overly emotional characters. Throughout the movie spoon feeds you the answers including annoying dialogue. Several times I wanted to say SHUT UP. In 2010, despite the more emotional cast, I found the characters less realistic and believable as astronauts- they come off as Hollywood actors playing astronauts. 2001 also has a cosmic horror theme as space being truly alien, as shown with the eerie and unsettling music and landscape in the brilliant lunar bus scene. Humans need to be almost superhuman to exist in this environment. In 2010 they are emotional actors. 2001 is a timeless work of art while 2010 is annoying and dated. There- I feel better...
Absolutely agree with your analysis. Tried to rewatch 2010 recently and I couldn’t get through the first 30 mins. It seems so pedestrian in comparison to 2001.
I like 2010. Dare I say, I liked it more than 2001. Blasphemy, I know, and I respect the original 2001 a lot, it's incredibly influential and more art than anything else, but I like the characters in 2010 more. I just cared more about what happened to them more than the characters in 2001.
There is one element of 2010 that, to me, still works well: the revived HAL and his relationship with the new crew. No one but Chandra is willing to trust HAL anymore, so they continue to keep secrets from him. The question of whether or not HAL will obey their orders hangs over the last act when they improvise an unauthorized and unscheduled return trip. When the AI suggests alternative actions, even Chandra's faith is shaken and he starts lying to HAL to dissuade him. Both films, intentionally or not, make HAL a leading character.
The most egregious departure from 2001 is that film presented relevant exposition only when absolutely necessary. 2010 presents lots and lots of exposition, virtually spoon-feeding the audience via titles and Floyd's voice-over. Hyams and/or the studio execs had much less confidence in audiences' intelligence and ability to understand what wasn't especially complex to begin with.
Amen. 2010 is getting new life as an 'obscure gem' for some reason. It's like something put together by a high school audio visual class using the sets from the original. Technically it's fine, but it answers questions I didn't want answered by someone else--and those answers are boring. It builds to a climax that's as exciting as flipping on a hallway light.
I agree bout 2010 but I also feel Denis Villeneuve or Christopher Nolan could both make a truly great follow up to Kubrick's masterpiece. Either 2063 or 3001. Villeneuve is going to be doing a adaptation of Rendezvous with Rama, so we'll see how that turns out.
I like 2010. Its brisker pace and stronger narrative (more talking) make a more interesting story. Kubrick explored the big ideas and led with grand visuals, no talking, but this created a more languid, boring pace and left us scratching our heads as to what the story is about.
Fucking guy started off biased as shit. He doesn't like the sequel to his "favorite" film of all time. Not Wasting 12 minutes for this whiney yammering diatribe
If Hyams stayed closer to the book, avoiding cold war theme for building tension…which made the move timely instead of timeless like its predecessor… Bit wider scope and music score a bit more in line with 2001. Anyway, still one of my favourite sci fi films from the 80’s. Very brave to direct a sequel to such a grand masterpiece like 2001. Also, 2010 is light years ahead of 99% of the garbage that Hollywood’s been making in the last 10-15 years.
You’re being a tad hard on this one. Be honest, no sequel to 2001 would live up to the expectations. But if you take the story for what it really is, which is a ghost story masquerading as science fiction then you can enjoy it.
I disagree with you. One of the probably intentional features of 2001 is that the human characters have no emotional depth and I think this is to create a contrast with the truly human character in the film: Hal. For example when Frank's parents peremptorily wish him a happy birthday neither the parents or Frank seem to care less. The characters have little appeal and given this is Kubrick I think we have to assume that this robotic coldness is intentional. In 2010 ,in contrast, the characters are all a bit more layered. Heywood Floyd as played by Roy Scheider, is a more realised person than as played by William Sylvester in 2001.One can warm to the characters in 2010. 2001 is brilliant,it is a wonderful spectacle but it barely has a narrative and is also hard to decipher.
It is known that Clarke wasn't happy that Kubrick went his own way with the story of 2001. Clarke wanted the cold war conflict to be a part of the movie and he finally got his wish with 2010. Look how it turned out. 2001 is a timeless classic, in spite of it's title and 2010 is mired forever in the 1980's era United States vs Soviet Union turmoil.
Great video, but I also disagree. I'm glad they didn't try to out-Kubrick Kubrick with the making of 2010. Yes, it's a totally different feel and for me personally, the more straight forward 80's style feel of 2010 made the storyline more accessible to me when I saw it in the theater when it premiered in 1984. And it enticed me (very effectively) to go back and get reacquainted with the original film. For me, 2010 elevated the significance and glory of 2001 without detracting from the interest and storytelling of 2010. 2010 can also serve as a stand alone film due to effective recapping of the events of 2001...but good luck not seeking out the original! They are different and 2010 compliments 2001 and I wouldn't change anything about 2010 (nor 2001, of course) and I enjoy them for what they each are. Thank you
Two completely different films, and it was never Peter Hyams intention to copy Kubrick's aesthetic on his film, I think it's a solid sequel but not fair to compare them both.
Yes - saw it in the theater and came away thinking more about things like the mothers hairbrush floating on wires, and Bowman’s “dipped in latex” old age makeup.
My main issue with it is that it feels like a "made for TV movie" when it shouldn't. The music, voiceover and some of the effects give the impression. I don't know why Jupiter looks almost like CGI, but it looked better in 2001. And it focuses a lot on social issues, which were only hinted at in 2001. 2010 feels like it's trying to *convince* you that people need to stop fighting each other and focus on the grander, more important things, and work together.. Whereas 2001 assumes you know that already and doesn't dwell on it. It acknowledges mankind's destructive nature without lecturing and focuses on the bigger picture.
I’m in the camp that says it’s unfair to compare them. 2001 is an artistic statement completely controlled by its creator Stanley Kubrick. 2010 is a studio movie made inside the studio system of the time.
I thought _2010_ was OK, but definitely not a masterpiece. Hyams knew what he was doing. He wanted to make a film that audiences could easily digest - not one that stimulates Deep Thought. The studio wanted to cash in. There is simplty no way, in that era, that they would have given the project to an _auteur._ Hyams was a good choice in that regard. Were it done today, Villeneuve would be top of the list, and _that's_ a version I'd like to see. He definitely would have struck a better balance between commercial and artistic needs. The things that bother me about it are extremely geeky. HAL'e eye, for example, was all wrong. The original was actually ("ackchyully") an off-the-shelf Nikkor 8mm fisheye. I've worked with that exact lens and every time I see the version in _2010_ it sets my teeth on edge. The sets don't stand up to scruitiny - the floors in the pod bay were velcro so the astronauts would stick to it with their velcro boots; in _2010_ they look like formica. And the CRT monitors! I know they were cheaper and more flexible than rear-projection, but _they don't look right._ There's a lot more, too, but you get the idea. Yeah. I'm the Comic Book Guy from _The Simpsons._ I know. General audiences don't care about this stuff - or the stupidity of Floyd suddenly not knowing about the Big Secret HAL was keeping. Sadly and ironically, it was not serious, nerdy fans of _2001_ that its sequel was aimed at. It was the more casual fan who saw it on TBS one night that they were after. I get it. And I can accept it on that level.
I really liked Peter Hyams 1981's "Outland" but was appalled by much of 1984's "2010." Two scenes really irked my chain. As @angelainamarie9656 mentioned, the bluescreen compositing in some of the spacewalk scenes was almost as bad as the first movie I edited, yeah, that's bad! There is part of the scene at 11:04 in the review video. The other scene that got an audible WTF from me was at 10:45 in the video review. The Irina Yakunina character crawls into Doctor Floyd's bunk and they hug each other. This was while the ship was making a dangerous, high-G braking maneuver around Jupiter. Which the other crew members had been preparing for by strapping themselves securely into their seats. The vibration and high-G's should have seriously injured Irina and Floyd but nope, they part ways with knowing smiles on their faces. Who directed that scene? A high school kid? A studio exec? Anybody?
I agree with you about the Irina character. It really DID piss me off even then. She's the youngest female on the ship, and she's ONLY there to give Roy Scheider a cute girl to fondle for a few minutes. Being the star of the film clearly had its perks. And I'm pretty sure we didn't see much of her before that scene, and I am damn certain we didn't see her AFTER that scene. She served her only purpose. As for the slingshot effect, that is how modern-day vessels get to the outer planets. Sure, they probably overdid the effect in the film (like when Hollywood depicted spaceship launches in the 50s and vastly overdid the effect of the increased gravity), but in the 80s, the concept of the slingshot was still more of an intellectual exercise since I don't believe any of our spacecraft had reached the stage where they could demonstrate its efficacy. We would not observe the two Voyagers actually use the slingshot until after 2010 came out. I could be wrong, but it certainly was not in common knowledge in 1984.
Even crazier, Chandra's belated spacewalk from Discovery to Leonov while the joined vessels are under full thrust, just to inject some needless extra jeopardy into the moment.
2010 didn't age well because of the backdrop of the US-USSR conflict. Tensions were their highest probably since the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Reagan-Gorbachev Summit in Reykjavík wouldn't happen until 1986. The film scriptwriters were reflecting the fears of audiences of the day, and sending a message to the US (and Soviet) leadership that cooperation was essential to survive as a species. Add to that that God sends us that message, and you have a maudlin ending to a movie overflowing with images of goodwill between members of the US-Soviet mixed crew. Case in point: the young female cosmonaut who joins Roy Scheider in his bunk during the frightening aero-breaking maneuver. On the other hand, 2001 is timeless.
_2001_ lies somewhere between weird fiction and science fiction in that it is atmospheric, speculative, and exquisitely ambiguous. There's a greater sense of metaphysical mystery. There are no answers; one is left to wrestle with the questions. _2001_ provides an oblique commentary on the state of human society and human relations, whereas _2010_ is overtly political and even a tad preachy. Mystery takes a back seat to politics. This is not to say that I don't appreciate Hyam's sequel; I quite enjoyed it, and I made sure to include it in my library. Chiefly what I'm trying to drive home is that the two films almost seem like two different genres.
The differences in the sets are pretty bad as well. The CRT monitors, the "speaker" voice of HAL, the giant "1" in the corridor. In a couple shots, the HAL display looks like plastic filler was used, non-matching paint..
..i have them both..the amazement at the time in the original, at least in my age group, was tangible..i think the sequel just it tied off..hard to explain the unexplainable ✌️
