6:30 My favorite moment in this mini-doc: Roy Scheider is trying SO hard to stick the pen on the plastic ... and is so stunned when it finally worked after so many takes!!
2010 was the first time I ever saw Helen Mirren. I'm grateful for that because I was quite impressed by how she brought such a fine feminine authority to Capt. Tanya Kirbuk.
Of course 2001 is Kubrick's "Sphinx"--full of mystery and intrigue...all on a large, detached philosophical scale. This film is more decidedly Clarke's creation--about humanity and more political intrigue but also the hope we may yet--despite all pressure to the contrary by dark forces--succeed as individuals working together for a possible future.
Agreed. 2001 was so impersonal. I didn't get the feeling I should care about any of the human characters. That movie was an enigma in search of a plot. The odds I'll watch it if it's on TV are not good, but I like to watch 2010 again every year or two.
i dont mean to be so off topic but does anybody know of a tool to get back into an instagram account..? I was stupid lost the login password. I love any tricks you can give me!
Is it an 'Easter egg' to note that in the scene where a nurse is reading TIME magazine when Dave Bowman's spirit visits his mother in the nursing home, the images on the front of the magazine are of Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick?
I love how they constantly bring up that they are purposefully not trying to recreate 2001 but instead be inspired by the film but not trying to recreate it as they know they simply cannot do that. The crew and the film in general have my respect
Arthur C. Clark: ... I'm very sorry I can't be with you today... In that moment, Arthur C. Clark seemed very much like Hari Seldon speaking from the dead.
One aspect to the movie which made it looked "dated" were the used of CRT screens or monitors throughtout. The original movie used simulated flat screens which looked more old fashioned than the first movie. Even when I saw 2010 in the eighties, it looked dated in that regard and just so or worse in in 2020 or later.
Well, let's see. 2001 was released in '68. 2010 16 years after that. That makes the production interval 1.78x the passage of time between stories. A 60-year interval between 2001 and 2061 would come out to 107 years, so just hold on until 2075. But on the bright side, the special effects by then should be better than anything you can imagine.
Kubrick destroyed all of the documents and models of everything in 2001 to prevent a film like this from being made. I liked this movie, but its not even the same kind of film. 2001 is the GOAT, while 2010 is more of a summer blockbuster type movie. The cold war stuff is so 80’s.
well i like 2010 as a hard sci-fi movie wich just contines the history wich began in 2001 in a different way. Actually Clarke liked 2010 more than 2010.. i love both..
He didn't destroy the models to prevent a sequel, at the time it was very common for expensive models to be re-used in other sci-fi movies and TV shows, a famous later instance of this was the Valley Forge from silent running turning up in all manner of things. His concern was that the models would be re-used in trashy low budget sci-fi after the fact.
As the documentary says, the Discovery was created by interior designers, while the Leonov was made to look like an actual spacecraft. So much more realistic. Sorry, but the Star Trek "hotel in space" look won't be coming true anytime in the foreseeable future.
Actually, when you consider all the many, many, many other natural ways to prevent overpopulation (most importantly usually difficulty in childbearing) from plagues to giant spreading fires consuming whole settlements and tons more no reason men should not naturally pro-create. Why not read my channel you may learn a lot.
