@@warrenpierce55422001 is as much Clarke’s film as it is Kubrick’s. The director drew from six of Clarke’s short stories and they both co-wrote the screenplay after all.
Jason Armstrong Well Kier does look alittle bit older, and the suit replica doesnt help either, the legs are not the same solid-full shape like the original suit, but he still looked really good.
Roy Scheider conveys so much with just his facial expressions. Obviously everyone knows who he is mostly bc of Jaws, but he's an extremely underrated actor.
The part where HAL says, "Look behind you." You can see in his face how much he doesn't really want that proof after all. This is one of my favorite scene in any movie I've ever seen. Right after the part where Floyd is working on a lap-top computer on the beach. It's meant to look futuristic. It is, after all meant to be the year 2010. A date that was still 26 years into the future when this movie was made. When 2010 rolled around for real, computers were so much more advanced. Oh, also, he has to go into his office to look at some data on his work computer. No internet mentioned. Also, the USSR also didn't exist by 2010. Of course no one saw that coming outside Soviet leadership.
@@SeanHenderson wow! I’ve never heard of this condition where ones blood instantly freezes & you still survive the event to explain the experience. Do tell.
Whenever I heard that "My God, its full of Stars!", I was instantly caught between a curiousness and horror at just what it was he saw. Still wondering to this day.
Truly great cinematography. Most of time aliens are portrayed as monsters surrounded by explosions and loud technology, but where you really think about it aliens are just a different kind of people. And that first contact will be quiet, terrifying, puzzling, and joyous.
@@loiu657 The same concept was presented in the original 10x better movie, and it also was the biggest part of that movie. The timeline of life as most currently "believe" is birth, middle-age, and old age. But there is no birth stage in either of these movies. Continuum.
@@pointzerotwothat’s not a message of the film. Thats you associating your opinion with the film. It’s literally inter dimensional beings or aliens that gifted him the abilities he has…
For me theres something very special about when I see actors return to Iconic characters when its like yrs later, especially if its done properly. Arnies return as T-800 in Terminator 3, as crap as that movie was, he looked really good, and same goes here, first time I saw Bowman return and hes standing there behind Heywood, it really is just epic. Kier Duella played the part very well too.
Ironic that Keir Dullea hasn't appeared to have aged a minute in this scene even though 2001 was shot about 15 years prior. Saw him in a play last fall and I shit you not, the guy looks maybe 50 at best... Nearly 80 years old and still as entertaining as he was 50 years ago. Hats off to you sir.
I remember watching this in 1984, thinking how futuristic 2010 sounded. I couldn’t imagine what we would be doing. Now it is already 11 years behind us. How time flies. Anyone else disappointed? LOL
What a monumental, no pun intended, performance from Scheider, that look of wonderment and confusion at seeing the impossible before his very eyes, I don't know how many other actors could've pulled that off with such gravitas and depth. flawless brilliance.
@Henchman Twenty1 Actually, the replicating monoliths used Jupiter's mass to replicate. While doing so they compressed it enough until the tipping point was reached and fission began occurring in its core.
@@michaelclark9762 Fusion, not fission. Hydrogen merging to form helium (the process that powers stars that are not late in their life stages) is fusion. Fission is when atomic nuclei decay into other elements by emissions of other particles and photons.
Does anyone else think it's amazing (and kind of creepy) that Keir Dullea (the guy in the red spacesuit) looks like he hasn't aged a day? The original 2001 movie came out in 1968.
Met him once in San Francisco in 1991 and asked him if those were outtakes from 2001 he looked so young still/ He said no they were new shots for the 2010 film.
So well performed, yet very freaky! Man, to older man, back to man, to extremely old man,back to man, to baby in... womb? What a great way making this indescribable as any contact to an alien would be.
It would of been baffling if Kubrick had directed it, the good thing about this one is some stuff is explained, the good thing about Kubrick's is nothing is
It would be interesting if this was remade with 2022 technology. Peter Hyams was limited by technology of 1984 unfortunately. For example, he had to delete the entire Tsien chapter 3 (which was compacted into the probe launch from Leonov). Also, specific to this scene, the book details how Bowman's age changed in real time, not just cut-away scenes. But overall the film was outstanding.
He was basically showing him what would happen by shifting. It's to represent that he's projecting himself in some way from the 4th dimension. You can be at any place, at any time, any age, any direction, speed, etc etc. You could also be everywhere at different times. Him shifting is revealing that knowledge, But a 3 Dimensional being will have more questions than answers, and won't fundamentally understand what's going on. They nailed this scene perfectly for the time period. Especially on what it would be like for a 4D being trying to explain or show 4D capabilities to a 3D being. As well as there being a communication barrier. "He can't tell him" because it's knowledge that can't be put into words or any physical 3D form of communication. "Something wonderful" being the only description because you have to feel it and become it. Feelings, they might just be the only thing transferable between the two. If something has a consciousness, it most likely has emotion. So a 4 Dimensional being may very well be able to impose feelings onto us, and we don't even know it. Imagine there was actually a 2D Dimension on earth that had life within it. We would ultimately rule over that Dimension, they wouldn't even know we exist. You couldn't even put a flat picture down of yourself because they wouldn't be able to see over the line that the picture creates on it's edges. So just imagine for a second what kind of ability a 4D being might have over the 3rd Dimension. They basically can manipulate all forms of matter, especially protons. Therefore they could most likely manipulate chemicals, and chemicals in our brains are responsible for making us feel. Kinda went down a rabbit hole. 😂
@@tacticalmattress In our 3-dimensional manifestation, we are comprised of salt the body, sulphur the soul, and spirit the mind or consciousness. The huge truth drop in this movie was that the salt begins at fertilization, and not conception nor birth. That is why Dave Bowman existed in part of his salt timeline as a fetus.
At the end of 2001, Bowman found himself in an alien zoo, spending the rest of his life there, by my estimate, about 70 years, before dying and evolving into the star child. When I first saw 2001, I thought Bowman entered a virtual world, in which he aged and evolved over a period of decades that were in fact mere seconds. Looking at 2010, Bowman should still be in the alien zoo and fairly young, when he shows up as his evolved self here. Either time doesn’t affect him any more, or my original impression still applies. I guess it’s up to the viewer to decide.
Indeed they were bigger, but i also noticed they went really cheap on the corridor design too, the 2001 corridor is unforgettable, here it looks like cardboard/plastic.
The ones who constructed the monoliths. The books describe that they evolved from bipeds to thinking machines to beings of pure consciousness, embedded in the structure of the universe itself. They guide Bowman throughout 2010 and use him as a messenger to the humans.
Bowman's fate in 2001 was given proper closure by appearing to the astronaut (Roy Scheider) who is investigating his mysterious vanishing. Bowman's transformation to a higher plain was no vain and empty occurrence. It was also proper that both HAL and Bowman instigate the climax of this movie.
"But they depict him bald and aged who is in eternal youth All-powerful, and his locks nourish like the brows of morning; He is the Spirit of Prophecy, the ever-apparent Elias." -William Blake
Yeah I'm not really sure why he had those sporadic age changes, but I think the reason he turned into the star child at the end was maybe his way of leaving.
In 2061, Bowman and HAL are inside the Europa monolith which they can operate to some extent. A mention is made of Dave *not being contacted again*. If it were the monoliths, they'd know by now since they spent decades inside one. I don't know for sure who talked to him in 2010, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't the monolith.
I always thought the idea was, Bowman was all of those ages simultaneously when he merged with the monolith. Certainly one of the more surreal moments of 2010.
I doubt that it was really necessary for Floyd within the context of the film as much as it was for those of us in the audience. After all, we saw Bowman age and transform into the Star Child at the end of "2001." Maybe the director and producers thought most people would be confused if Bowman only appeared as a young man and they were trying to find a way to show without exposition that Bowman is no longer entirely who and what he was before. I think this could be their way of showing that Bowman no longer exists within linear time in the way we think of it (the physicists say that time as we picture it doesn't really exist anyway) -- he is the young man, the older man, the old man, and the Star Child all at once. How else would Bowman be able to see and understand what (from Floyd's perspective) has not yet happened? He can't really answer Floyd's question -- "what's going to happen?" -- because he knows that Floyd will not be able to understand because Floyd is still limited by his concept of linear time. It's even possible that Bowman has reason to believe something will actually go wrong if he tries to explain it to Floyd -- that the only way for events to unfold in the right way is if Floyd does not know what will happen.
Dave Bowman - or the being who WAS Dave Bowman - shows up looking much as he did in 2001, then as a very old, wizened fellow, then the fetal Starchild again. What does that represent ? They showed 3 stages of life, but omitted death & jumped ahead to what I'm assuming is rebirth ( ? ). There's got to be some symbolism there.
Closer and clearer came another thought and for the first time he realized that more than one entity was controlling and manipulating him. He was involved in a hierarchy of intelligences, some close enough to his own primitive level to act as interpreters. *from Chapter 40 of 2010*
That was my read of it as well. I think the director and the producers were trying to find a way of showing the audience without actually telling them that Bowman no longer exists within what we perceive as linear time (which the physicists insist does not exist, or at least not in the way we think of it). Bowman is his younger self, his old self, his ancient self, and the Star Child all at once. As he says, the whole thing is clear to him now but he can't really explain what's happening to Floyd (and just maybe, if he tried to explain it to him, something would go wrong and events would not unfold as they're supposed to).
Bullshit. It's a worthy, low-key, intelligent science fiction film. It's no desecration to the original like, say, Jaws: The Revenge is. And hell, it's based off of Arthur C Clarke's novel, and he's just as much creator of the 2001 story as Kubrick was. So that's good enough for me.
No. Today we see barely any movie. We see only cash makers and we forget about them usually in 24 hours after watching them. 2001 and 2010 requires a lot of attention and brain functions of the spectator and most of spectators don't want that, just fast fun. But before 3001 there is 2061: Odyssey Three novel.
Well read the books, you'll get your answers there. In 2010, Bowman clearly describes the aliens telepathically communicating with him and in 2061, he mentions that they disappeared.
2001 was the best hollywood could do for the time and the limits of FX tech. 2010 was by far the best of the two stories in my opinion, becuase Kubrick and writers could not give the story all the needed info so it left gaps that had to be answered later by readining or 2nd hand..
Having read the book a couple of years before the movie came out, I hated the movie, but it was worth watching just to see Keir Dullea for this couple of minutes.
I think it was merely derivative from the first movie, and compressed into this scene. I cannot remember if the book had that too. I only remember from Clarke's books that alien intelligences were able to evolve and exist overtime without bodies. The monolith was suppose to represent a doorway like a microchip into another dimension of existence. I think this scene as shown in Haywood Flyod's face was a mirror of an audience who could not understand the hotel sequence in the first film
Your absolutly right on that one. It's humans alone thinking and making decisions, there is no God or Devils involved in human thinking. All the problems created in the world is by man and not by the devil or demons. But the teachings in Christianity is still a good way to keep people together.
This is a seriously under-rated movie. The original was genius, but is a little hard for me to watch. I get bored. This one manages to give the same feel as the first, while moving the story on at a faster pace. And the story is COOL.
