2010 is a Bad Sequel | 2001 and 2010 Comparison 

2001 is Art. 2010 is a sci-fi movie.

Oh I deeply disagree. On its own standards, 2010 is a very good film. What you have to do is stop asking it to be Kubrick. It isn't. It was never intended to be. Peter Hyams made his OWN film - a character piece combined with American/Russian relations of the time. I loved the opening with Roy Scheider's Heywood Floyd and Dana Elcar's Moisevitch -- great banter between the two -- then it pretty much marked time until Floyd is awakened on the Leonov, and Floyd basically has to play peacemaker, not his forte ("Just because our governments are acting like a_holes doesn't mean WE have to!"). Then, the friendship between the Russian Max (Elya Baskin) and the American Curnow (John Lithgow) is a joy to watch develop and such a heartbreaker when Max is killed. And, of course, the great and wonderful HAL-9000 (returning Douglas Rain). Yes, I did find it annoying that they pretty much had to explain EVERYTHING from the original film, but Clarke did in the novel, so in that respect the film is a very close adaptation. Perhaps too close. In the end, what drives the film is the relationships between the Russians and the Americans -- and how they ultimately must work together and learn to trust in order to survive and find the answers they seek. I thought it was an excellent film. But it's no 2001, and we need to get past that. Again, it was never intended to be another 2001. Peter Hyams said that he was very concerned about doing the film, but was assured by Kubrick himself that Hyams should do HIS film, not Kubrick's. And it's all the better for it. One thing I found interesting was that the Russian characters are all played (with the exception of Dana Elcar) by actors of Russian descent, including Helen Mirren. Which I did not know when I first watched the film. Now, I'm fascinated by that fact. And this was made in Ronald Reagan's 1984! They did good with this film. Fun fact: on the blooper reel, Floyd is trying to show Kirbuk how they can use the Discovery to propel themselves back towards earth before "Something wonderful" happens. They set up a clear plastic for Scheider to stick pens symbolizing the two ships so they looked like they were floating in the air, but the pens kept falling off the plastic. Then, it suddenly worked, and Scheider just cracked up because he couldn't believe it finally worked for once. One more take! 🤣🤣

But 2020 was absolutely the worst

Disagree.... It wasn't a great squeal, but it wasn't all that bad either.

It's NOT a bad sequel, it's simply inferior to 2001; it's still a magnificent sci-fi movie--not every director is a genius like Kubrick, I stick up for this very rewatchable entry in Arthur C. Clarke's series.

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.

_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.

Couldn't disagree more. Perhaps its shouldn't be called a sequel - but 2010 is actually a beautiful film which stands on its own. With 2001, I feel awe wrapped in coldness. With 2010, I feel exhilaration and hope.

Bad analysis. 2001 was interior poesy, and 2010 was exterior prose. 2001 is better but 2010 is a very good sci fi film. It has a number of moments that pay off such as Dr Chandra telling the truth to HAL, and not knowing what will happen, and HAL thanking him for his honesty. The HAL and Dave scene in 2010 also works because we have an established history between them and Dave is not resentful. These two moments would lack gravitas if we had not seen the earlier film, and yet it spins it in a more natural and human way.

I agree with your analysis. 2001 is an unforgettable experience. 2010 is just a story.

I would also add that the brilliant underplaying of the actors in 2001, and the banality of the dialogue from the script, give 2001 a sense of realism, and immersion. In comparison the acting and dialogue in 2010 seem 'stagey' and feel like a performance, which holds the viewer at a slight remove, and somehow less engaged. Roy Scheider's 'I don't know. It's bizarre' line, which was used as a clip here, is an excellent example. It doesn't feel like natural speech, it feels like dialogue.

As an adaptation of the source novel, "2010" was mediocre. If Hyams had been more faithful to the novel Clarke wrote, he might have made a far better and more exciting film -- if he wasn't such a hack director, that is. Anybody who has read the book will know that Clarke had an exciting plot development involving a Chinese 'space station' that turned out to be a space SHIP -- which blasted out of Earth orbit achieving a higher velocity than the Leonov, allowing it to overshoot the Leonov and get to the Jupiter system faster and before them, even though it left Earth later. It is the Chinese ship TSIEN which gets to Jupiter first, having expended nearly all of its fuel to get there sooner -- and their clever plan was to land on Europa and melt some of its surface ice, producing rocket fuel with which to refill their fuel tanks, allowing them months of time to salvage the DISCOVERY well before the LEONOV (with Floyd, Curnow, and Chandra representing the USA) could possibly get there. It is the unexpected surfacing of a Europan lifeform -- phototropically drawn to the TSIEN's landing lights -- that causes those Chinese astronauts to be killed in their mission, their refueling procedure having attracted the strange creature. THAT was how the discovery of Life on Europa was revealed in the novel -- and it would've made for an exciting chapter in a decent film adaptation . . . if only the director hadn't been a clueless hack who chose to change it, throwing out the Chinese ship subplot altogether. Yes, it would've been a better film if it had been directed more in the style of Kubrick, I agree. But first and foremost the film was supposed to tell the story that Clarke had written -- a story that would have made for a truly GREAT film had it been made as a more faithful adaptation of the source novel. As an adaptation of the truly great source novel, "2010" ended up being mediocre at best.

I grew up watching both films in the 80s, so I may be somewhat biased from childhood memories. I am fond both films, while also acknowledging that one is a masterpiece of cinema and the other is not. What has always struck me about these films is that it feels like they differ from each other by the exact wrong amount. 2010 isn't similar enough to 2001 to make an effective sequel, but it's also far too closely tied to 2001 to make an effective standalone movie. Move the needle in either direction and I think the relationship between the films would have ended up in a better place. Great video with excellent commentary. Thanks for sharing.

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.

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.

As Harlan Ellison said when he reviewed 2010, it's based on a book that didn't need to exist.

I haven't seen 2010 yet, but my God, your editing style is so good, I loved it, very proffesional for a video that has fewer views, when it actually should have more.

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.

2024, I think I need to get a life odyssey, all wonder is as we find it, love to you all 😊

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.

A really interesting and thoughtful analysis. Glad to have found this channel. Subscribed. What you say about 2010 is painfully true. I am quite a fan of Hyam's films - I think he was one of the most interesting commercial directors of the 80s, and I think he was the right man for this film, for the time. If it wasn't a sequel to 2001 his film would be one of the more interesting sci-fi films of its era, judged as an adaptation of Clarke's novel - but you're right, as a sequel to Kubrick's film it sucks. I've always thought that 2001 was the most severely uncommercial film ever to be a commercial success (mostly due to L.A. stoners, in the first instance). I saw it several times on rerun in the 70s as a teenager. Like, wow, man...

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.

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.

What can I say. It sheds light. Read the books hehe

Trying to replicate Kubrick is madness.

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.

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

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 think despite all of what you have said in this video, it's still unfair to compare these two movies. 2001 is also one of my all time favorites, and an absolute classic also in a general sense. It's only natural that a mainstream director with a mainstream approach can't really play in the same league. But 2010 is still a very good, atmospheric and enjoyable movie, and much better than many highly praised films, especially in the mainstream. Furthermore a movie like 2001 would have had no chance being made in the 80s with studio money, being even after the Heaven's Gate disaster which finally ended the era of big budget art movies.

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.

2001 is the Taj Mahal. 2010 is a Pizza Hut.

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...

As a piece of art 2001 is the greatest achievement in the history of cinema. But as a story, its all over the place. 2010 is certainly not the art house tour de force of its predecessor - but it does do a much better job of telling its story.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Saw it at the flicks when it came out. Was disappointed within 2 minutes of it starting.

You can't top Kubrick. Comparisons are futile.

With all that said, What do you think of the other Kubrick sequel “Dr. Sleep”? Does it connect well with the original 1980 “The Shining”?

I disagree with you on Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2040. I really do not like the sequel to Blade Runner, for a variety of reasons that would take too long to explain. But I am 100% agree with you on the 2010 sequel. I think I’ve fundamentally fails because it is a fun tree straight ahead. Conventional story pitched as the sequel to the grandest arthouse film of all time.

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.

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..

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 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 ✌️

You absolutely cannot compare these two films. They are utterly different in nearly every way (other than the fact that they are films). I keep this in mind when I start 2010 which allows me to really enjoy it. It is much more of an adaptation of the book. It's kinda like Doctor Sleep* in that it bares some visual resemblance to a Kubrick film, but it is much more concerned with the story from the book. All this being said, I don't really disagree with much of what you say, but I do still enjoy 2010. In fact, I really wish the next two novels would get adaptations as well; I think it would be really great to use two totally different directors for the sequels as well. So that all 4 films could be completely, stylistically different; this would echo how Clark made slight modifications to 2010 and 2061 stories to fit some of the alterations the films make. *However, Doctor Sleep is far superior in this respect.

You are asking too much to expect a sequel to equal a Kubrick film, but I thought 2010 was well above average for a scifi movie.

I am 54 nowadays and got to see 2001 for free in a local Library basement for free and then in theaters later on got to see 2010 in theaters. It had a great sound system in the theater and felt such rumbling it felt as if the front few seats in the theater were going to take right off during the ship rocketing type scenes upwards. I have the store bought VHS Too. I give it a 7.5 Out of A Booshty Ten , I Just wish It had more energy behind it as like Blazing Rockets. And To Me , Unfortunately It did not feel as special as the Original Outer Spaceness. This movie compared to Kubrick's Film I think lack of better term is Contemporary , 2001 was experimental more so overall. It isn't spectacular But Also I think Is Kind of Underrated though.

I remember rolling my eyes at how hack-work the bluescreen effects were, some of them look like they'd spent all of 15 minutes putting them together. Fun story, but not a very good sequel and nothing at all like the first movie.

you're right about the music, but then, this is a totally different animal to 2001; that use of Ligeti and Strauss and such, there was no real place for it in the sequel. Btw, Alex North's unused score is incredible...

I think A.I. would explain the discrepancy about why Heywood Floyd did not know in 2010 about the order from 2001. In other words, his bosses faked the video.

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.

Nonsense. It's a fine sequel and a lot more exciting than 2001. Yeah, you read that right: 2001 IS a technical masterpiece, but also a dreadful bore to be honest. I've seen it many time on the big screen, read the books, seen the interviews and analysed it backwards and forwards and yet, I just can't get excited about it. It's cold ( because people are like that in the future, I know) , convoluted and sloooooow. I prefer Hyams sequel to Kubrick's static camera and cerebral experiment.

the whole Soviet geopolitical angle ruined this movie for me. It was like I was watching Rocky V without the cool montages and fight at the end that made it fun.

It's rare that any sequel measures up. Much less one that is made over a decade later. The Color of Money, Psycho II, and 2010, all manage to still be exceedingly competent or better and not display an obvious lack of skill or craftsmanship. Now go do a video on Basic Instinct 2.... :)

Always so validating hearing an aussie accent. Love the video mate!

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.

I think 2010 is a good movie, just a bad sequel. Same with Alien 3.

2010 is a great movie but it's not a Stanley Kubrick movie, you cannot compare the master movie maker with a regular good Hollywood movie director.

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.

2010 was pretty, but a big let-down intellectually.

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.

2010 was pretty good. Yeah theyre almost entirely different films in my mind.

Hard disagree. 2010 is my favorite of the two films and would watch it any day. 2001 was boring to me. 2010 was exciting!

And You forgot to say that Roy Scheider sucks badly !

It's a perfect sequitur

you are comparing apples with Mozart symphonies

Totally dig this film😊

..yr headline..answer.."bull"

I think Stanley Kubrick should have used Alex North's original score instead of his clunky classical-music needle drops.

If there is one film that was never in need of a sequel it is 2001. I saw 2010: The Year We Made Contact when it was initially released in theatres. It was more out a morbid curiosity than any idea that it could be better than the Kubrick film. I'm not sure if I had read the novel before or after seeing the movie. I have read the entire Odyssey series and found each to be utterly forgettable, especially the last, 3001, in which they find Frank Poole floating in space in a state of suspended animation and revive him after century's long slumber. It's among the worst books I have ever read. I have read a few other books by Arthur C. Clarke and find them strong on ideas but weak in their execution. He wasn't a very good writer. But I digress. The sequel is mostly forgotten now and I doubt that when it's own 50th anniversary roles around I don't see it being celebrated as its predecessor was in 2018. The story is dull and routine and has none of the grandiosity of 2001. Many years ago the theatre where I worked had a screening of 2001 and Kier Dullea gave a Q and A afterwards. It was a thrill to meet him and to speak with him one on one briefly, but I would have liked to ask him about his feelings about 2010. However I didn't want to insult him and I'm sure it was done just for a paycheck. He was actually the only bright side of this mess and it was nice to see him and Douglas Rain back in their iconic roles, but those nostalgic touches can only be stretched out so far. Peter Hyam is no Stanley Kubrick. The direction is uninspired and flat and the story, such as it is, just meanders along until the equally uninspired revelation of the "something wonderful" that was about to happen . I imagine that the ambiguous ending of 2001 left many frustrated but this is what has made the film endure for over 50 years and it is open to interpretation what happens after we see the Star Child hovering above Earth. The answer offered by 2010 is lame.

Hard disagree. I love 2010. It's great.

love 2010... and 2001.

Don't agree...it ain't Kubrick, but what is...

2010 was very much a movie of the 80's. It's mired in the the tech, commercialism, politics and trends of the decade and does not really offer a meaningful glimpse at the future of humanity. Ironically, the film has not aged well and in some cases is almost laughably silly. The original 2001 still holds out, despite the fact that the real life technology of 2001 never came close to the wonderful visions depicted in the film, although there are some startling exceptions. Kubrick's Discovery shows astronauts interacting with flat screen tablets and monitors which were pure sci-fi at the time, which actually came to be in the real year 2001. (iPad tablets would be another six years, but Kubrick's vision of their use is still remarkably accurate.) Likewise, the artificial intelligence depicted by the computer HAL is coming very close to reality. The Discovery in Borman's 2010 is mired in 80's tech which are most apparent in the CRT monitors seen everywhere in the ship. The filmmakers obviously thought the close ups of the CRT scan lines would look cool and futuristic, but now appear quaint and antique.

This was a great explanation of what makes a film a masterpiece - and what makes a film a conventional piece of entertainment. The sequel could've been subtitled "2001: a Space Odyssey - for Dummies" due to its compulsion to narrate and explain it's self relentlessly. 🙄 You're definitely onto something with your Kubrick-ified re-edit which uses Kubrick's breathing. Revamping the entire film in a similar way would make for an interesting film project. 🤔 It's a very "obvious" sequel with every plot point handed to the audience with the assumption audiences have become much more stupid since 1968. Note: when you referred to "Kubrick's breathing," you were very accurate. According to one of his daughters, all the arhythmic breathing heard throughout the film was, in fact, supplied by Kubrick. The ultimate director's cameo appearance! 😸 Best wishes from Vermont 🍁

2010 is a superior film to the original IMHO. 2001 simply drags on during large chunks of the movie. It is BORING. I understand the kudos given to 2001 for the cinematography and groundbreaking special effects etc. but nonetheless, it is boring. Film snobs love to heap praise onto 2001 but they really need to get over themselves. 2010 is a great film that is entertaining and can be watched multiple times. God help me if I have to watch 2001 again......

What's truly troubling isn't the renewed appreciation for 2010, but the sudden reevaluation of 2001: A Space Odyssey as boring by supposed film fans.

2010 is cool. You aren't.

2001 was made for the love of art. 2010 was made for the love of making money.

2001 bored the hell out of me and I came to the conclusion the director was on some kind of acid trip towards the end. ;) The book? I enjoyed very much. The difference? The book took time to explain what was going on. 2010? I liked the movie much better than its book. In the end, story matters far above presentation.

Blade Runner 2049 sucks

2001 posed a question. 2010 answered it. I love them both.

worst sequel one can clearly feel they try to cash grab on a success

Totally agree, 2010 sucked.

I wholeheartedly disagree. May God have mercy on your soul

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.

Finally someone is saying it like it is: 2001 did not deserve to be tainted by a sequel, and certainly not the farce that was 2010. Sometimes good intentions are not enough. 2001, A Space Odyssey is a masterpiece, and touching that bears responsibilities. I may be harsh in calling it a farce, but like you pointed out; the makers of 2010 are referring to 2001 all the time, it is the whole premise of the film. Then how could they fail so miserably, in all aspects. You laid them all out here, and it is cringing to see their mistakes again. A minor detail but it says so much: 2001 foresaw flat tablet-like screens. 2010 uses bulgy CRT-monitors, as were in use at the time of making the movie. It always baffled me that this movie was ever made. Thanks for saying out loud what I feel.

Imo (unpopular opinion) 2001 is boring pretentious Kubrick shite, can't stand him, 2010 is much better :)

it was a decent sequel. 2001 is a classic and boring at times