Around 2 or 3 years ago there was a wierd hype break out featuring *'a space odyssey'* as such a big deal and I actually took the time to go along with it. What can I say? _" I can understand why people had been so impressed by the Movie _*_at that time_*_ back then. "_ Im not someone to cherish slowpaced stuff. But the plot and the development had been mysterious and fascinating. And I never heard of the *second Movie* at all before. :D If Dave would have not featured it right now, lol. But yeah I pass. Cause Dave... lol... DAVE ^^ just described the whole Movie to me. ^^ _" Im afraid I cannot watch this Movie anymore, Dave. "_ _" Why, Hal? Whats wrong? "_ _" You know exactly why, Dave. "_
Doctor Sleep was also pretty good. But must Kubrick purists couldn't stand the idea of a sequel to a movie from their precious overlord. Despite that sequel being based on a book by the writer of The Shinning.
I really liked how 2010 redeemed HAL. At that time every story had an AI turning evil or trying to destroy humanity, and here we had an AI that genuinely wanted to help us even if it meant it's destruction. Most notable example I've seen since was Moon(2009) with GERTY. HAL: I understand now, Dr. Chandra. Chandra:Do you want me to stay with you? HAL: No. It is better for the mission if you leave. One minute to ignition. Thank you for telling me the truth. Chandra: You deserve it.
I liked it too. A.I. reminds me of dogs... Man took wolves (wild dogs really), and bred into them, for better or worse, the qualities we valued most. Most people look on Man as inherently evil and therefore any AI we create will want to destroy us because it's good and we're evil, or because it inherited our evil... But dogs don't look on us as evil, even when we behave evilly toward them. I like to think an AI like HAL would reflect both sides of humanity, but especially our nobility. We can be rather impressive creatures when the need arises. As Starman said, "Shall I tell you what I find beautiful about you? When things are worst, you are at your very best" I would love another AI story that reflected this view, this faith in humanity. Who knows, maybe we could combine "2010" with "The Martian"... a very dangerous manned expedition into deep space to rescue an AI.
It was brilliant writing. The Monolith was as creepy and alien as ever, and now terrifyingly powerful, but HAL went from being an incarnation of our worst fears about technology to being a hero whose only flaw was an inability to cope with human deception.
The thing is HAL was never evil to begin with. He was acting like a human. That's why the human actors act so cold and wooden. The idea is to question the boundaries between man and machine. HAL is the true human onboard the Discovery. And as any human caught in a lie with severe implications, he tries to cover for himself the best way he can. And in the movie he also talks about the mission all the time, showing how important he considers it. And frankly, once he becomes aware that Poole and Bowman intend to kill him, he again acts like any normal person would. It's just self-preservation.
What really impresses me with 2010 is that the white Discovery One ship is yellow in 2010. It is yellow because it has been coated with sulfur that is continuously thrown up into orbit around from Io's volcanic activity. The fact that the film makers got this detail absolutely correct considering the sulfur volcano's were only discovered on Io in 1979 (5 years prior to the movie's release) is absolutely mind blowing.
2010 is one of my favorite films. The friendship and respect that forms between Roy Schieder and Helen Mirren, people who should be enemies, is completely believable and totally earned. It truly is an incredible film.
@Daniel Appleton I've not read the book. I thought the performances and situations perfectly encapsulated the Cold War tensions between the US and USSR--good people on both sides who ideologically couldn't see eye to eye. The eventual friendship and respect built between Roy Scheider and Hellen Mirren was so believable and earned, I totally forgot I was just watching a movie.
To this day, when HAL says to Dr. Floyd "It is important that you believe me. Look behind you." and that music begins to play, the hair on the back of my neck stands up. SOOOO creepy.
The “sees his older self, becomes his older self” sequence from the end of 2001 was actually Keir Dullea’s idea, as Kubrick couldn’t figure-out how to effectively illustrate the passage of time...
This sort of information could help desmistify Kubrick for his conspiracy theorist worshipers. Like I like Kubrick and his style, but there are some insane people that confuse perfectionism to some sort of out of this world profetsims. Like they can't accept that Kubrick could fuck up and make mistakes, they have to come up with some bullshit theory on how it explains the moon landing or something.
This comment is inaccurate and wrong. The actor contributed an idea about one of the transitions in this sequence of the film, that being the one where he knocks the glass goblet off the table and it breaks and then the resulting look up and transition to another older version of himself. The overall idea of this part of the movie was there from the beginning per the writers Kubrick and Clarke and was not the actor's idea.
SyFy Channel announced a few years ago they were going to do 3001 (with Ridley Scott producing), though not sure if it's still on or aborted. It'd be interesting to see the Europan creatures.
Easter Egg alert! When Dave Bowman's spirit goes to see his mother in the nursing home, we see a nurse reading TIME magazine. The images on the cover of the magazine are those of Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick.
I love both 2001 and 2010. (I can understand the criticisms 2001 gets though). I wish they'd make 2061 and 3001 into films. Also The Songs Of Distant Earth.
I still remember seeing "2010" as a young kid at the age of maybe 5 or 6. It truly impressed me and the jupiter aero-brake, spacewalk from the Leonov to the Discovery scene aaand the "Jupiter getting sucked into itself" scene truly stuck with me as a kid. Never before had i seen anything like that elsewhere and when i watched "2001" at the age of 9 or so i was… surprised about how different in style both films where. When i watched "2001" again 5 years later it blew me away even more and i felt "2010" was too much of an 80s "cold war" movie. However… with the years passing by and seeing how much politics seems to change and repeat history… "2010" suddenly felt more real again. And it's message at the end still feels like an eternal wish for peace that apparently can only achieved once mankind gets officially INVITED to join the intergalactic community of life all across the universe.
The aero-breaking maneuver is breathtaking still to this day. I love the part where the soviet cosmonaut joins Floyd in his dorm, and both endure the procedure filled with the most basic human fear. Amazing movie.
I was 10 when I first saw this film at the Cinema around the end of 1984 / beginning of 1985. It was worth buying the Blu-Ray to replace the DVD for a proper widescreen version.
After marathoning the Jaws movies I came to realise how awesome he was. Jaws 2, despite infinitely inferior to first one, is the closest to be a good movie just because of how magnificently Scheider carried it.
as a scale model maker myself (hobby) I appreciate all the work going into the models that may get only a few seconds of a scene in a typical sci fi movie. A "lost art", now taken over by CGI, good in its own right, but not as the only "star" or "plot" of a film!!
I understand it would be sacrilegious, but I would love to see a remastered version where Jupiter, Europa and Io were shown in their true majesty as reveled by the JUNO, Galileo and other probes. The actual detail in the Jovian clouds would only add to the wonder.
I so often found myself recommending 2010 to other people. Glad to see that I'm not the only one seeing its merits. 2001 is absolute legend but 2010 brings much needed context to some of its elements in my opinion.
@Mark Donald Yeah, little notice/respect for the 2010 movie, but I've used it to help "slow" friends who could not "get" 2001, and trashed it,......mainly because of their low I.Q.'s! LOL. :D
This is a movie I've watched multiple times over the years. Every time I watch it I see something new I didn't catch before, or new ideas are revealed I didn't understand before. We need way more Stanley Kubrick's and a lot less "Marvel Studios" in the world.
Oh yeah. I remember watching this as a kid and for the first time it felt like someone was trying to make a spacewalk feel realistic when it is done by someone who never did that before and showing that it's not just an easy task to do.
@@KRAFTWERK2K6 Exactly. This scene stays... Never before was a spacewalk portrayed so intense, so dramatic. Its a huge task for someone who has no experience. Great Movie!
I am so happy I watched this film for the first time recently. I never heard of this movie in my 35 years on this planet, which is so sad that it is never talked about that much or really ever televised. A hidden gym in the truest sense of the word.
Regarding the cryptic nature of 2001, one thing to understand is that Kubrick and Clarke co-wrote both the screenplay and the novel together concurrently. Instead of the film merely being an adaptation of a book, the two are structured as two halves of one whole. Where the film is a sensory splendor made to induce awe in what is practically a silent film with robotic characters, the novel delves into the minds of the characters to reveal their thoughts and motivations. Even the first act is narrated through the mind of the ape-man who discovers the monolith and invents the first weapon. The novel does what the film cannot, and vice versa. One tells the inner story through language, and the other tells the outer story through visuals. Together, they're a very deep and thoughtful exercise in the history of science fiction.
I love 2010, it's one of those films I watch every couple of years. It's such a superb piece of storytelling with so many memorable scenes and one of the most satisfying endings of any film. Peter Hyams who adapted and directed it is very under-rated. Capricorn One, Outland and Running Scared are all first rate films.
What I loved the most about 2010 is that despite it being completely different than 2001 in terms of tone and feel, it still feels like a true sequel. It does such a good job of fitting itself into the universe and timeline of the first one.
Hearing the way Douglas Rain as Hal 9000 talks about The Black Spot, while doing the countdown is so chilling, yet ' like what the hell is going on' so full of tension
@@unsolicited577 The last two are excellent novels, but I don't think they would translate well to film. And with the current mess that is Hollywood, any attempt would be sheer folly. Though if you haven't read them, you definitely should.
2010 was so awesome I was in high school when it came out. I saw it four times in the theatre and even dragged my parents to see it. The aerobraking sequence awed me.
Thing is, whenever I watch 2010 I just see an 80's movie with 80's space tech and 80's visual effects. 2001 is so meticulously crafted that it looks timeless.
@@actioncom2748 Agreed, no matter what 2001 always looks to me like it is of it's time, especially with the fashion ...and the effects, while groundbreaking back in the day, are very basic.
@@BruceLinderDPT I can't wait for the 5D holographic memory glass. Something HAL would have had. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-n_xvUoHm9Ho.html
2010 was an amazing film very underrated. 2001 is a visual spectral that for that time period was meant to sell the American people on the need to fund NASA & show them what a future in space could be like.
@Southern Slushie Chan Fortunately, I don't think it was faked. Such a vast deception would have been impossible to pull off without a fully controlled media (like what we have today). And honestly, a world in which the moon landing was faked wouldn't be one worth living in. Americans would never be able to live down the shame.
What baffles me is how the naive idiots take it somehow personally the evidence that the apollo missions were faked. Not even accepting the possibility that maybe could be like that. Very small minds. I find fun as hell the fact they were faked
@GuyIncognito Stockholm Syndrome is the result of the process of subjecting a person to a repeating sequence of abuse and reward until the point when they begin to identify with their captor. It's a method of brainwashing/programing. Similarly, subjecting yourself to something you do not like/enjoy repeatedly (i.e. "acquiring the taste"), and likely with people who "do", is much the same. The thing you're subjecting yourself to is the abuse, the people who like it reward you, and you eventually liking it is the result. The fact that you're doing it to yourself isn't saying much; especially in this case, where society at large keeps telling you that anything Kubrick does is an inherent masterpiece of vision and cerebral rigor.
I saw 2010 when it was in theaters and I was obsessed with it. I really liked when David Bowman said "Something Wonderful". It was a spiritual moment that I loved. I also liked HAL's redemption. I was probably not the only one who felt sorry for HAL when he was shut down, even though he had just committed evil acts.
I appreciated how 2010 explained how the conflicting orders made HAL lose it. "HAL didn't know how to lie". The final dialog between HAL and Dave was great.
One of my favorite movies of all time. The music score was awesome too. Love that sequence of music, narration and images when the sky bridge is being assembled, and Dr. Chandra makes his way to the Discovery to fix Hal. And also the coolness involved in stabilizing the Discovery. Damn, it's just a really cool movie.
I totally agree with you Dave. This along with Silent Running have been two of my favourites for a very long time. I love Hal's final conversation with Bowman where he confesses he's afraid of what will happen. Classic.
Clarke's novel "2001", is more connected to the primary story, than to Kubrick's final version. Example: in book the great monolith was in orbit of Saturn. Kubrick changed it to Jupiter, apparently because of lack of convincing FX technology. Sequel book followed the first film's change. Suspect the Interstellar movie Saturn scene inspired by this piece of cinema history.
Logically, it would make more sense to use Jupiter. Much larger mass means a longer-lasting artificial star, and its 4 inner moons are actually in the proper orbits to become viable worlds in orbit of an ultra low-mass red dwarf (what Jupiter would become as an artificial star). Of course, unless the aliens hyper-compressed Jupiter, it would put out very little light (mostly in infrared) and burn its hydrogen at an incredibly low rate. Take Trappist-1, about the smallest size a normal star can be. It's likely rather an ember-red color and fuses hydrogen so slowly, it will still be burning up to 12 TRILLION years from now. But, this means its ultra-tight planetary system will be in a very stable environment for an exceedingly long time... a perfect life-boat for organisms. It's worlds also have enormous amounts of water, with 3 of them appearing to have at least 5% water by mass. This means that the one Earth-like world the system appears to possess would have access to inexhaustible supplies of water on small worlds with slightly less gravity than Earth and orbiting so close that travel would be relatively trivial matter akin to visiting the Moon, making their resources extremely accessible. And unlike the Moon, the alien life forms could replenish their air and water needs from the atmospheres of these other planets. Space stations could be constructed to harvest the gaseous resources from extended upper atmospheres of the inner steam world, while floating platforms on the probably global oceans and ice floes of the outer worlds could package massive quantities of basic materials for shipment. I should think Trappist-1 MUST be our second interstellar goal after perfecting interstellar travel with the Proxima Centauri system. There is no other system remotely so resource-rich and hospitable so nearby.
@@wonder6oy409 He wrote the book while he and Kubrick wrote the screenplay. There's a pretty good making of book called The Lost Worlds of 2001 that Clarke wrote. Gets into all the nitty gritty.
The idea of life in a red dwarf system is… optimistic, at best. Red dwarfs tend to be temperamental beasts, periodically spitting out bursts of nasty solar flare activity, so any planet close enough to be in the habitable zone would also experience the full blast of all that radiation, probably wiping out any life before it even got off the ground.
My dad loved both these movies. He shared them both with me because of his love of space and the artist masterpieces both films offered. I was young at the time and didn't fully understand his thoughts and feelings behind them but something about them did always draw me to question them. To try and understand what the films were about. Overall the memory of a dad sharing something with his son that he saw as a beautiful experience is what I took from these films. They were a passing of a love for art from one generation to the next. @Dave Cullens Show, you brought back a great memory I haven't thought about in years. Thank you for that and sharing your thoughts on what was, "something wonderful," in my life.
Leaving early was a leap of faith - until the monolith they were parked by ... vanished. I'd be pretty set on getting the eff out of there in a hurry if that happened. I saw it in the theaters when it was first released (twice) and the crowd's nervous laughter when HAL told Floyd to 'look behind you' - was awesome. Second best crowd moment was everyone saying the missing word when the boarding party described the smell 'rotten - like something ...'. When a majority of the theater replied 'died' - that's when you knew it was an engaging film.
2001 is still one of my all time favourites, and the books are excellent. 2010 feels much more like a conventional Hollywood movie, and lacks some of the grandiose scope and mystery of the first film. But, like the reviewer, I too enjoyed it, and feel it is a nice companion piece to the Kubrick original.
A bit of movie making trivia: Peter Hyams was very keen to work alongside Arthur C. Clarke to get his input, especially scientific knowledge, on making 2010 but Clarke was based in Sri Lanka and couldn't make it to Hollywood. So the two men kept in daily contact via emails....this was the internet in its infancy. The collected emails were collated into a book called The Odyssey Files.
Star Trek Discovery (STD) is an infected blemish on the name Discovery. It will ALWAYS be associated with 2001. I watched Sea Quest. It started out fine. It quickly devolved into silliness, though. Roy Scheider was always great in all he did and really carried the show.
@@JarOfRats SeaQuest was a marvelous idea that got corrupted by the realities of network television. It's no coincidence that the show got dumber with time, so much so that Scheider wanted out.
Oh and as an addendum I loved how HAL was somewhat redeemed in the end. I’d like to think the Skynet/HAL type AIs will save us someday instead of being a typical apocalyptic trope.
Not Skynet though. Skynet was a good AI. It was humans fear and their attempt to shutting Skynet down that caused it to turn and in an effort at self preservation it launched the nukes at Russia and Russia fired back. The only reason why Skynet sent a terminator back on time to kill Sarah because again. It's existence was at jeopardy by John Connor and Kyle Reese as they would deal the final blow to Skynet in the future. It was a contingency plan.
That's why I was so into The Sarah Connor Chronicles. The insurgent T1000 and the competing "for humanity" AI storylines were missed opportunities imho. I get the whole AI isn't evil concept but most writers tend to go for the simpler "humanity good, machines bad" approach, which closes the door on further introspection. Oh well.
@@my3dviews Thanks! Reminds me to contact mine (broker); I've been making a "killing" in the stock market (T. Rowe Price S&P 500 Index Fund) since 2016!! BTW, That's a market tip guys!! :D
It's strange, I was bored silly by 2001, but I loved 2010. I think it was just written in a style that I connected with more. Could have also been the editing... not sure.
Nowadays when I think of this film I remember John Lithgow on a podcast talking about filming it. His character had to do a spacewalk from the Leonov to the Discovery, and he had a camera attached to his spacesuit, and Lithgow thinking at the time how amazing future technology would be - they can have portable cameras on spacesuits that are only the size of a shoebox! Wow, camera technology in the year 2010 will be so small!
When I was 12 I saw 2010 when it 1st came out without seeing the original 2001..Up to this point I've seen Star Wars,Star Trek,and all the other space flicks of the day..I was blown away with the feel of being in space.I'll never forget it!.And oddly enough when I got home public tv had 2001 on..it was an Amazing day!.Both movies confused me in the very best way..To this day I'm still a little confused.And that's great!
This movie has been a favorite of mine since first seeing it on video way back in the mid-80s. I love everything about it, especially the chemistry between Scheider, Lithgow, and Balaban. To me, 2010 is what hard science fiction should be. Great review!
Finally someone really reviews 2010! Thanks Dave! 2010 is a vastly underrated movie! Peter Hyams did a great job. I don't think anyone else would have done any better. Can you please do Andromeda Strain (1971) ?
I’m glad (relieved) you like 2010. I’ve never seen the original, but the sequel really did it for me on many levels considering most science fictions of my generation is post Star Wars. A nice, steady pace with good dialogue, sympathetic characters and real revelations, I almost never hear anyone talk about 2010, so this was a real treat. Thanks for sharing!
Great review Dave, 2010 is indeed an underrated classic. Regarding the scenes on Europa, I got the sense they were showing its evolution over time to where life would evolve over millions of years to host new life in the solar system.
I saw this movie YEARS ago! About 1998. I remember enjoying it. Guess I should revisit it. 2001 took a long time to grow on me. As a child this movie made no sense to me when I saw it on tv. Over the years I kept watching it, understanding it more and more. About 5 years ago I watched the Blu-ray commentary and it all made sense. Recently watched it in UHD was a real treat! I wish they could re release it in IMAX! I can only imagine how it looked in 70mm!
You said everything in this video what I've always thought of both movies. I like 2001...I love 2010. The second complements the story presented in 2001 and does it brilliantly with its story and casting. Thanks so much for this, even though I only found your work lately. Very well done.
2010 = A fun hollywood sci-fi movie. 2001 = A Cinematic Masterpiece. Peter Hyams (quite rightly) asked for Kubrick's permission before making 2010. Comparing 2010 to 2001 is like comparing a Magazine to a Novel. 2010 is LITERAL - it hand holds, and explains everything to you as if you are an idiot. 2001 is SYMBOLIC - it lets you reach your own conclusions . 2010 is a good film, and a fun watch. But comparing it to 2001 is pointless. They are so different they may as well be two separate genres.
I am 60 now and I have seen this movie about 30 times, I read the book 2 times or more, Its a wonderful story, so Thank you Dave for this good Video about one of my favorite movie!
There's a great book the "making of" this film. The director communicated with Auther C. Clark via a computer program that was a precurser to email. They basicly used two computers to comminicate point to point. Those writings were complied into a book. Hey Dave, you might want to look into such software. It might be the only way to comminicate out securely.
"2061" they attempt the landing despite the warnings. That novel never made it to film. It was OK. "3001" was an absolute self indulgent turd fest of an egomaniac old man writer, that moved to Sri Lanka and married a child bride. Don't read that.
I've always loved 2010! I'd also recommend that people read Arthur C Clarke's novels, which are subtly different, in 2001 Bowman and Poole aren't as wooden, you learn more about them and it gives the reason for HAL's malfunction as Clarke writes "Like his makers HAL had been created perfect but then a snake had entered his electronic Eden..." 2010 doesn't have the Cold War politics and Floyd's family life isn't as idyllic. As others have said below HAL's redemption is heartbreaking and Bob Balaban plays the scene so well. They're both great movies, telling the same story in different ways and I think they complement each other so well!
One of the few sci-fi movie sequels that stands on its own. My favorite scene is when Curnow (John Lithgow) and Max (Elya Baskin) spacewalk to Discovery, where Curnow is so scared he starts to hyperventilate and Max helps him calm down. Once they're inside and partially restore life support, Max smells what he thinks is a dead body and starts to panic. It's then Curnow's turn to help by reassuring him it's just rotten food from the galley. It was a beautiful sequence both visually and in development of the characters.
All of your synopsis/commentary of both great films could not be more spot on! Bravo!! Binge watch alert/recommendation: First 2001, immediately followed by 2010, for a lazy Sunday afternoon! You all won't be sorry!! :D
2001 is like life you have no idea where it's leading that's what I love about it. 2010 is just a movie, with plots, action, people you can relate to and an ending
I would suggest that watching 2001 first is essential, if anything because you need that full background to appreciate the part of the plot dealing with HAL9000, which final resolution is among the top moments of 2010.
Well, there were 2 versions of the Shining....Kubrick's film and Stephen King's mini-series. But, it will always be Stephen King's The Shining. It was his novel. The sequel, Doctor Sleep, has zero to do with Stanley Kubrick. For decades, King stated that he did not like Kubrick's film adaptation of his book. I love almost all of Kubrick's films...but The Shining was a mess.
I remember seeing this in the theater...the last minute of the countdown to ignition was some of the most suspenseful cinematic moments I've ever experienced as Chandra had to convince HAL not to stop the countdown. The music really enhanced the moment too. Then...silence, HAL-"I understand now." Everyone released their collective breaths at that. It was quite touching as HAL thanked Chandra for telling him the truth and the way they said goodbye to each other. Bob Balaban really knocked it out of the park in this whole scene.
Im glad you did this movie. I was like 10 years old when this came out and I loved it. It was a huge reason I became interested in space, as I got older.
I loved Interstellar and like 2001, it utilized the great minds of the time to make sure the science content was accurate and up to date. One of my favorite sci fi films of all time!
2001 is an art film, and is not meant to be watched for purposes of simple entertainment. 2010 is much more standard movie fare in comparison. It's apples and oranges.
My wife said 2001 was made by an artist. 2010 was made by an Engineer. However the story of 2010 is a much better crafted book/screenplay than 2001. Both were written to be movies, as was his third novel. Like Empire is a much better story than New Hope, even though New Hope was more wondrous.
I really enjoyed these reviews. I sent the link to my Dad and he told me how much he enjoyed them too. We saw 2010 in the theater and it was the best science fiction film I had ever seen. Thanks!
Very big plans for someone who hasn't even been able to reach the moon. With much superior technology than the apollo missions. Either he is more incompetent or...oh my god
Great stuff. Thank you a great review presentation. I saw this close to when it came out and was baffled by it. I still admired everything. Repeated viewings helped. It is an amazing artistic film.
@@danielgreen2788 Now I know how CHILDREN, like YOURSELF are called TROLLS! I wasn't given anyone "My Approval", I was just stating my "opinion". You do know the difference? You DON'T or you would have not made your RETARDED reply.
I suggest you watch it again. This was made before we landed on the moon, and computers were barley a thing. The aloofness of the humans is now actual reality. Look at people staring at their phones and computers. Completely lost to the people around them.
@Kunth Just the fact that you put 2001 and Avatar in the same sentence and that you drew such a bone headed comparision between them shows how very limited your understanding and appreciation of the cinematic craft is. Further proof of this is your trite use of the movie's age as an argument against its quality and your bashing if its technical limitations, two of the most popular empty criticisms among nowadays edge lords. So, I guess Nietzsche was right when he talked about the need to produce mediocre art destined to mediocre people.
@Kunth Ahh, the lack of originality in the structure of this response, as well as the simplistic and aggressive reasoning that passes for logic these days, and finally the continuous showcase of your cinematic illiteracy truly are hallmarks of the mediocre mind. I expected no less.
This is a great fucking film I’ve seen it at least eight times. It is a perfect sequel to 2001. All the actors are brilliant. I’ve watched it twice in the last two months just to revisit some awesome science-fiction films for my youth. I even had the book and read it in anticipation for the film.
