# 2010 (1984)



## Dave (Mar 28, 2001)

2010 (1984) 114 Minutes.

http://uk.imdb.com/Title?0086837

Directed by Peter Hyams.

Writing credits Arthur C. Clarke.

With Earth on the brink of war a joint American-Soviet space expedition is sent to Jupiter to learn the fate of the 'Discovery' and the meaning of the black monolith.

One of the films that the European Sci-Fi Channel is always filling it's programme schedules with. A tame sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey with none of it's supposed significance and little new to add.


----------



## Dave (May 23, 2001)

"Finished the second disk of 2010. Something strange about watching a movie 
about a space expedition when you're actually on a space expedition."  

Bill Shepherd, aboard the International Space Station, January 5, 2001.


----------



## nicscifi (Dec 11, 2001)

*2010*

What do you think of this film?


----------



## Ivanhoe (Feb 9, 2002)

*Not as good as 2001 but still good ...*

THE PLOT: The astonishing odyssey continues. This sequel has one of the most difficult tasks a sequel could have and that is to at least live up to the standards of the original 2001 which is probably one of the best SF movies ever made ( if not the best in total). The movie almost makes it but comes up short at the end. 2010 is fairly different type of movie than the 2001. The specific atmosphere of awe and wonder which the first one definitely had was replaced with more realistic approach which lacks metaphysical content like the end of 2001.  The plot brings a mixed crew of USA and SSSR astronauts on a mission to recover the Discovery and find out what went wrong. their mission is to reactivate the main character in the fist movie HAL9000 a super intelligent computer, in order to explain the accidents in the first mission. While the soviet ship is approaching the tension between their passengers rises. Especially between cap. Floyd(Roy Scheider) and the soviet captain (Helen Mirren). Strange events start to happen, probe failures and malfunctions step in once again,  suggesting that humans are not wanted there. 

REVIEW: The intensity of the plot evolves but still fails to produce the spectacular ending of the 2001. This still is a very good movie but it's kind of the disappointing because all the original had. In 2010 special effect are used to the maximum in order to show spectacular sights of planets and the universe. So as far as the technical side of the movie is concerned this is a unique experience. The improvement in that field is obvious and is a result of a sixteen years long gap between the making 2001 and 2010. 

The reason for the mysterious monolith and the disappearance of David Bouman remain only partially answered. The monoliths which helped us evolve along time ago are on a new mission. Their continue their mysterious tasks as they group around Jupiter. Why is Jupiter so important? In order to give those long anticipated answers 2010 removes the mystery everyone had after watching 2001. Back then everybody had it's own solution to the film's ending. In that way 2001 was, like a real masterpiece, opened to individual interpretation. This is what lacks in 2010. This movie imposes, on its own way, the year old question : Are we alone? As a connection to 2001 it  definitely gives us an answer, but what we have to question is whether we are mistaking to presume that extraterrestrial intelligence and its manifestations are  similar to ours. Do we have the right to interfere in their activity and are we able to at least understand them.


----------



## Tabitha (Jun 16, 2002)

I enjoyed this film a lot more than 2001.  

Kubrick's masterpiece was compelling from an artistic point of view - every shot was truly beautiful, and while I admire what he did enormously, the film had little connection to the book in my opinion (also, see The Shining!).  
It still blows me away that that film was made before anyone even walked on the moon!

From the perspective of the books, 2010 was superior in the manner in which it explored the existing storyline, and gave full character depth to the various players.  I saw it when I was very young and the idea of a second sun stayed with me for years and years.  
From a movie-goer's perspective... Well, it made sense for starters!  
Like any movie that uses escalation of the Cold War as a plot device it has not aged well, but the special effects and acting were all very good.

John Lithgow and Bob Balaban are very good, Roy Scheider is passable, Helen Mirren as always is fab...


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Feb 22, 2009)

I recently viewed *2010*, the film made in 1984. I thought I hadn't seen it before, but I kept half-remembering scenes as they happened, so I must have done. Good, solid SF with credible human drama thrown in; Roy Scheider's performance was particularly strong. A worthy sequel to *2001*.

(An extract from my SFF blog)


----------



## Foxbat (Feb 22, 2009)

I agree. A good solid sequel. Clark's very credible speculation on the advancements and applications of science come across very well in this movie.


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 22, 2009)

A completely different feel to the movie -- a completely different type of movie, really -- but yes, I'd agree that it is a well-done film, with some very good performances, and I enjoy watching it now and again. Not without its flaws, but still a good, solid film....


----------



## AE35Unit (Feb 22, 2009)

Yes i have it too,of course  and my version features Clarke himself sitting on a bench at the start in a normally edited-out cameo. 
Wish someone had decided to continue the strand with 2061 too and then 3001.


----------



## steve12553 (Feb 22, 2009)

Although I thoroughly enjoyed *2010* I was greatly disappointed by one thing. *2001* was the first and one of the very few films that did not treat us to rocket noise in a vacuum. A Strauss waltz seemed much more appropriate although not required. *2010 *had the Discovery engines making huge noises in open space. I can live with it but it will bother more than the noise of the any other  spaceship just because of what it is a sequel to.


----------



## AE35Unit (Feb 22, 2009)

steve12553 said:


> Although I thoroughly enjoyed *2010* I was greatly disappointed by one thing. *2001* was the first and one of the very few films that did not treat us to rocket noise in a vacuum. A Strauss waltz seemed much more appropriate although not required. *2010 *had the Discovery engines making huge noises in open space. I can live with it but it will bother more than the noise of the any other  spaceship just because of what it is a sequel to.



Yea thats an interesting point. It seems Hollywood is convinced that excitement is more important than scientific accuracy-it puts bums in seats I suppose. But 2001 is THE only SF film I've seen that truly deserves to be called SF rather than sci-fi. 
Maybe Solaris could be included tho its more a psycho drama than anything else


----------



## Scifi fan (Feb 22, 2009)

It was a good, solid film, yes, but it didn't have the plot twists in the film. For instance, the Chinese beat them to Europa and landed to take on water as a fuel - that wasn't in the film. Also, Bowman's search for intelligent life in Jupiter, his own feelings about the whole process, and his desire for a companion also weren't there. 

Of course, in a two-hour movie, there's only so much you can do.


----------



## dask (Feb 22, 2009)

I don't remember it being particularly well received when it first came out which always mystified me as I thoroughly enjoyed it and now out of nowhere due to this thread suddenly have a bug to see it again.


----------



## J-Sun (Feb 23, 2009)

dask said:


> I don't remember it being particularly well received when it first came out which always mystified me as I thoroughly enjoyed it and now out of nowhere due to this thread suddenly have a bug to see it again.



That's my recollection, too. On the one hand, I wonder if it being '2010' hurts it, because people always compare it to the epochal 2001. On the other hand, it weren't a sequel, maybe people wouldn't notice it at all. But I've always loved it.

I think Scheider does a great job but I think I prefer Mirren's performance. And Lithgow delivers a pretty restrained one.  And Dave and Hal are Dave and Hal, y'know? There's still a remarkable absence of BEMs and blasters and, while the ending is non-psychedelic, it's still pretty expansive. I love 'em both.


----------



## Michael01 (Feb 23, 2009)

Same here.  I've seen *2010* twice now.  While it was more Hollywood-esque than *2001*, I loved it.  Great film.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Mar 2, 2009)

Given a choice of the two, nine times out of ten I'd sit down and re-watch _2010_ before I'd watch _2001_.  _2001_ is a more artistic film, and probably the "better" film.  But there is just something about _2010_ that I find more satisfying.


----------



## reiver33 (Mar 5, 2009)

I'd prefer 2001 to 2010 due to the edgy feel you get when HAL starts to go off, apart from the end sequence which I feel is over long to the point of self-indulgence.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 5, 2009)

steve12553 said:


> Although I thoroughly enjoyed *2010* I was greatly disappointed by one thing. *2001* was the first and one of the very few films that did not treat us to rocket noise in a vacuum. A Strauss waltz seemed much more appropriate although not required. *2010 *had the Discovery engines making huge noises in open space. I can live with it but it will bother more than the noise of the any other  spaceship just because of what it is a sequel to.



We've had discussions on here before about rocket and explosion noises in space.

Both explosions and rockets produce an hot, expanding cloud of gas. If an observer was close enough for the cloud to reach them then they would hear the noise carried by sound waves in the gas. I'm not sure how close they would have to be, but it's not impossible.


----------



## alvysinger (Mar 20, 2009)

2010 is one of the most amazing sci-fi films ever made. Its such a shame people were turned off at the time due to its percieved 'sequel' link to 2001. If this had been a stand alone film then it would have been hailed a masterpiece. Think about it -- what other film of that era captured the vision of space travel so eerily precise? It's a pristinely made film from a desperately undervalued director - Peter Hyams.


----------



## revelshade (Jul 10, 2009)

This was on cable late last night and I ended up watching it all for the first time since it was in theaters.  Enjoyed it very much.  A few thoughts:

1. Anachronisms: Pan Am isn't flying anywhere these days, much less to the moon, and of course the Soviet Union only survived Pan Am by a few weeks, but I was just as amused to see a copy of Omni magazine!

2. I remember a lot of critics put it down for making specific and mundane what had been vague and mystical in 2001.  Phooey on them.  2010 is a lot closer to Clarke's vision, but then 2001 never seemed very mysterious to me because I read the novel first and knew exactly what Clarke's interpretation of the whole thing was.

3. Sound in space: in the theater there was one guy who got very indignant very loudly about this and I remember wanting to pimp slap him.  Here was one of the smartest, most realistic pieces of near-future sf he would ever see on film, and he had to pick nits.  Plus he had been reading _Ringworld_ while he waited for the movie to start.  Faster-than-light travel is no problem, but sound in space?  Unforgivable!

4. Clarke's cameo: I don't remember him sitting on a bench, but I noticed the cover of Time magazine where Clarke is the U.S. president and Stanley Kubrick is the Soviet premier!

5. Roy Scheider was terrific, but then Roy Scheider was _always_ terrific.  He had an amazing voice, he was great playing good guys _and_ bad guys, and even back then his face looked like it was made out of rich corinthian leather.

6. I teared up a little when HAL asked if he would dream.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 10, 2009)

I think that 2010 is definately the more watchable film. 2001 is a magnificent spectacle , but I'm not sure that it's particularly enjoyable movie. I always thought that comparing 2001 to 2010 is like comparing  ST:The Motion Picture to Wrath Of Khan


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Jul 11, 2009)

revelshade said:


> 3. Sound in space: in the theater there was one guy who got very indignant very loudly about this and I remember wanting to pimp slap him. Here was one of the smartest, most realistic pieces of near-future sf he would ever see on film, and he had to pick nits. Plus he had been reading _Ringworld_ while he waited for the movie to start. Faster-than-light travel is no problem, but sound in space? Unforgivable!


 
I find this sort of schoolboy error irritating too (although I wouldn't spoil anyone else's enjoyment by making an audible fuss about it). There's a difference between a deliberate invention which is accepted as essential to the story (FTL travel) and downright sloppiness in very basic science (sound in space). But we've had this debate before on this board....


----------



## Rodders (Jul 11, 2009)

Sound in space doesn't bother me at all and i'd never get annoyed by it either way. I thought this was a very enjoyable movie. Sort of a compromise between SF and Space opera.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 11, 2009)

I need to rewatch this. Its been a while.


----------



## Scifi fan (Jul 13, 2009)

I'm a fan of Arthur C. Clarke, but, quite honestly, I think 2001 was a bit pretentious - especially when Clarke apparently said, "if you understood it the first time, we've failed."

2010 is more straighforward.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 13, 2009)

Scifi fan said:


> I'm a fan of Arthur C. Clarke, but, quite honestly, I think 2001 was a bit pretentious - especially when Clarke apparently said, "if you understood it the first time, we've failed."
> 
> 2010 is more straighforward.



Na,there's quite a few stories that are like that. Need a few watches to get it all.


----------



## Harry Kilmer (Oct 10, 2009)

One of my fave films. Roy Schneider can make anything watchable of course.


----------



## dask (Oct 11, 2009)

I agree.


----------



## Omphalos (Oct 11, 2009)

I liked the film, but it felt too heavily edited to me.  There were some really clumsy segues between certain scenes.  I also thought that they cut too much from the book.  Still, a good movie.  Nowhere near the masterpiece that 2001 was, but good enough to follow it.


----------



## Metryq (Apr 4, 2011)

> *Paranoid Marvin wrote:* I always thought that comparing 2001 to 2010 is like comparing ST:The Motion Picture to Wrath Of Khan



I'd say Marvin nailed it on that one, although I hated _ST:TMP_, while I liked _2001_ and _2010_ for different reasons. _2010_ was an action space film, while _2001_ was a philosophical piece. The one "down check" I'd give _2010_ is the literal treatment of Bowman's metamorphosis from the previous film. And it only got worse as the sequels continued. (Clarke should not have written sequels for _Rendezvous with Rama_, either.) For example, the monolith started out as an enigma for which there are no words, then devolved into a mere computer by the time _2063_ hit the bookstore shelves. Worse yet, Clarke actually used the same, grossly ignorant gimmick in _2063_ that appeared in _ID4_.



> *Revelshade wrote: *Anachronisms: Pan Am isn't flying anywhere these days, much less to the moon, and of course the Soviet Union only survived Pan Am by a few weeks



Consider it continuity with the first film. However, I would hardly call these anachronisms for a book published in 1982 and a movie released in 1984. We still do not have a moonbase, nor revolving space stations with regular commercial flights. And you think the guy complaining about sound in space was nitpicking! Speaking of which...



> *Steve12553 wrote:* 2001 was the first and one of the very few films that did not treat us to rocket noise in a vacuum.



I don't know why people persist in making such a big deal about this. I considered Kubrick's choice of music, breathing, or silence in vacuum shots an aesthetic one, not a matter of "scientific accuracy." After all,

_Discovery_ did not have radiators for its engines, which is mentioned in many of the "making of" materials. And radiators would be needed, too, as I'm sure the engine pod had some kind of reactor to power the habitat module. 
_Discovery_ had lots of "fill light" in its shadows. Contrary to some pre-Moon landing sci-fi, lunar shadows are not pitch black due to the surrounding environment reflecting light, as well as the Earth overhead for all nearside locations. (The Moon has an albedo of 0.11, while Earth's is 0.39. It must be almost painfully bright in the lunar sky.) But in the emptiness between planets, there would be nothing to reflect light into _Discovery_'s shadows, except portions of its own hull. (I think the shadows would be mostly pitch black.) The FX artists for _2010_ went to a lot of trouble to emulate the black shadows seen in NASA footage, even though Jupiter and Io were nearby to cast _some_ fill light.
The hybernacula for _Discovery_ — and _Leonov_ — were in the accelerated sections of the ships. They would most likely be located in the freefall sections of the ships to avoid "bed sores" and other stresses on the sleepers. (At least _Avatar_ got one thing right.)
The "Moonbus" that shuttled Floyd to Tycho would not glide laterally over the lunar surface. It would probably make parabolic point-to-point jumps, just as the experimental "Delta Clipper" was expected to do.
_2001_ frequently shows a crescent moon in conjunction with the sun. 
And so on.

So let's not go too crazy with _2001_'s vaunted "scientific accuracy."


----------



## J Riff (Apr 4, 2011)

Nobody noticed anything of the kind when the movie came out in the theatres, though. It was all "_what the heck was that all about_?" Mass confusion over the ending, basically. And the apes, and the monolith. The movie looked so cool for the times that none of it mattered. It still needs the big screen to be truly effective today. 
The light show was enough for many. There were epileptic seizures, people walking out, throwing up, hurling objects, epithets and screaming... and that was just the early show.


----------

