What Are Your Thoughts on the Films 2001 and 2010 A Space Odyssey ?

[BAYLOR]

2001 done by Stanley Kubrick 1968 was unlike anything done before in both look and story telling. 2010 done by Peter Hyams 1984 was the follow up which answered some the questions from the first film and had a fantastic ending.

What do you think of both films.

 

[Rodders]

I have only seen 2001 once. I loved the visuals, which really made an impression, but I didn't understand it fully. I read somewhere ACC said that if you understood it, we've not done our job properly. What a pretentious git. I've been meaning to add it to my Bluray library, but haven't quite got around to it. Soon. My overall impression is that it's a great movie, but perhaps a little overrated. Discovery One has to be one of my favourite spaceships.

2010 I enjoyed. It wasn't as cerebral as 2001, but still a great movie imo.

 

[HanaBi]

2001 reminds me of a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle but you don't have a picture to help you fit the pieces together; whereas 2010, is a 100 piece jigsaw, with a picture and every piece is individually numbered so that you more or less know what fits where.

That said, 2010 had some really terrific sfx for its time, and Roy Scheider (and director, Peter Hyams) did an admirable job. And obviously with the Cold War backstory still a reality back in the early 80s when the film was made, it made rather sobering viewing.

I also enjoyed 2010 for focusing on the fairly routine narrative, unlike 2001, which was more engaging one's brain to actually think about what the hell is going on!

I have to be in the right mood to sit through the cerebral 2001; whereas 2010 has far more of the pop-culture about it, and is therefore an easier choice of viewing.

 

[Vertigo]

I thought 2001 was a ground breaking piece of cinematography that completely lost the plot at the end, at least as far as engaging the audience goes. Storywise 2001 was excellent except the later half of the film was all about the failure of Hal and, apart from the psychedelics at the end, completely dropped the core story of the film. So I would say that as a piece of ground breaking cinematography 2001 was astounding but \s a piece of story telling it was very much lacking. It was by a long way the most convincing piece of science fiction that had ever appeared on our screens to that date. Much of its special effects still hold up just as well today. And that gave it an enormous amount of 'wow' factor.

2010, was I thought, a much blander affair. As has been mentioned above it was of its day with its emphasis on the cold warm, but I felt it lacked all the 'wow' factor that 2001 had so much of. On the other hand it told a much better and more coherent story.

 

[Boneman]

I remember being blown away by 2001 at the cinema, and haven't seen it since. Would I be disappointed now with the special effects, with all the advances in cgi since then? If the story stands up, probably not. Weirdly, I can't recall anything of 2010... I'll have to watch them both again!

 

[Lumens]

2001 stands up fine today, apart from the psychedelic bit, some of which is a bit naff even for that era IMO. The other effects are fine. One of the few movies where vacuum is actually silent. It is painfully slow though, for those used to today's pace and incessant cutting.

2010 is a good movie too I thought. I wish real history would catch up with the advancements a little.

 

[Vertigo]

2001 stands up fine today, apart from the psychedelic bit, some of which is a bit naff even for that era IMO. The other effects are fine. One of the few movies where vacuum is actually silent. It is painfully slow though, for those used to today's pace and incessant cutting.

2010 is a good movie too I thought. I wish real history would catch up with the advancements a little.

I always liked the realistic silence of vacuum especially the way they deliberately cut the sound abruptly between in and out of vacuum. Very effective. You are right though it was painfully slow. I think it was nearly 30 mins before the first dialogue.

 

[Danny McG]

There was a long sequence, single viewpoint fixed camera, just before Hal went a killing.
Two astronauts having a paranoid discussion and hoping Hal couldn't pick up what they were saying.
I saw the same thing many years later when reading V Vinge 'A Fire upon the deep' when the archeologists were desperately trying to get their families away from the consciousness they'd awoken

 

[HanaBi]

It's been awhile since I watched either film; so this evening I think I will indulge in both back2back.

 

[Victoria Silverwolf]

I first saw 2001: A Space Odyssey when it first came out. I was fourteen years old, already a science fiction fan, so it was perfect for me. I have seen it about two dozen times since. It was at that time, and remains today, my favorite film of all time. (I have also been a fervent Kubrick fan, seeking out all of his films, which range, for my taste, from "very good" to "brilliant.") It had a profound impact on me, which I cannot fully explain to this day.

The sequel was a pretty good SF movie, but it did not change my life the way the first one did.

 

[J Riff]

Long stretches of minimal dialogue, fx that hold up, still a great watch.

 

[Stuart Suffel]

Two entirely different movies.

2001 was an abstract reflection on the origins of man, of time, the meaning of existence, the nature of consciousness.
It suggested an eternal loop of existence, repeated eternally.

The Hal thingy was really a second movie, focusing on one thing, the nature of self awareness.

A work of immense skill, vision, and importance .

2010 misunderstood 2001.

The 'gaps' of 2001 were the spaces a viewer could live in, imagine in.

 

[Galactic Journey]

I first saw 2001: A Space Odyssey when it first came out. I was fourteen years old, already a science fiction fan, so it was perfect for me. I have seen it about two dozen times since. It was at that time, and remains today, my favorite film of all time. (I have also been a fervent Kubrick fan, seeking out all of his films, which range, for my taste, from "very good" to "brilliant.") It had a profound impact on me, which I cannot fully explain to this day.

The sequel was a pretty good SF movie, but it did not change my life the way the first one did.

I am kind of the other way around.

I go back and forth on 2001. I have seen it and been awed, and I've seen it and been bored. Someday, I will rent out a theater and watch it properly.

I first saw 2010 in 1984, and it is a very gritty, plausible picture of "the future." I watched it again seven years ago (I wonder why! ) and felt it had held up. Plus John Lithgow.

 

[Frost Giant]

Like most Kubrick films it could be much shorter. I liked both films, but had some problems with the plot.
In 2001, if the 9000 computer series are indeed the most advanced machines on Earth, it seems likely that they would have been used in a security capacity prior to the Jupiter mission. If computers like HAL have safeguarded government and/or corporate secrets, it seems odd that HAL would have a problem keeping certain mission aspects secret. It seems even more nonsensical that HAL would show no problem keeping these secrets - "lying to the crew" as they put it in 2010 - and wait until they got all the way out to Jupiter before he turns on the crew. It seemed ridiculous to me that HAL would take the course of murdering the crew. If he wanted to reveal the classified information so badly, why not simply do so? It would be more logical than the extreme of killing everyone.

In 2010, I thought the transformation of Jupiter into a second star was implausible for a number of reasons, but I guess we can chalk that one up to Monolith Magic. I liked William Sylvester better than Roy Schneider as Heywood Floyd.

All told, they are enjoyable films. Seeing them now evokes a feeling of disappointment, it's too bad real human space travel in 2017 lags behind fiction from the 1960s.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I saw 2001 in the theater in 1968.

UTTERLY MINDBLOWING!

There are things that you can never experience again and come anywhere near the same reaction.

I have seen it on the small screen a number of times since then and now know it too well to be impressed. To watch it now would be just for the visuals and not the story.

I took my first computer course months after seeing the movie. The evolution of computing and what most people think about it has been interesting to observe.

I have only seen 2010 on the small screen. As an old time SF reader I was just never impressed with it. It was OK.

psik

 

[J Riff]

Computers weren't as smart back then, the silicon was lower quality... but spaceships were better because they just built things to last, not like he cheap throwaway deliberate built-in obsolescent NASA rubbish of today.

 

[BAYLOR]

Hal was heroic and self sacrificing in 2010 . In the book Hal got to live.

 

[BAYLOR]

They still entertain

 

[Rodders]

2001 has been on TV recently and I watched it for the first time in maybe 30 years.

Watching it as an adult was very different and I found Kubrick's attention to detail was quite incredible. For a movie that is fifty years old, the effects have stood the test of time.

I have a new appreciation for the soundtrack too.

 

[BAYLOR]

2001 has been on TV recently and I watched it for the first time in maybe 30 years.

Watching it as an adult was very different and I found Kubrick's attention to detail was quite incredible. For a movie that is fifty years old, the effects have stood the test of time.

I have a new appreciation for the soundtrack too.

2001 wasn't a profitable film at the box office .