2010: To me better than 2001

[Joelist]

I recently had the opportunity to rewatch both 2001: A Space Odyssey and its sequel 2010: The Year We Make Contact. And to me it isn't even close - 2010 is the better film.

2001 had nice visuals to be sure but I felt the movie dragged badly right at the start and then at the end. They could have chopped off the first 10 minutes and last 10 minutes and improved the film. I know the film was considered seminal in its late 60's time but not to me.

2010 was both shorter and much better paced. It had a couple of silly scenes but overall it was a space exploration story that used means other than pew pew to generate interest. I enjoyed the acting from Roy Schneider and Helen Mirren and also the movie's general fidelity to physics. The aerobraking sequence in particular was well done.

So, while you may disagree to me this is a case where the sequel is better than its parent.

 

[Lord Ba'al]

For a second there, I though this was gonna be about the SG-1 episodes 2001 and 2010.

 

[PussyGalore]

I recently had the opportunity to rewatch both 2001: A Space Odyssey and its sequel 2010: The Year We Make Contact. And to me it isn't even close - 2010 is the better film.

2001 had nice visuals to be sure but I felt the movie dragged badly right at the start and then at the end. They could have chopped off the first 10 minutes and last 10 minutes and improved the film. I know the film was considered seminal in its late 60's time but not to me.

2010 was both shorter and much better paced. It had a couple of silly scenes but overall it was a space exploration story that used means other than pew pew to generate interest. I enjoyed the acting from Roy Schneider and Helen Mirren and also the movie's general fidelity to physics. The aerobraking sequence in particular was well done.

So, while you may disagree to me this is a case where the sequel is better than its parent.

I agree that the first one was good but suffered from issues as you stated. I vaguely recall 2010 so I had to look it up. What I don't understand is how could Jupiter be turned into a star without affecting Earth in the process? That would literally be introducing a new sun within our solar system. The solar radiation would have a massive effect on the earth.

*Just thinking out loud here.

 

[Joelist]

I know - that was an issue even with Clarke’s book. The new sun doesn’t just provide heat to Io it boosts the heat intake of all the planets including Earth. Now it is a very small sun but a sun nonetheless.

 

[PussyGalore]

I know - that was an issue even with Clarke’s book. The new sun doesn’t just provide heat to Io it boosts the heat intake of all the planets including Earth. Now it is a very small sun but a sun nonetheless.

I thought it was Europa the aliens were transforming? Regardless, both Io and Europa are moons of Jupiter so that would put them in extremely close proximity to the new star. I don't see how life could grow on planets that were that close to a star, even a small one.

For all of Clarke's intelligence I'm surprised that he didn't see how untenable the "new star" idea would be. Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting idea, but it's also heavily flawed. He could have come up with something a little better in my opinion.

*As an aside I have to mention how annoying it is when people gush about what a masterpiece 2001 is and what a genius Kubrick was. In all honesty the movie leaned way too heavily on 1960's drug culture and psychedelic nonsense. I don't find much "genius" in that.

 

[Joelist]

It was Europa - I typed Io in a momentary moment of brain farting.

I was likewise annoyed with 2001. The psychedelic ending was just confusing not entertaining. Even with the issues with the new sun 2010 is just a fundamentally better movie. It flowed better, had better acting and the physics fidelity was fun to watch.

 

[PussyGalore]

It was Europa - I typed Io in a momentary moment of brain farting.

I was likewise annoyed with 2001. The psychedelic ending was just confusing not entertaining. Even with the issues with the new sun 2010 is just a fundamentally better movie. It flowed better, had better acting and the physics fidelity was fun to watch.

I agree. When it comes to scifi fidelity to physics really adds verity to the story.

As for this particular story though I'm not quite understanding why the aliens made multiple monoliths in the same solar system and messed with life in such close proximity. I don't know if the book explains this in more detail as I only read 2001 and not the sequel.

 

[Joelist]

I believe it is explained in a later book.

 

[Overmind One]

I too found 2010 to be a much better, much more coherent movie. The first one reeks of artistic pretense, preferring that over clarity of the story. The more recent movie "Gravity" reminds me of this.

 

[Jim of WVa]

Both movies failed to predict the fall of the Soviet Union.

In 2001, they went all the way to Jupiter but did not bring a microwave oven.

 

[Joelist]

Hey, agreement with my take!

View: https://twitter.com/TheCriticalDri2/status/1404406900595253250?s=20

 

[Overmind One]

Hey, agreement with my take!

View: https://twitter.com/TheCriticalDri2/status/1404406900595253250?s=20

I agree with it as well. 2010 was way more coherent, and closer to the book.

 

[Lord Ba'al]

For a moment there, I thought this was about the Stargate SG-1 episodes 2001 and 2010.

 

[Joelist]

Uh oh....Lord Ba'al is caught in a temporal loop! Maybe he messed up with his time travel in Stargate: Continuum.

 

[Lord Ba'al]

Uh oh....Lord Ba'al is caught in a temporal loop! Maybe he messed up with his time travel in Stargate: Continuum.

Hahahahahah! I can't believe I made almost the exact same comment here three years ago!