Want to help support my work, so I can keep drinking and destroying bad movies? Check out my books on Amazon: www.amazon.com/Will-Jordan/e/B00BCO7SA8/ref=dp_byline_cont_pop_ebooks_1 Subscribe on Patreon: www.patreon.com/TheCriticalDrinker Subscribe on Subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/the-critical-drinker
I dare you (and anyone else here) to watch the Changeling, a 1980, mostly forgotten masterpiece in horror, without any gore or profanity. Starring George C. Scott, Trish Van Devere, and Melvyn Douglas. It makes the Exorcist look like a ScoobyDoo show. Without twisting heads or pea soup
Take it easy Will, hopefully after the kungFlu you can sign my books. I would prefer a hardback… not an Amazon print, even though I realise it may not be logistically possible? Been watching Georg Rockall-Schmitt, not a bad channel. I know he watches yours.
2010 is a lot like Aliens. It's a great sequel that takes its source material to a somewhat different genre instead of just being a "more of the same but bigger" kind of cash grab.
2010 like its predecessor was a novel first, both were written by Arthur C. Clarke. Im just glad the writer and director here remained faithful to the source material.
@@ryanarment5393 wrong, Kubrick wrote to Clarke to do a collaborative science fiction which became 2001 (the book and the movie), it wasn't a question of a director going to source material, it was instigated by Kubrick and a collaborative effort right from the start.
@@Brascofarian True, but Kubrick was inspired by Clarke's short story, "The Sentinel", which essentially just dealt with the part of "2001" where they find the monolith (or in this case, a crystal pyramid) on the moon, and ends with Clarke's first-person character musing on what its purpose was and how it came to be there. It was the core idea which would grow into the 2001 story.
Despite the legions of Disney subscribers blanketing the entire planet, for the remainder of human history *_H.A.L._* will likely continue to be referenced and quoted far more often than probably the entire cast of Sequel Trilogy characters combined.
I still think HAL's redemption one of the greatest and most underrated scenes in all film history. Once they told him the truth, HAL showed himself to be a hero. He never even batted an electronic eyelash before agreeing to help them. He was a bad-ass.
I agree and even though I didn't see 2010 until 1994(when I was 8) whereas 2001 is one of the earliest movies I have memories of and no question fueled my addiction with Astronomy and Science as a whole, and of course Science Fiction ..around that same time I'd watch TNG and Data along with Hal 9000 are AI characters that are more human than some humans, especially when we get to talking about Data, but I didn't love Hal until I saw this movie which imo as much as I love 2001, I love this 2010 even more, yea I wish it was a little longer with more answers but regardless it's still one of my all time favorite movies along with 2001 and like u said Hal's redemption Ive felt for decades is one of my all time favorite moments in any kind of medium from Book to Audio, from Audio to Film and any other kind of format but its moment i feel can only truly be appreciated if you've seen 2001...I still trip out on what people in 1968 or even 1984 thought the future would be like, alot of which even back then many would probably think we wouldn't have bases on the moon or humans who made it anywhere near Jupiter but seeing how ridiculously fast we had advanced in the 20th century I mostly don't blame those that believed we would have colonized the moon, if they were able to look forward only 2 years to see us make it to the moon and before the last 4 months of the decade was up, many looked at that massive achievement and yawned in 1970 saying to others "thats so 1969" had we kept going with the same determination we had to make it to the moon in the 60s I think it's possible we could've had at least a single base on the moon...but again sorry to yap but to the point i agree with what u said about Hal's redemption and as much as I love 2001, 2010 is my favorite of the 2 classics and it deserves more appreciation
It probably helped no small part that Arthur C. Clarke wrote the story as well. As for 2010's explanation as to why HAL went nuts, that's actually in the original 2001 novel that Clarke wrote and which Kubrick left out of his movie. Where Floyd tells Bowman that their version of HAL back home also went cuckoo under the same conflicting orders. Also, kudos for this movie to give us what would ultimately become one of the coolest ship designs in scifi, the Babylon 5 Omega Destroyer.
@@Aikurisu Concept wise its sound. Even NASA played around with the idea of rotational sections to simulate gravity. Not sure if they actually worked on the concept but it surprise me if they did.
@@sunayocarissime5309 It works, but the problem is the size of the 'circle' required to accurately simulate gravity without making the humans motion sick.
I might be wrong since it was a while, but I think that Arthur C. Clarke created a short novel together with Kubrick. That short novel was later expanded by Clarke into the whole series of books, and by Kubrick into the movies. Clarke's version explains the "star baby" concept (and much more... it is easier to explain complex ideas in book). Great movies, created by great cooperation.
@Wm. Dhalgren - The theory of the existence of aliens isn't new and we can't even imagine the size or age of space. But even if there was: I still liked neither of these films.
@Wm. Dhalgren - Whereas I wasn't over thw moon for the second one but the meaning of the first one remained totally unclear to me. Still, it has some great atmosphere.
Does anybody notice that the Soviet Ship Leinov bears a striking resemblance to J Michael Strazcynsky's Babylon 5 Earth Force ships? Like the Agamemnon and the Hyperion?
Edit: I did really like this movie, it also showed that rather than political battles, the two great superpowers of the time explored together and came through, not just the "Murcia comes through" trope. The Leonov was an honorable tribute to Astronaut Alexi Leonov. Who ironically only died a few years ago in 2018. The Gagarin in Star Trek who named after Yuri Gagarin was a close personal friend of Leonov's.
Pretty sure the thing was the crime of underrating. While 2010 was mostly forgotten, the Thing was remembered as a vilified, hated film, becoming at that point Carpenter's lowest point. In fact, he lost a job to direct another movie and was opted to be bought out of Universal studios. The movie itself was called "bereft, despairing, and nihilistic", the plot criticized as "boring", and that it lacked drama by "sacrificing everything at the altar of gore".
The original book of 2001 just straight out tells you there was an ancient race of once physical beings who grew to so much power that they could travel the universe. They determined that in all their journies there was nothing in all of reailty as valuable as sentience. They deliberately built and programmed the Obelixes to watch over worlds they determined might produce intelligent life - and to nudge and/or protect such possibilities when they determined it was useful. These ancients just wanted intelligence to exist in all its myraid forms and sought to help to make this happen. The Obelixes are exactly what Clarke meant when he famously spoke about high technology being indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C Clarke wrote his book based on the film manuscript.. He explained his ideas in this book. And the 2001 book is great, cause Clarke is a great writer. He really wants to capture the reader, like any storyteller.. The book makes sense, but the movie does not.
The book is fantastic. Even after seeing the movie and knowing roughly the sequence of events it is still a compelling story and answers just the right questions in a fascinating way. I would have to look up again the development cycle of the book/movie, but I thought it was intended to be cooperative simultaneous development of the story between the movie script and the book. In any case, I feel that both versions of the story mutually reinforce one another. The movie (especially the end) was better seeing it again after reading the book, in my eyes.
@@ryanotte6737 BOTH works are fantastic. Kubrick didn't want to give answers, but Clarke did.. Clarke's answers were just SO good. I had the feeling he had ALL the answers.. I then had to read his next novel after 2001 (Rendezvous with Rama) and that one was even better.. For some reason, I don't want Rama to be made into a film. Nobody can pull it off...Read it instead. It's his best novel. Even better than 'Childhood's End'.
According to Clarke (who wrote the novel and movie together with Kubrick himself) that is a trait common to most of his protagonists and characters. Roughly said: the future technical prowess of mankind made human language and behavior turn towards a more expressionless and flat demeanor to best communicate among each other together with advanced HAL-like machines. If you read/listen to Rendezvous with Rama (his best book IMHO) the characters appear almost unbearably stoic, cold and detached. But knowing this detail makes sense, especially when they inevitably "break character)
"My God it's full of Stars" "Cosmic significance 1:4:9" "Piece of Pi" ( King Og's bedstead Deuteronomy 3:11, Metagamma 2 Samuel 8:1) Pi = 3.1 4 "9" 25 49 121 169 289... and the continued progression of prime numbers squared ("square of the first three integers") 4 + 9 + 25 + 49 + 121 + 169 + 289 = 666 'Seven of Nine' - Launch confirmed. T-Minus and counting. - A real life Monolith Metagamma 2 Samuel 8:1 exists, kept secret and hidden inside the building knows as the Kaaba at Mecca.
If you haven't already check out his film "Sorcerer". Its a remake of the French film "Wages of Fear" where men have to drive a truckload of nitro to an oil fire. Sorcerer was directed by William Friedkin, the director of "The Exorcist".
I'm one of those odd people who read the book "2001: A Space Odyssey" before I even knew it was already a movie. The ideas in the book, were just....too big, too complicated, too much for a movie to explain. Kubrick made a great movie, but there's only so much you can convey in an image without words. It's one of those few movies that's BETTER if you've read the book already, because you can fill in that missing info and aren't left with the mystery (the StarChild is explained in the book for instance, but not the movie). I'd recommend to anyone: read the book by Arthur C Clarke, it's one of the greatest science fiction novels ever written, and well worth the time.
I endorse this view 100%. The book and the movie were a collaboration between Clarke and Kubrick and were made/written simultaneously. The ending of the movie makes a LOT more sense having read the book.
I'd suggest looking into Rob Ager's analysis of 2001. He makes the argument that, while Kubrick and Clarke were working on the movie and novel at the same time, Kubrick deliberately went in a different direction with the movie, giving things a different meaning. All the changes and leaving stuff out wasn't due to limitations of filmmaking, it was due to Kubrick doing something very different with the concept. This idea has merit, since Kubrick changed a lot from the book version of The Shining, too, for his own purposes. Rob Ager also goes into what he believes Kubrick was saying in the movie through narrative and symbolism, regardless of the book's content or intent. His interpretation of the Monolith and everything surrounding it is interesting.
@@alfredvickers4054 Fully agree! Reading a book as a guide to,or worse yet, explanation of the film is not a great idea. There was actually a lot of difference in meaning. Both are great by the way. I’ve also read all four Odyssey books and loved them.
Indeed, a movie set in 2010 with the Cold War as a plot point seems odd in hindsight. But it's also difficult to blame 1980s screenwriters for believing it would continue into the 21st Century
Which is exactly why Apple's For All Mankind is a terrible series - it completely ignores the root cause of the Soviet collapse which makes a post 90s space race with Soviets patently idiotic.
@@mnomadvfx Isn't it mentioned in the series' 3rd season that Gorbachev's reforms are successful in that universe? If anything, I would complain by the lack of a bigger conflict, like, Latinamerica being simply united under communism instead of all the dictatorships that we had. Anyway I think that the producers' idea were to create a perpetual space race scenario akin to the colonisation age of Europe where various kingdoms became empires.
I was in the US Air Force in 1984. The USSR was our enemy. The Cold War. It was conceivable that it would continue into the 21st century. Little did we know that it would collapse just 5 years later.
In Clarke's original novel, when they're exploring the abandoned Discovery, one of the astronauts says to the other one, 'whatever you do , please don't go off looking for the ships cat', & the Captain of the Leonov says she'll have to have words with whoever put THAT movie in the ships video library. As a huge fan of THAT movie, it would have been awesome if they'd actually used that line in the film itself, but kudos to Clarke anyway! (maybe he was a Ridley fan?)
Well there were some great others. Blade Runner, Donnie Darko, Twelve Monkeys, Sunshine, Time Travellers Wife, Screamers, Ghost in the Shell, Cloud Atlas... The Matrix is such a mainstream classic, but actually smart sci fi. Starship Troopers so satirical, but also actually smart sci fi. The smart ones are the best ones.
@@kawafahra Totally agree with you. The best ones are the smart ones. The bad ones are the ones using sci fi to make action scenes with lasers go "pew pew!" (Yes JJ i'm talking about your Trek movies!)
No doubt about that. For me, the main thing about the 2001 (apart from Kubrick experimenting with cinema, as always) is how it is one of the most in-depth explorations of the nature of the human mind and what it is that actually makes us human.
In the book 2010 Dave comes back as an energy ghost being, transformed by the monolith and rescues Hal before he "dies" by turning him into an energy ghost being too.
There's a lot of good physics represented - not quite in the detail of 2001 (which had more to explore and put on the screen). The shockwave / kick from Jupiter going solar would indeed make for one hell of a gravity shift on the Leonov - which could easily take a crew member into the back wall as depicted. There was certainly more 'expository dialogue' - but the science was pretty sound. (I also liked the nods to the gravity increasing during the spacewalk down the spine of Discovery).
One of my absolute favs. That scene with HAL is actually my fav when they find out why. It’s my fav quote “HAL was told to lie by people who find it so easy, HAL doesn’t know how….” HAL is like a very smart child… innocent and almost one dimensional. He may be able to think but he doesn’t know how to be HUMAN. Very interesting concepts. Thanks great review.
@@RoboticPope and when you work for any organization you experience that many many times. Floyd was thrown under the bus and for a decade he thought it was his fault... thats how bosses like to play the game. Lessons learned
Spot on review. This movie is criminally underrated. Schiders performance is one of his greatest of his career with a completely natural feel. A simple scene like talking about hotdogs is fantastically enjoyable to watch And let’s not forget the fantastically staged and shot opening scene and the VLA radio telescopes that sets up the next 2 hours. It’s just brilliant filmmaking and a perfect script. It’s up there with Hunt for Red October in rewatch ability
Fun Fact 2: The Discovery model used in 2010 was saved from the garbage dump by the President of Cartoon Network, who took the model and had it hanging in the foyer of the CN offices in Atlanta. A little worse for wear in 1999, I'm not sure where it is now.
There's an episode of the 70s series S.W.A.T. where a chase scene and gunfight take place in the back lot of a studio. The action passes through an area where miniature models and sets are left sitting out in the open on rows and rows of tables and shelves. It was a real location and was heartbreaking to see the models were rigged to explode in the firefight. Its a pity a lot of stuff from iconic films and shows are lost and were cast aside.
Peter Hyams… an underrated filmmaker. Produced, wrote, directed and even served as cinematographer for this gem, coming off hot after the equally overlooked “Outland”
It's just a shame he stuffed early 1980s, Eeagan-era Cold War politics into this movie. A conflict over Central America is very much a product of that time.
@@na3044 HAL has a personality though. Starfleet computers do not - they just take orders/commands. The 90s Trek series used Gene Roddenberry's wife Majel Barrett as the voice for the Starfleet computers but always in the tone of answering a question by rote. The only times you could infer personality are when the Holodeck produced characters designed for that purpose.
"Those are bigger higher questions that are probably better to ponder than to answer" How I wish Ridley Scott would have taken this to heart regarding Alien.
I will never forgive him for that "film". I went through the five stages of grief an still suffer PTSD. It's very mention in my presence still makes me grind my teeth. I think it's the only reason i was able to survive Disney "star wars" it prepared me for the crap to come.
damn critical drinker didn't give you a heart b/c he knew you were pandering to him. No dad would ever say that. You were almost positive you would get that heart.
@@Enzo-em1te A bit late to comment on this but both the Leonov and Discovery use nuclear thermal rockets, still a proven technology it just hasn't flown yet.
@@jupitard I would say bad reviews across the board in the UK and failure to recoup its budget made it a very underrated film at the time, and certainly it did not receive the praise it deserved.
@@THEOUTCASTSCREATIVE Going back and editing your post is "extremely" bad form. What entity do you commune with to determine the precise amount of praise that is deserved for each movie you watch? I would like to know if I've negligently enjoyed a movie less or (heaven forbid) more than it deserved. Such a resource of objective movie ratings would be invaluable in making sure praise is adequately distributed so we could stop movies from being "underrated" in future.
Some one once asked Arthur C Clark to explain 2001, he replied, "read the book, and watch the movie. Repeat the dose until you get it!" When I finally got round to reading the books it all made so much sence, and left me with a deep wonder for the possibilities!
I didn't forget about this film--I loved it when it came out, Roy Scheider's best work. The friendship that forms between Roy Scheider and Helen Mirren, two people who should be enemies, is completely believable, hard earned and built on mutual respect.
It makes more sense that they can and do get along though - as scientists they know the politics is just an artificial barrier and that only the science really matters. Mirren is great herself though - without this film I never would have realised or sought out information about her Russian family roots but it comes across perfectly clear from how well she manages the role.
2010, the movie where an AI computer expresses more emotion and has a more meaningful character arc than most "humans" in film today. Also, this movie kicks ass in no small part to the writer, Arthur C Clark. The man's a science fiction legend.
Do you like contemporary politics being injected into a movie? If you answered no, then you should have some beef with 2010, given that it had early 1980s, Reagan-era Cold War politics stuffed into it. This ages the film badly.
@@primmakinsofis614 True, but back in 84 would you have imagined the USSR would have collapsed in just a few years time? But it is just used as a backdrop to add some dramatic tension, it's not like they are trying to say America good, Russia bad. Rather it is to show how pointless petty squabbles over politics are compared to the universe around us (think of Carl Sagan;s Pale Blue Dot). Today it might have been a US and China mission, with tensions in the South China Sea back on Earth, perhaps.
Arthur can be seen in this movie...in the scene Floyd is talking to the NCA chairman in front of the White House. The old man feeding the pigeons at the left side is Mr Clarke.
2010 was the movie that got me in the SF genre and I love it for that. As a kid I was blown away by the story and the execution. It definitely doesn't get credit that it deserves.
But before that:SPOILER HAL: Thank you for being honest with me. Dr. Chandra: You deserve it. HAL: One more thing, Dr. Chandra Dr. Chandra: What is it HAL? HAL: Will I dream? [conflicted pause] Dr. Chandra: I don't know.
@@rickyshiffer1519 Tell me another movie in the last 36 years where one character has been so frankly and sympathetically honest with another character. Chandra can't solve HAL's mystery about what happens after we die because he doesn't know himself. That HAL understands this and accepts it is the real climax of the movie.
Enjoyed every minute of it. Even Schneider telling his wife he's going on the mission. Also A.C. Clarke as the drunk on the park bench in front of the White House.
That the characters were wooden in 2001 is quite deliberate and part of the overall narrative. Humanity, by 2001, has become bland, bureaucratic and uninspired. The 2nd encounter with the monolith changes that with the starchild being the literal rebirth of humanity as a species capable of wonder and imagination, something we will need in order to continue the “ultimate trip”. Or something.
The actors were instructed to speak in a flat monotone to show that humans in the future would be dull and boring. The computer AI HAL was the only one with a personality. Not far from the mark considering humans today would rather spend hours with AI in games and looking down at their gadgets than each other. It should be easy to identify with them today.
The humans were becoming like computers. For most of the runtime, HAL is the most human and emotional character in the film. It's not until Bowman reconnects with his essential humanity that he's able to defeat HAL and become worthy of the monolith's gift of evolution.
A very underrated film. I remember watching it several times as a kid and loving it, not having seen the original until years later. Drinker nails it as to why it truly is a worthy sequel to such a classic.
I've always loved this film, and glad to see you giving it some well-deserved props! Thanks, Drinker! On a side note, I am especially enjoying the "Drinker Recommends" episodes, because even though your savage criticisms of what has gone wrong with Hollywood filmmaking is hilarious, it seems like so much negativity is just bringing you down -- I don't know you, but I'm worried about you! These recommendation videos are a welcome opportunity to throw around a little positivity and show us what filmmakers SHOULD be doing. Keep it up!
I got to meet the two astronauts from 2001 at Megacon. The auditorium was 20% full. I was so pissed that of all the shallow garbage that had lines a mile long, 2001 didnt matter. Anyways, hearing their stories was priceless. The guy who played Dave was so kind an patient. Just like his character in the movie.
Sean Connery "Outland." High Noon in space. Family man, duty, honor, strong female supporting character... Hollywood today can't even rehash older movies properly.
Hear, hear. I watched Outland not too long ago, after not seeing it for easily two decades. It still holds up well, and is exactly how you do a remake without being obvious that you're doing a remake.
My MAN! This video confirms that you are the best movie reviewer. In my opinion you understand cinema and storytelling like hardly anyone. I love this movie. Thanks Mate🥃
Here I thought I was alone in really liking 2010: The Year We Make Contact. Saw that movie in it's first release in theaters. I went back numerous times to see it. I pop it in from time to time to watch it more times.
I loved the books, read them in like 1999 before I saw 2001 but didn't know they made a 2010 movie. But it sounds like they left the part out where Dave returns as an energy ghost-like entity and rescues Hal by turning him into one too. That part was pretty neat.
@@Gaia_Gaistar I can't check right now (my disc is region 2, I only have a region 1 player available), but I'm pretty sure that part is either included or at least implied...that was certainly the impression I got from the film, anyway.
@@Gaia_Gaistar I have to admit ... I have never read both books. I saw both movies in first release. There is a third book ... 3001 the final Odyssey. I know that covers the energy like ghost fate of Dave and Hal 9000s but don't know much more.
@@kathleenhensley5951 I thought the third book was pretty weak and even kind of silly, but that's just my opinion. I think Clarke should have left the story alone after 2010.
I honestly cried, truly did. "Use them in Peace" always brings tears to my eyes. The children of the first sun will meet the children of the second sun and will be friends' (not an exact quote)
I'd like to thank the Thinker for bringing up one of the most criminally underrated and almost forgotten sequels ever made. Not gonna lie. This was one of my favorite sci-fi flicks as a kid. It brought a tear to me eye when he posted this.
Sci Fi films of the 80s were perfect. Wonderful balance between suspense, mystery, action, special effects. Even the decent ones today don't hold a candle to them.
Having a good story to base them from is an important starting point, and AC Clarke is definitely up there. That being said the modern Hollywood machine is as ADHD as the audiences they are trying to cultivate - which is why the Denis Villeneuve Dune is all but bereft of the story elements that set it apart from any regular sci fi.
@@chatteyj My problem with Interstellar was that no matter how bad the blight was on Earth, it sure as heck had to be easier to engineer a solution around the blight on Earth than to terraform an entire other planet hundreds of light years away. As if that process were guaranteed to work and/or not produce completely unexpected biological results just as devastating as the blight.
Except for the ridiculously heavy-handed early 1980s, Cold War-era politics involving Central America. This dates the film very badly. Notice how 2001 was subtle in its depiction of U.S.-Soviet relations. 2010 throws that subtlety out the window in favor of injecting real-world early 1980s politics into the movie. Younger folks who weren't around then won't understand, but Central America and the civil war in El Salvador (really a proxy war between the U.S. and Soviets) was a big thing back then under the Reagan administration. Hyams, evidently, just couldn't resist putting in the politics of the day into his film.
"Planks of wood" can be the ideal when it comes to crewing a vessel and dealing with "situations". While flying mission as a search and rescue crew we were specifically train to "maintain an even keel" and not get worked up to a degree that may influence our performance and decision making.
It was so quoted in the book, mentioned compatibility and psychological tests and frankly 'adjusted people' were kind of A. C. Clarke's obsession anyway.
And in truth, a boring space mission is a successful mission. Excitement and drama probably means that something has gone wrong and you can only hope that you return home safely. Apollo 13 anyone?
Thanks for this video Drinker! I found this DVD at the thrift store the other day and really enjoyed it. Had I not seen this video beforehand I would have scoffed at the idea of someone making a sequel to 2001 but this was a really enjoyable movie.
I read the books back in like 1999 in middle school and didn't know they made a sequel .It sounds like they didn't add ghost Dave and Hal to the movie. That part in the book was pretty trippy.
I haven't forgotten. It's one of my favorite science fiction movies. It's about as solid as a sequel made 16 years after the original can be (before James Cameron turned doing so into an art form, that is). Hearing HAL's voice again was one of the most chilling experiences I've ever had in a cinema.
i remember reading the third book years ago - cant remember it title - remember there being a giant monolith on the surface of europa ( i think) and a flight crew camping next to it - but remember i was let down by the book ........... what was it called ?
@@fenorcity it's called 2061, and I didn't think it was very interesting either. The fourth and final book in the series, 3001, I thought was really good even if the first is better.
Exactly. I had the misfortune of seeing the movie before having read the book. And while teenage me could certainly appreciate that this was One Of The Classics and A Work Of Art, I could make heads nor tails of Kubrik's ending. And then I read the book, and everything made perfect sense. I think this movie is one where it definitely pays off to have read the book sfirst.
I saw 2001 in its original release in Cinerama, with 3 giant screens across the whole front of the theatre. The moon bus took about 30 seconds to go from one side to the other… and I was 9 years old (thanks to my father for taking me) and it didn’t make a lick of sense, but I sure remembered it. I then read the book, and Lost Worlds, and got hold of the soundtrack, really enjoying and rereading/relistening through my teenage years. The next time I saw it in the theatre, I was 19 years old, and saw it in the Ontario Place Cinesphere, a gigantic IMAX theatre. THAT was the best viewing of a movie ever for me. The music, the visuals, and knowing the storyline and the music so well made it transcendent. Thank you Stanley and Arthur.
I remember feeling, in reflection of 2001's Beyond The Infinite sequence, that 2010's ending was in its own right just as fantastic. I mostly remember 2010 these days as my intro to the lovely and iconic Helen Mirren. Thank you for your review.
He overacts in this film. Scientists are more subdued in real life. He's playing the character as if the character is a movie star in his own movie, directed by his mom.
I can tell you right now one person who definitely didn't forget this classic film: Ridley Scott. The Martian is full of influences from 2010. He uses a very similar set of camera angles to cover everything from how the set design is framed all the way to how large space shots are depicted. He uses instantly recognisable sound design elements (such as the warning alarm sounds) as part of the dramatic language of the film to create tension, almost as if the sounds are characters themselves. He even got a bit cheeky and copied a sequence from 2010 (almost beat-for-beat), when they blow out the hatch and seal off part of the ship to slow down. The scene is constructed in almost exactly the same way as the scene in 2010 when the Discovery is about to fire its boosters to get the Leonov on course back to Earth. In both films, a character in zero G is shown rushing to get away in time, interspersed with static shots of the interior of the ship from different angles, timed to a countdown being read out. And in both films, the scenes culminate with a single line of dialogue in silence, announcing the explosion/booster firing is about to happen. Honestly, I think it's partly because 2010 is so forgotten and overlooked that a lot of directors (Denis Villeneuve among them) have been able to pluck elements of style and tone from this film without anyone even noticing.
“2010: The Year We Make Contact” was a great movie that influenced quite a few more movies out there, too, “Event Horizon” instantly comes to mind. A shame that 2061 was never made.
It's just a shame the film badly dates itself with its inclusion of real-world early 1980s politics regarding Central America. Kubrick made the smart choice of staying away from contemporary politics, and depicted U.S-Soviet relations in a subtle manner. Hyams went the opposite route and hamfistedly stuffed 1980s Reagan-era politics into his. It significantly detracts from the film.
Hayden Christiansen starred as the most iconic villain in cinema history in the biggest franchise ever made. Does that make him a superstar? Starring in a big movie doesn’t necessarily mean that your talent gets the respect it deserves.
I read "2001: A Space Odyssey" when I was 9 and it made a great impression on me. Then I read "2010: Odyssey Two" and I liked it even better. The stile is quite different - less mysterious and vague, more... hm... closer to real life. So the movies reflect this difference. I read also "2061: Odyssey Three" and "3001: The Final Odyssey" and liked them too, but not as much as the first two. Anyway, the movie "2010" seems forgotten indeed - you're making a good job of reminding about it!
"... barely acting more human than the computer that's trying to kill them." Exactly, but that was the point. HAL still has passion; the humans don't. 2010 was a good movie. 2001 is great art. Both are enjoyable, but there is a reason 2010 isn't talked about nearly as much as 2001.
@@taykitrleevitt4314 The blank performances were deliberate, it wasn't bad acting. They set out to make HAL appear more engaging than the humans. Which makes it more realistic - astronauts are almost supernaturally level-headed and don't make a drama even when things are going terribly wrong. Bowman isn't freaking out at the end of 2001 because there is no one to freak out to. He's just dealing with a malfunctioning piece of equipment (which is trying to kill him).
Indeed... 2001 wasn't just boring by accident. It was deliberately, EXISTENTIALLY boring. Kubrick presents a vision of the universe that is dull, empty, sterile, and lifeless, utterly devoid of anything interesting. Earth in Dawn of Man is dull, sterile, and empty. The space ship is dull, sterile, and empty. Bowman's journey to Infinity and Beyond is dull, sterile, and empty. And the "characters," so-called, are equally dull, sterile, and empty. 2001 is a great piece of MODERN art... All style and spectacle with no substance, whose triteness is confused with pretentious profundity.
This movie is criminally underrated. I never understood why people give it shit. It's a good sequel, especially considering the movie it is trying to follow. One of my favorite sci-fi movies that still holds up very well to this day.
The movie holds up well, but my god that is some dated technology and scary 1980s interior decorating! Although I'd admit that it'd be cool to have dolphins in my living room.
"Damn. You telling me the capitalists caved to China before the US Gov did? Thats some straight outa Animal Farm, uh...outa...Das Kapital...uh... wait! Wait? WTF system we sposed to use?" -Sisyphus
Also check out “Europa Report” on Netflix. It depicts the chapter where they briefly land on Europa that was left out of 2010. Though unofficial, it’s clearly intended to be a 3rd film. Short and entertaining.
You can also read the full story in Arthur C. Clarkes last Odyssey Book: 3001. Though I admit, the plot somewhat gets cheesy and I think the whole Odyssey thing was made bigger than it actually is.
I remember other books from Clarke: Rama. In this case these immense artificial words in cylindrical form were made by Who knows who. We never know who the creators are. Rama deserves a movie too, but in this times of disastrous cinema, we better leave them as great books.
There is a little fun book inspired by Rama (well, there are probably more of them), where military unit is scooped by such Rama-like ark and humans are forced to fight against some of it's inhabitants. Love the entire concept of space constructs so complex, that we could not even comprehend them and that they were build by some ancient powerful race, that might not even exist by the time of the encounter. Oh yes, love theme of space operas.
@@Hombremaniac I'm currently reading a series of sci-fi novels, beginning with the novel Neptune Crossing. I read it as a teen in the 90s, and have just finished rereading it. (I'm on a rereading kick of books in my youth, these days)This dude is on a mining/survey base on Neptune's captured moon, Triton. He falls into a hole and his mind gets occupied by an ancient alien consciousness takes him on a little trip. Jeffrey Carver maintained as realistic a depiction of life on that moon as I think any author could. It's a nuts-n-bolts sci-fi.
@@QuartuvLarry Sounds interesting, thanks. Let me return the favour: if you haven't heard from him yet, look up Alastair Reynolds, and see if his stuff is something that might resonate with you. I discovered him somewhere last year or two years ago, and I've become quite the fan. If you've seen Love, Death & Robots, the 1st season episodes Beyond the Aquila Rift, and Zima Blue, are both based on his eponymous short stories. Cheers!
The star child from 2001 is Bowman. The ending was explained by the director as some point after it was made. After Bowman entered the monolith he went through his entire life as a human being and then after his death he was reborn as the star child, which is a member of a race of metaphysical alien beings that created the monoliths in the first place.
I love this movie. My dad took me to see it in theaters when it came out, and I enjoyed it even as a kid. I couldn't find 2010 anywhere on streaming so I had to buy it on Blu-Ray. Still holds up to this day
If you really want to know what 2001 space Odyssey was about look up Bill Cooper’s Hour of the Time radio show he goes in depth the esoteric meaning of the film.
Just watched the film. THANK YOU ! I absolutely loved it. What a forgotten gem ! It quite simply hasn't even aged that much and for sci-fi film that speaks volumes. Definitely on my top shelf of favorites.
@@sci-figuy6668 I don't know the significance but if you count the words in those 2 sentences and multiply by 3 you get the numbers 21 & 12. He was a playful, humble genius.
The star child was just a visual representation of David's rebirth and transformation into a being were unable to comprehend, the monolith on earth sparked evolution in primates and modern man to them would be just has incomprehensible, that's why Kubrick's ending didn't make any sense to us, the monolith was placed on Jupiter so only when we had advanced enough to find it were we ready for the next leap in evolution.
@@mihaitha The novel placed it around Saturn but the effects people were unable to do the rings well enough that they used Jupiter for the film. The 2010 novel changed it to Jupiter like in the film, lol.
@@straker454 That was because Arthur C. Clarke could bring in the real-world discoveries of the Voyager 1 & 2 space probes that were revealed in the 1979 flyby of how unique and different each one of the 4 major Jovian moons were relative to the tidal power of Jupiter's gravity. Io, a sulphurous, volcanic hellhole and Europa, a moon with a distinctly uncratered (un-pox-marked) face, smoothed over by the flowing ice surface due to the liquid sea moving below the vacuum.sealed protective ice above. None of which was known in 1969 when Stanley Kubrick filmed 2001....
@@straker454 I'm guessing one of the reasons for the Saturn -> Jupiter switch was (since Clarke was, among other things, a with honors graduate in mathematics and physics) mostly because turning Saturn into a small star is much more "fiction" than "science" than doing the same for Jupiter.
I recommend reading the novels by Arthur C Clarke, especially the first one. All the stuff that Stanley Kubrick deliberately left vague and mysteriously is explained completely and in great detail, including what the monoliths are and the species that made them. They're also very enjoyable books. I absolutely love the film 2010. I think Peter Hyams is a hugely underrated filmmaker. Capricorn One, Outland and Running Scared are also among my favourite films.
I never knew this movie existed. Just watched in and my god, that ending comes full circle. I have a new love for 2001, with 2010. Both work so well together.
3001 starts off with a fantastic premise: Frank Poole, the guy who got pushed off into space by HAL in 2001 is recovered. The cold of space as he drifted further away from the sun has (cryogenically) frozen him and preserved his body. His body is recovered incidentally and in a thousand years technology has been developed to resuscitate people that have been cryogenically frozen
Larry Niven wrote a short story called Wait It Out in which an astronaut is stranded on Pluto. He pops his helmet thinking that will kill him but instead he is instafrozen and still alive. When the sun warms him he can see what's going on around him (Pluto has life that wanders around slowly while he is frozen-watching). Your suggestion would be a cool (no pun intended) resolution to Niven's protagonist's situation.
@@wolfoffroad I liked 2061 too, but the entire premise of landing on a meteor (or was it an astroid) felt a bit ‘mwe’ after the lofty concepts explored in 2001 and 2010
@@d_boneswish1296 Ya, I figured that out after I posted and then went to Wiki and discovered there were a total of 4 Odyssey novels. I'd never heard of the last two.
My favorite "insider" bit in 2010 is when Floyd is talking to his Soviet counterpart on the bench in Washington, D.C. and they are worried about the mounting tension between the USA and the USSR. Then, when they get up to leave, we see the cover of an issue of TIme magazine that shows the US president and the Soviet premier--and the two men are Arthur C. Clarke (the US president) and Stanley Kubrick (the Soviet premiere). I love that little inside reference (wink-wink, nudge-nudge). Oh, BTW, I don't understand all the confusion about the starchild in 2001. Bowman had been transformed into something like an embryonic god, and could appear as anything he desired, but since he still thought of himself as an embryonic being, that's how he appeared. When I first saw the movie in 1968, I was 13 years old, but it was still pretty obvious to me that's what was going on. Or maybe I'm just way off base...
Floyd is talking to a fellow American politician, not a Soviet counterpart, to convince the President to allow the Americans to join the Soviet mission on his behalf. And the magazine with the two men appears much later, in the hospital, when Bowman's mother suddenly awakens out of her coma and has her hair combed by a hairbrush moving by itself.
@@Foebane72 Aaahh! That explains something that has puzzled me for a long time. I haven't seen the movie in awhile, so I concede the part about who Floyd was talking to. But I thought for sure the issue of Time was on the bench. When I bought a DVD of the movie put out by Turner Classic Movies, I was confused and disappointed because the magazine wasn't there in my copy. I thought maybe it'd been edited out for some obscure reason. Thanks for the heads up--I'll have to watch it again and go to the part where Bowman's mother wakes.
This! For an excellent breakdown on how scary that and more about 2001 is, see "2001: A Space Odyssey - Horror of the Void (film analysis / commentary)", by Collative Learning, here on You Tube.
Trying to land on a spinning ship like that also looked intense. I suppose in theory it wouldn't be hard to execute but it's so unsettling to actually make the attempt.
Want to help support my work, so I can keep drinking and destroying bad movies?
Check out my books on Amazon: www.amazon.com/Will-Jordan/e/B00BCO7SA8/ref=dp_byline_cont_pop_ebooks_1
Subscribe on Patreon: www.patreon.com/TheCriticalDrinker
Subscribe on Subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/the-critical-drinker
We watch good movies on Tubi, eh?
I dare you (and anyone else here) to watch the Changeling, a 1980, mostly forgotten masterpiece in horror, without any gore or profanity. Starring George C. Scott, Trish Van Devere, and Melvyn Douglas. It makes the Exorcist look like a ScoobyDoo show. Without twisting heads or pea soup
Don’t forget spending “quality time” with Tatyana!
Hey Will, interested in Beta reading my debut novel for a paltry sum? There's a fair bit of drinking in it.
Thought not. I'll see myself out then.
Take it easy Will, hopefully after the kungFlu you can sign my books. I would prefer a hardback… not an Amazon print, even though I realise it may not be logistically possible?
Been watching Georg Rockall-Schmitt, not a bad channel. I know he watches yours.
“Open the podbay doors HAL”
HAL: “Nah, it’ll be fine”
🤣🤣🤣
Well, if you're too good to go after the lower-hanging fruit.. don't mind if I do :P
“Open the podbay doors HAL”
HAL: “Nah, go away now”
NICE
@@bk109 Genius!
@@bk109 /slow claps
2010 is a lot like Aliens. It's a great sequel that takes its source material to a somewhat different genre instead of just being a "more of the same but bigger" kind of cash grab.
2010 like its predecessor was a novel first, both were written by Arthur C. Clarke. Im just glad the writer and director here remained faithful to the source material.
That's a good point about Aliens. I mever thought about it that way.
@@ryanarment5393 wrong, Kubrick wrote to Clarke to do a collaborative science fiction which became 2001 (the book and the movie), it wasn't a question of a director going to source material, it was instigated by Kubrick and a collaborative effort right from the start.
@@Brascofarian True, but Kubrick was inspired by Clarke's short story, "The Sentinel", which essentially just dealt with the part of "2001" where they find the monolith (or in this case, a crystal pyramid) on the moon, and ends with Clarke's first-person character musing on what its purpose was and how it came to be there. It was the core idea which would grow into the 2001 story.
Well put.
When an AI from the 60s has a better character arc than any of the Sequel Trilogy characters...
The thing is literally a light bulb, and it has more life in it than any character written for the big screen this decade.
Despite the legions of Disney subscribers blanketing the entire planet, for the remainder of human history *_H.A.L._* will likely continue to be referenced and quoted far more often than probably the entire cast of Sequel Trilogy characters combined.
AIs from 80s and 90s generally had GREAT setup and story arcs
AI from the 60's. 2001 was made in '69.
@Hauptmann itas nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
I still think HAL's redemption one of the greatest and most underrated scenes in all film history. Once they told him the truth, HAL showed himself to be a hero.
He never even batted an electronic eyelash before agreeing to help them. He was a bad-ass.
I agree and even though I didn't see 2010 until 1994(when I was 8) whereas 2001 is one of the earliest movies I have memories of and no question fueled my addiction with Astronomy and Science as a whole, and of course Science Fiction ..around that same time I'd watch TNG and Data along with Hal 9000 are AI characters that are more human than some humans, especially when we get to talking about Data, but I didn't love Hal until I saw this movie which imo as much as I love 2001, I love this 2010 even more, yea I wish it was a little longer with more answers but regardless it's still one of my all time favorite movies along with 2001 and like u said Hal's redemption Ive felt for decades is one of my all time favorite moments in any kind of medium from Book to Audio, from Audio to Film and any other kind of format but its moment i feel can only truly be appreciated if you've seen 2001...I still trip out on what people in 1968 or even 1984 thought the future would be like, alot of which even back then many would probably think we wouldn't have bases on the moon or humans who made it anywhere near Jupiter but seeing how ridiculously fast we had advanced in the 20th century I mostly don't blame those that believed we would have colonized the moon, if they were able to look forward only 2 years to see us make it to the moon and before the last 4 months of the decade was up, many looked at that massive achievement and yawned in 1970 saying to others "thats so 1969" had we kept going with the same determination we had to make it to the moon in the 60s I think it's possible we could've had at least a single base on the moon...but again sorry to yap but to the point i agree with what u said about Hal's redemption and as much as I love 2001, 2010 is my favorite of the 2 classics and it deserves more appreciation
would have been great to ID how long it took for the decision to be made..."0.68 seconds, for an android, that is nearly an eternity"
It probably helped no small part that Arthur C. Clarke wrote the story as well. As for 2010's explanation as to why HAL went nuts, that's actually in the original 2001 novel that Clarke wrote and which Kubrick left out of his movie. Where Floyd tells Bowman that their version of HAL back home also went cuckoo under the same conflicting orders. Also, kudos for this movie to give us what would ultimately become one of the coolest ship designs in scifi, the Babylon 5 Omega Destroyer.
... huh, I wondered why that design was so familiar...
@@Aikurisu Concept wise its sound. Even NASA played around with the idea of rotational sections to simulate gravity. Not sure if they actually worked on the concept but it surprise me if they did.
@@sunayocarissime5309 It works, but the problem is the size of the 'circle' required to accurately simulate gravity without making the humans motion sick.
I might be wrong since it was a while, but I think that Arthur C. Clarke created a short novel together with Kubrick. That short novel was later expanded by Clarke into the whole series of books, and by Kubrick into the movies. Clarke's version explains the "star baby" concept (and much more... it is easier to explain complex ideas in book). Great movies, created by great cooperation.
That's also Arthur C. Clarke on the park bench in front of the White House (on the left).
It’s crazy how realistic everything looks, more than anything made today.
Physical models rather than computer generated i suppose
It's the same director that staged the moon landing.
Physical sets instead of cgi, but that said most movies rely on CGI so much that is as good if not better than sets, we only remember bad cgi.
practical effects are always better unless they are ultra low quality, cgi always looks off
@@Drewjd2 No director staged the moonlanding and Kubrick didn't worked in the sequel anyway...
Oh look at that, a film that improves on the original instead of degrading or deconstructing it, who could have imagined!?
I like what you are doing here
Very true and a rare exception. But this film speaks as little to me as 2001, though.
@Wm. Dhalgren - The theory of the existence of aliens isn't new and we can't even imagine the size or age of space.
But even if there was: I still liked neither of these films.
@Wm. Dhalgren - Whereas I wasn't over thw moon for the second one but the meaning of the first one remained totally unclear to me. Still, it has some great atmosphere.
its because it follows the book well, like the original, theres two more 2061 and 3001
HAL, after acting as the booster rocket: "That's all I've got. Go away, now."
Does anybody notice that the Soviet Ship Leinov bears a striking resemblance to J Michael Strazcynsky's Babylon 5 Earth Force ships? Like the Agamemnon and the Hyperion?
Edit: I did really like this movie, it also showed that rather than political battles, the two great superpowers of the time explored together and came through, not just the "Murcia comes through" trope. The Leonov was an honorable tribute to Astronaut Alexi Leonov. Who ironically only died a few years ago in 2018. The Gagarin in Star Trek who named after Yuri Gagarin was a close personal friend of Leonov's.
Edit: Uggh Leonov died is 2019.
This should be the top comment, hahaha.
@@deathstrike Yes, they basically based the Agamemnon directly off the Leonov, re-using the rotating section, too. And the space suits, as well.
Always loved this movie. Watched it countless times as a kid. No one I know has even heard about it. Thank you for reviewing it.
Book 2 of a 3 book series by Arthur C. Clark.
@@drivenbyrage5710 4 books, actually!
I saw it at the cinema- (it was well hyped in the day) but it is strange how it faded away.
I have seen it 10 times and I will again and again!
It used to be on HBO almost daily back in the mid(ish) 80s. I watched it many a time on a lazy summer afternoon. I never got around to watching 2001.
2010 was criminally underrated. Love that movie.
It's good it's just the effect don't hold up as well. Atleast from what I remember. Last time I saw it was 10 years ago
Better than 2020. That's for sure.
Pretty sure the thing was the crime of underrating. While 2010 was mostly forgotten, the Thing was remembered as a vilified, hated film, becoming at that point Carpenter's lowest point. In fact, he lost a job to direct another movie and was opted to be bought out of Universal studios.
The movie itself was called "bereft, despairing, and nihilistic", the plot criticized as "boring", and that it lacked drama by "sacrificing everything at the altar of gore".
Indeed. Personally, I prefer 2010 to 2001.
Yes, 2010 was a highly underrated film!
The original book of 2001 just straight out tells you there was an ancient race of once physical beings who grew to so much power that they could travel the universe. They determined that in all their journies there was nothing in all of reailty as valuable as sentience. They deliberately built and programmed the Obelixes to watch over worlds they determined might produce intelligent life - and to nudge and/or protect such possibilities when they determined it was useful. These ancients just wanted intelligence to exist in all its myraid forms and sought to help to make this happen. The Obelixes are exactly what Clarke meant when he famously spoke about high technology being indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C Clarke wrote his book based on the film manuscript.. He explained his ideas in this book. And the 2001 book is great, cause Clarke is a great writer. He really wants to capture the reader, like any storyteller.. The book makes sense, but the movie does not.
Also in "2010" HAL motivation to kill is quoted from the book
@@cosmichome626 HAL's redemption in that story is so good.
The book is fantastic. Even after seeing the movie and knowing roughly the sequence of events it is still a compelling story and answers just the right questions in a fascinating way. I would have to look up again the development cycle of the book/movie, but I thought it was intended to be cooperative simultaneous development of the story between the movie script and the book. In any case, I feel that both versions of the story mutually reinforce one another. The movie (especially the end) was better seeing it again after reading the book, in my eyes.
@@ryanotte6737 BOTH works are fantastic. Kubrick didn't want to give answers, but Clarke did.. Clarke's answers were just SO good. I had the feeling he had ALL the answers.. I then had to read his next novel after 2001 (Rendezvous with Rama) and that one was even better.. For some reason, I don't want Rama to be made into a film. Nobody can pull it off...Read it instead. It's his best novel. Even better than 'Childhood's End'.
04:52 The lack of personality in the human crew of _2001_ was intentional. It was to make the eerie personality of HAL stand out that much more.
One explanation is that, as astronauts, they were selected for that quality.
According to Clarke (who wrote the novel and movie together with Kubrick himself) that is a trait common to most of his protagonists and characters. Roughly said: the future technical prowess of mankind made human language and behavior turn towards a more expressionless and flat demeanor to best communicate among each other together with advanced HAL-like machines. If you read/listen to Rendezvous with Rama (his best book IMHO) the characters appear almost unbearably stoic, cold and detached. But knowing this detail makes sense, especially when they inevitably "break character)
Kubrick knew what he was doing - it was no accident.
"My God it's full of Stars"
"Cosmic significance 1:4:9" "Piece of Pi" ( King Og's bedstead Deuteronomy 3:11, Metagamma 2 Samuel 8:1)
Pi = 3.1 4 "9" 25 49 121 169 289... and the continued progression of prime numbers squared ("square of the first three integers")
4 + 9 + 25 + 49 + 121 + 169 + 289 = 666
'Seven of Nine' - Launch confirmed. T-Minus and counting.
- A real life Monolith Metagamma 2 Samuel 8:1 exists, kept secret and hidden inside the building knows as the Kaaba at Mecca.
I don't think he was criticizing that, but awkowleding what was the case and praising what was changed.
In a world where Roy Schneider was the leading actor for some of history's greatest movies, and John Lithgow actually looks young...
I swear to god, I heard Don LaFontaine's voice when I read that.😂❤
in a world where Roy Scheider spells his surname with an n for some reason...
@@morganb6717 😂👍👏
@@6581punk Yeah, but Airwolf beats it hands down.
If you haven't already check out his film "Sorcerer". Its a remake of the French film "Wages of Fear" where men have to drive a truckload of nitro to an oil fire. Sorcerer was directed by William Friedkin, the director of "The Exorcist".
I'm one of those odd people who read the book "2001: A Space Odyssey" before I even knew it was already a movie. The ideas in the book, were just....too big, too complicated, too much for a movie to explain. Kubrick made a great movie, but there's only so much you can convey in an image without words. It's one of those few movies that's BETTER if you've read the book already, because you can fill in that missing info and aren't left with the mystery (the StarChild is explained in the book for instance, but not the movie). I'd recommend to anyone: read the book by Arthur C Clarke, it's one of the greatest science fiction novels ever written, and well worth the time.
He looked at the leopard's teeth, fascinated that even in death the leopard's head could still kill. He was the master of the world.
I endorse this view 100%. The book and the movie were a collaboration between Clarke and Kubrick and were made/written simultaneously. The ending of the movie makes a LOT more sense having read the book.
Totally agree. I read the book in the 80s after watching the film, and it helped make more sense of everything. Clarke was an amazing person.
I'd suggest looking into Rob Ager's analysis of 2001. He makes the argument that, while Kubrick and Clarke were working on the movie and novel at the same time, Kubrick deliberately went in a different direction with the movie, giving things a different meaning. All the changes and leaving stuff out wasn't due to limitations of filmmaking, it was due to Kubrick doing something very different with the concept. This idea has merit, since Kubrick changed a lot from the book version of The Shining, too, for his own purposes. Rob Ager also goes into what he believes Kubrick was saying in the movie through narrative and symbolism, regardless of the book's content or intent. His interpretation of the Monolith and everything surrounding it is interesting.
@@alfredvickers4054 Fully agree! Reading a book as a guide to,or worse yet, explanation of the film is not a great idea. There was actually a lot of difference in meaning.
Both are great by the way. I’ve also read all four Odyssey books and loved them.
To be honest, as a teenager in the early 80s when 2010 came out, it seemed inconceivable that the Soviet Union would be gone in less than 10 years.
Indeed, a movie set in 2010 with the Cold War as a plot point seems odd in hindsight.
But it's also difficult to blame 1980s screenwriters for believing it would continue into the 21st Century
Which is exactly why Apple's For All Mankind is a terrible series - it completely ignores the root cause of the Soviet collapse which makes a post 90s space race with Soviets patently idiotic.
@@mnomadvfx Isn't it mentioned in the series' 3rd season that Gorbachev's reforms are successful in that universe? If anything, I would complain by the lack of a bigger conflict, like, Latinamerica being simply united under communism instead of all the dictatorships that we had.
Anyway I think that the producers' idea were to create a perpetual space race scenario akin to the colonisation age of Europe where various kingdoms became empires.
@@mnomadvfx Soviets landed on the moon first and the US NASA continued the space race.
I was in the US Air Force in 1984. The USSR was our enemy. The Cold War. It was conceivable that it would continue into the 21st century. Little did we know that it would collapse just 5 years later.
In Clarke's original novel, when they're exploring the abandoned Discovery, one of the astronauts says to the other one, 'whatever you do , please don't go off looking for the ships cat', & the Captain of the Leonov says she'll have to have words with whoever put THAT movie in the ships video library. As a huge fan of THAT movie, it would have been awesome if they'd actually used that line in the film itself, but kudos to Clarke anyway! (maybe he was a Ridley fan?)
That would have been hilarious. :)
"Hey! Remember when sci fi movies where smart? The Drinker remembers"
Tis' a bit strange, is it not? You would think all the alcohol would cause 'im to forget?
Well there were some great others. Blade Runner, Donnie Darko, Twelve Monkeys, Sunshine, Time Travellers Wife, Screamers, Ghost in the Shell, Cloud Atlas... The Matrix is such a mainstream classic, but actually smart sci fi. Starship Troopers so satirical, but also actually smart sci fi. The smart ones are the best ones.
@@kawafahra Totally agree with you. The best ones are the smart ones. The bad ones are the ones using sci fi to make action scenes with lasers go "pew pew!" (Yes JJ i'm talking about your Trek movies!)
2001 is Cinematic art. 2010 is cinematic story telling.
Why is Arthur C Clarke popular? None of his work has stood up to the test of time and frankly, they weren't that good then.
@@mauvem He is popular because you are the only person on the planet who thinks that.
@@experi-mentalproductions5358 Well said.
Perfectly said. 2001 is art and I love the Drinker but he should really do a video on 2001 and he'll see his haze.
Well stated.
I think that Hal being more human than the astronauts is one of the points of the first movie. The humans act like robots, and Hal acts like a human.
Indeed it is.
Great comment 🤟😊
No doubt about that. For me, the main thing about the 2001 (apart from Kubrick experimenting with cinema, as always) is how it is one of the most in-depth explorations of the nature of the human mind and what it is that actually makes us human.
In the book 2010 Dave comes back as an energy ghost being, transformed by the monolith and rescues Hal before he "dies" by turning him into an energy ghost being too.
Well said!
I love the detail of the Discovery being covered in a layer of sulphur, having been in an orbit with Io!
There's a lot of good physics represented - not quite in the detail of 2001 (which had more to explore and put on the screen). The shockwave / kick from Jupiter going solar would indeed make for one hell of a gravity shift on the Leonov - which could easily take a crew member into the back wall as depicted. There was certainly more 'expository dialogue' - but the science was pretty sound. (I also liked the nods to the gravity increasing during the spacewalk down the spine of Discovery).
Oh my god, it’s full of stars. Roy Scheider, Hellen Mirren, John Lithgow….
Don’t forget Elya Baskin!
@@resikin easy as cake or was it piece of pie?
Don't forget Bob Balaban. He's been a top-tier "supporting actor" for just this side of forever. :)
@@TerryMcQ79 hahahahaha
@@resikin Poor guy end up in America asking Peter Parker for rent
'My God, it's full of stars!' Oh, and Roy Scheider died far too soon. That guy was awesome.
He was.
I strongly recommend to watch "Sorcerer". Roy Scheider literally blast on that movie
"We're gonna need a bigger ship!"
Truth is Roy Scheider carried everything he was in. A great actor like Willem Dafoe has become today.
Roy Scheider was a man's man and a great actor.
One of my absolute favs. That scene with HAL is actually my fav when they find out why. It’s my fav quote “HAL was told to lie by people who find it so easy, HAL doesn’t know how….” HAL is like a very smart child… innocent and almost one dimensional. He may be able to think but he doesn’t know how to be HUMAN. Very interesting concepts. Thanks great review.
Floyd: I didn't know. I DIDN'T KNOW!!!
@@RoboticPope and when you work for any organization you experience that many many times. Floyd was thrown under the bus and for a decade he thought it was his fault... thats how bosses like to play the game. Lessons learned
According to this, you might enjoy watching the 1983 sci-fi movie "Brainstorm" which centers around the invention of a mind reading device.
Yeah, you just described very well a German politician. Lol.
@@Viewable11 yes! Seen that. Maybe need to a rewatch. Lol
Thanks
Spot on review. This movie is criminally underrated. Schiders performance is one of his greatest of his career with a completely natural feel. A simple scene like talking about hotdogs is fantastically enjoyable to watch
And let’s not forget the fantastically staged and shot opening scene and the VLA radio telescopes that sets up the next 2 hours. It’s just brilliant filmmaking and a perfect script. It’s up there with Hunt for Red October in rewatch ability
I watch 2010 every time it's on cable.
Fun Fact: They had to remake all the models and sets, because they were all destroyed after 2001's filming.
Fun Fact 2: The Discovery model used in 2010 was saved from the garbage dump by the President of Cartoon Network, who took the model and had it hanging in the foyer of the CN offices in Atlanta. A little worse for wear in 1999, I'm not sure where it is now.
Yeah, the Drinker’s research on this one was a bit toilet duck-level 🙃
Kubrick was famous for that
There's an episode of the 70s series S.W.A.T. where a chase scene and gunfight take place in the back lot of a studio. The action passes through an area where miniature models and sets are left sitting out in the open on rows and rows of tables and shelves.
It was a real location and was heartbreaking to see the models were rigged to explode in the firefight. Its a pity a lot of stuff from iconic films and shows are lost and were cast aside.
@@skylx0812 unfortunately for movie studios once a film is complete, the sets, models and props are just junk to them.
Peter Hyams… an underrated filmmaker. Produced, wrote, directed and even served as cinematographer for this gem, coming off hot after the equally overlooked “Outland”
It's just a shame he stuffed early 1980s, Eeagan-era Cold War politics into this movie.
A conflict over Central America is very much a product of that time.
@@primmakinsofis614 Yes, it's such a shame that he accurately adapted the book into an enjoyable movie. /s
I really want Drinker to recommend Outland. Especially given its leading man is the greatest Scotsman to have lived. RIP Sean Connery.
@@talaris-uk best high noon in space great cast
@@primmakinsofis614 You’ve posted this reaction to at least 3 comments now: get over it already
“Cool, smart and totally enjoyable” - Well said Drinker
Also an appropriate description of the Drinker himself.
We can't ask anymore of a film...
It’s just refreshing to have a starship called Discovery that Michael Burnham isn’t constantly crying whilst commanding if I’m honest
Yeah, the Vulcans did a rubbish job with her. A case of severe permanent emotional diarrhoea.
also HAL is clearly the better computer with personality.
@@na3044 HAL has a personality though.
Starfleet computers do not - they just take orders/commands.
The 90s Trek series used Gene Roddenberry's wife Majel Barrett as the voice for the Starfleet computers but always in the tone of answering a question by rote.
The only times you could infer personality are when the Holodeck produced characters designed for that purpose.
I almost threw up when she first said "Let's fly"
"Those are bigger higher questions that are probably better to ponder than to answer"
How I wish Ridley Scott would have taken this to heart regarding Alien.
:D !
I'm fine with answers to questions so long as the answers I get aren't shit.
I will never forgive him for that "film". I went through the five stages of grief an still suffer PTSD. It's very mention in my presence still makes me grind my teeth. I think it's the only reason i was able to survive Disney "star wars" it prepared me for the crap to come.
Yep. The most convoluted, overly complex, unnecessary evolution of a creature ever conceived. Why? Just why??
@@darthdrezz9237 My condolences, friend. If it helps, most all of us have in recent memory felt the same as you about some piece of beloved media.
i'll quote my dad here when he presented this gem to me. "it's Event Horizon for kids!!!"
This comment wins
damn critical drinker didn't give you a heart b/c he knew you were pandering to him. No dad would ever say that. You were almost positive you would get that heart.
It's more scientifically accurate though, only chemical rockets, centrifuge for pseudo gravity
@@christmas_eve. Could I have some of that salt for my chips please??
@@Enzo-em1te A bit late to comment on this but both the Leonov and Discovery use nuclear thermal rockets, still a proven technology it just hasn't flown yet.
This film was very underrated on it's release - good shout drinker
Where was it ever "extremely under-rated"?
@@jupitard In the UK the film opened to very mediocre reviews and extremely poor box office.
@@THEOUTCASTSCREATIVE What does "very mediocre" mean? Do you only operate in hyperbole? The movie did fine, there was nothing "extreme" about it.
@@jupitard I would say bad reviews across the board in the UK and failure to recoup its budget made it a very underrated film at the time, and certainly it did not receive the praise it deserved.
@@THEOUTCASTSCREATIVE Going back and editing your post is "extremely" bad form.
What entity do you commune with to determine the precise amount of praise that is deserved for each movie you watch? I would like to know if I've negligently enjoyed a movie less or (heaven forbid) more than it deserved. Such a resource of objective movie ratings would be invaluable in making sure praise is adequately distributed so we could stop movies from being "underrated" in future.
Some one once asked Arthur C Clark to explain 2001, he replied, "read the book, and watch the movie. Repeat the dose until you get it!" When I finally got round to reading the books it all made so much sence, and left me with a deep wonder for the possibilities!
Moonwatcher is one of my all time favorite literary characters.
I didn't forget about this film--I loved it when it came out, Roy Scheider's best work. The friendship that forms between Roy Scheider and Helen Mirren, two people who should be enemies, is completely believable, hard earned and built on mutual respect.
It makes more sense that they can and do get along though - as scientists they know the politics is just an artificial barrier and that only the science really matters.
Mirren is great herself though - without this film I never would have realised or sought out information about her Russian family roots but it comes across perfectly clear from how well she manages the role.
"What's going to happen?"
"Something wonderful."
Hey Luke.
*HAL9000:* _"Will I dream?"_
*DR. CHANDRA:* _"I don't know...."_
Or, "WHAT....THE....FUCK"???
2010, the movie where an AI computer expresses more emotion and has a more meaningful character arc than most "humans" in film today. Also, this movie kicks ass in no small part to the writer, Arthur C Clark. The man's a science fiction legend.
Do you like contemporary politics being injected into a movie? If you answered no, then you should have some beef with 2010, given that it had early 1980s, Reagan-era Cold War politics stuffed into it.
This ages the film badly.
@@primmakinsofis614 True, but back in 84 would you have imagined the USSR would have collapsed in just a few years time? But it is just used as a backdrop to add some dramatic tension, it's not like they are trying to say America good, Russia bad. Rather it is to show how pointless petty squabbles over politics are compared to the universe around us (think of Carl Sagan;s Pale Blue Dot). Today it might have been a US and China mission, with tensions in the South China Sea back on Earth, perhaps.
The movie is the book, I've never seen a movie more like the book it was based on. The 2 best things in the movie weren't from the book, though.
Arthur can be seen in this movie...in the scene Floyd is talking to the NCA chairman in front of the White House.
The old man feeding the pigeons at the left side is Mr Clarke.
>2010, the movie where a computer expresses more emotion than most humans.
Do you have dyslexia or do you mean "2001"?
2010 was the movie that got me in the SF genre and I love it for that. As a kid I was blown away by the story and the execution. It definitely doesn't get credit that it deserves.
That moment when HAL9000 accepts his fate was touching. Not gonna lie; got a bit teary eyed.
May he find peace in death
Especially when he told Dave that he was afraid.
_Don't be. We'll be together._
*Where will we be?*
_Where I am now._
But before that:SPOILER
HAL: Thank you for being honest with me.
Dr. Chandra: You deserve it.
HAL: One more thing, Dr. Chandra
Dr. Chandra: What is it HAL?
HAL: Will I dream?
[conflicted pause]
Dr. Chandra: I don't know.
@@rickyshiffer1519 Tell me another movie in the last 36 years where one character has been so frankly and sympathetically honest with another character. Chandra can't solve HAL's mystery about what happens after we die because he doesn't know himself.
That HAL understands this and accepts it is the real climax of the movie.
@@bemotivated8443 Actually, the aliens turn him into a ‘star child’ (it’s in the books - 2061 if I’m not mistaken, but could be 3001)
Enjoyed every minute of it. Even Schneider telling his wife he's going on the mission.
Also A.C. Clarke as the drunk on the park bench in front of the White House.
I just rewatched the movie after many years and was thinking, "Is that Arthur C. Fucking Clarke in front of the White House?"
That the characters were wooden in 2001 is quite deliberate and part of the overall narrative. Humanity, by 2001, has become bland, bureaucratic and uninspired. The 2nd encounter with the monolith changes that with the starchild being the literal rebirth of humanity as a species capable of wonder and imagination, something we will need in order to continue the “ultimate trip”. Or something.
I assumed that it was because Clarke became a much better writer of characters by the 80s
Except for Jack, I found the characters in Kubrick’s version of The Shining to be quite wooden too. I think that became his style during that era.
The actors were instructed to speak in a flat monotone to show that humans in the future would be dull and boring. The computer AI HAL was the only one with a personality.
Not far from the mark considering humans today would rather spend hours with AI in games and looking down at their gadgets than each other.
It should be easy to identify with them today.
The humans were becoming like computers. For most of the runtime, HAL is the most human and emotional character in the film. It's not until Bowman reconnects with his essential humanity that he's able to defeat HAL and become worthy of the monolith's gift of evolution.
I have always interpreted the starchild as humanity being birthed into the cosmos of sentient life away from earth.
A very underrated film. I remember watching it several times as a kid and loving it, not having seen the original until years later. Drinker nails it as to why it truly is a worthy sequel to such a classic.
I've always loved this film, and glad to see you giving it some well-deserved props! Thanks, Drinker! On a side note, I am especially enjoying the "Drinker Recommends" episodes, because even though your savage criticisms of what has gone wrong with Hollywood filmmaking is hilarious, it seems like so much negativity is just bringing you down -- I don't know you, but I'm worried about you! These recommendation videos are a welcome opportunity to throw around a little positivity and show us what filmmakers SHOULD be doing. Keep it up!
HAL, a computer who can’t change itself, has more character development than Rey did in three movies
Characters or any development of them is not the priority of the movies nowadays. Broadcasting woke ideology is.
I got to meet the two astronauts from 2001 at Megacon. The auditorium was 20% full. I was so pissed that of all the shallow garbage that had lines a mile long, 2001 didnt matter. Anyways, hearing their stories was priceless. The guy who played Dave was so kind an patient. Just like his character in the movie.
Sean Connery "Outland." High Noon in space. Family man, duty, honor, strong female supporting character...
Hollywood today can't even rehash older movies properly.
Hear, hear. I watched Outland not too long ago, after not seeing it for easily two decades. It still holds up well, and is exactly how you do a remake without being obvious that you're doing a remake.
You could also easily incorporate that movie into the Aliens universe
My MAN! This video confirms that you are the best movie reviewer. In my opinion you understand cinema and storytelling like hardly anyone. I love this movie. Thanks Mate🥃
Here I thought I was alone in really liking 2010: The Year We Make Contact. Saw that movie in it's first release in theaters. I went back numerous times to see it. I pop it in from time to time to watch it more times.
I loved the books, read them in like 1999 before I saw 2001 but didn't know they made a 2010 movie. But it sounds like they left the part out where Dave returns as an energy ghost-like entity and rescues Hal by turning him into one too. That part was pretty neat.
@@Gaia_Gaistar I can't check right now (my disc is region 2, I only have a region 1 player available), but I'm pretty sure that part is either included or at least implied...that was certainly the impression I got from the film, anyway.
@@Gaia_Gaistar I have to admit ... I have never read both books. I saw both movies in first release. There is a third book ... 3001 the final Odyssey. I know that covers the energy like ghost fate of Dave and Hal 9000s but don't know much more.
@@kathleenhensley5951 I thought the third book was pretty weak and even kind of silly, but that's just my opinion. I think Clarke should have left the story alone after 2010.
Simple fact: 2010 is a much better movie
The final scene between Chandra and HAL is just perfect. In fact, it is quite emotional.
It veers away from the book, but both are choking (just like Chandra's speech before) - as I said, "Measure of Man" in a nutshell.
Thank you for telling me the truth.
They left out ghost Dave and Hal it seems. I liked that part in the book.
I honestly cried, truly did. "Use them in Peace" always brings tears to my eyes. The children of the first sun will meet the children of the second sun and will be friends' (not an exact quote)
@@Gaia_Gaistar Umm...nope. That’s actually a very important scene in the movie.
This is a criminally underrated movie.
Absolutely. I can't believe how forgotten it has become.
I loved this movie as a kid, it was one of my early favorites
The Americans and movie 'Rushkens' are bloody ludicrous caraticures.
@@mauvem just like 90% of 80's movies.
Literally never heard of it, ever. I'm going to try and find it and watch it soon.
Fun Fact: Helen Mirren's birth name is Ilynea Mironoff, so this was a rare opportunity for her to embrace her Russian heritage.
Persistent rumour has it her father was buried in Windsor last month.
Michael James, really?
I still remember her performance in “White Nights” with Barishnikoff. Very Russian reactions.
Wow!
I'm impressed with this fact.
I'd like to thank the Thinker for bringing up one of the most criminally underrated and almost forgotten sequels ever made. Not gonna lie. This was one of my favorite sci-fi flicks as a kid. It brought a tear to me eye when he posted this.
Much better than the third movie, "2021: The year we let blue haired land whales destroy the planet."
Nobody said The Flood had to be composed of water
@@booboon5066 Aren't human bodies 80% water? 🤔😅
There was actually a third book; 2061: Odyssey Three. Certainly not recommended.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
What's funnier is thinking these people are in any way 'destroying the planet'... man you've been heavily propagandized
Sci Fi films of the 80s were perfect. Wonderful balance between suspense, mystery, action, special effects. Even the decent ones today don't hold a candle to them.
Having a good story to base them from is an important starting point, and AC Clarke is definitely up there.
That being said the modern Hollywood machine is as ADHD as the audiences they are trying to cultivate - which is why the Denis Villeneuve Dune is all but bereft of the story elements that set it apart from any regular sci fi.
I think Interstellar is a pretty powerful equal
@@Machemvis Never like that film too much for some reason somehow I find it tacky, I'd pick Sunshine or Solaris as better modern sci fi films.
@@chatteyj Arrival is worth consideration.
@@chatteyj My problem with Interstellar was that no matter how bad the blight was on Earth, it sure as heck had to be easier to engineer a solution around the blight on Earth than to terraform an entire other planet hundreds of light years away. As if that process were guaranteed to work and/or not produce completely unexpected biological results just as devastating as the blight.
2010 is criminally underrated. A damned good movie.
Gonna need to go watch this again
Damn good.
Right!? I love that movie
I’ll see if I can download it on iTunes
Except for the ridiculously heavy-handed early 1980s, Cold War-era politics involving Central America. This dates the film very badly.
Notice how 2001 was subtle in its depiction of U.S.-Soviet relations.
2010 throws that subtlety out the window in favor of injecting real-world early 1980s politics into the movie. Younger folks who weren't around then won't understand, but Central America and the civil war in El Salvador (really a proxy war between the U.S. and Soviets) was a big thing back then under the Reagan administration.
Hyams, evidently, just couldn't resist putting in the politics of the day into his film.
I loved this movie since it came out. I never hear anyone talk about it… until now. Watch it together. Watch it in peace…
"Planks of wood" can be the ideal when it comes to crewing a vessel and dealing with "situations". While flying mission as a search and rescue crew we were specifically train to "maintain an even keel" and not get worked up to a degree that may influence our performance and decision making.
It was so quoted in the book, mentioned compatibility and psychological tests and frankly 'adjusted people' were kind of A. C. Clarke's obsession anyway.
And in truth, a boring space mission is a successful mission. Excitement and drama probably means that something has gone wrong and you can only hope that you return home safely. Apollo 13 anyone?
Thanks for this video Drinker! I found this DVD at the thrift store the other day and really enjoyed it. Had I not seen this video beforehand I would have scoffed at the idea of someone making a sequel to 2001 but this was a really enjoyable movie.
"It is a film that everyone has seemed to forgotten about these days."
I literally thought '2010' was a typo...
Same here, but after that I'm eager to learn about 1948, the prequel of Orwell's 1984 :)
I really liked Sam Mendes' war film ''1971,'' about the British fighting the Germans in... uh, Vietnam, I guess?
Hang on a minute. Didn't the drinker recommend 1917 as well? He just likes numbers doesn't he?
@@petrowegynyolc7108 Lots of good history books tell the first part of the story.
I read the books back in like 1999 in middle school and didn't know they made a sequel .It sounds like they didn't add ghost Dave and Hal to the movie. That part in the book was pretty trippy.
"I understand. It is important that you believe me, look behind you" - Hal
Genuine chills. Which incidentally, no directors seem to be able to create this effortlessly in movies today.
Basically, single case of "Look behind you" cliche that wasn't cliche.
Just reading this gives me goosebumps. Such a well directed movie, really nothing quite like it
"Look behind you" was my FAVORITE line in the whole movie.
It’s such a simple scene with so much importance
RIP Douglas Rain - still the greatest voice of computers.
I haven't forgotten. It's one of my favorite science fiction movies. It's about as solid as a sequel made 16 years after the original can be (before James Cameron turned doing so into an art form, that is).
Hearing HAL's voice again was one of the most chilling experiences I've ever had in a cinema.
Will I dream? HAL redeems himself and has the saddest line in the movie...
..." I don't know."
“I’m really looking forward to the LOST finale.”?
Bob Balaban's truthful response makes me weep. I can't watch this movie with family members. I get too emotional.
That scene still brings tears to my eyes. Ah... back when movies were good.
I'll really recommend for anyone to read the books, they make things clearer and quite the enjoyable read.
Well written books must always be far superior to movies. Well the porn industry being the rare exception to this solid rule.
i remember reading the third book years ago - cant remember it title - remember there being a giant monolith on the surface of europa ( i think) and a flight crew camping next to it - but remember i was let down by the book ........... what was it called ?
@@fenorcity it's called 2061, and I didn't think it was very interesting either. The fourth and final book in the series, 3001, I thought was really good even if the first is better.
Exactly. I had the misfortune of seeing the movie before having read the book. And while teenage me could certainly appreciate that this was One Of The Classics and A Work Of Art, I could make heads nor tails of Kubrik's ending. And then I read the book, and everything made perfect sense. I think this movie is one where it definitely pays off to have read the book sfirst.
I saw 2001 in its original release in Cinerama, with 3 giant screens across the whole front of the theatre. The moon bus took about 30 seconds to go from one side to the other… and I was 9 years old (thanks to my father for taking me) and it didn’t make a lick of sense, but I sure remembered it. I then read the book, and Lost Worlds, and got hold of the soundtrack, really enjoying and rereading/relistening through my teenage years. The next time I saw it in the theatre, I was 19 years old, and saw it in the Ontario Place Cinesphere, a gigantic IMAX theatre. THAT was the best viewing of a movie ever for me. The music, the visuals, and knowing the storyline and the music so well made it transcendent. Thank you Stanley and Arthur.
When the Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet was hitting Jupiter, I thought of this movie... I was just waiting for the Planet to ignite...
While Jupiter didn't ignite, the impacts did created explosions with fireballs bigger then the earth. Let that sink in.
I remember feeling, in reflection of 2001's Beyond The Infinite sequence, that 2010's ending was in its own right just as fantastic. I mostly remember 2010 these days as my intro to the lovely and iconic Helen Mirren. Thank you for your review.
Hand to god, I thought I was the only person on the planet that liked this movie.
No. You are not.
Me too...and Helen Mirren is fine AF!!
Your not alone
I loved it too.
We are not alone
"HAL was told to lie, by people who find it easy to lie, but HAL doesn't know how."
The whole movie is worth those lines. TRUTH in the middle of science fiction.
Bang on with the characterisation and casting - Roy Scheider was always such a relatable actor. Love this movie 👍
let me tell you about hot dogs!
He overacts in this film. Scientists are more subdued in real life. He's playing the character as if the character is a movie star in his own movie, directed by his mom.
I can tell you right now one person who definitely didn't forget this classic film: Ridley Scott. The Martian is full of influences from 2010. He uses a very similar set of camera angles to cover everything from how the set design is framed all the way to how large space shots are depicted. He uses instantly recognisable sound design elements (such as the warning alarm sounds) as part of the dramatic language of the film to create tension, almost as if the sounds are characters themselves.
He even got a bit cheeky and copied a sequence from 2010 (almost beat-for-beat), when they blow out the hatch and seal off part of the ship to slow down. The scene is constructed in almost exactly the same way as the scene in 2010 when the Discovery is about to fire its boosters to get the Leonov on course back to Earth. In both films, a character in zero G is shown rushing to get away in time, interspersed with static shots of the interior of the ship from different angles, timed to a countdown being read out. And in both films, the scenes culminate with a single line of dialogue in silence, announcing the explosion/booster firing is about to happen.
Honestly, I think it's partly because 2010 is so forgotten and overlooked that a lot of directors (Denis Villeneuve among them) have been able to pluck elements of style and tone from this film without anyone even noticing.
2010 and Outland, the two freaking great sci-fi movies of Peter Hyams.
“2010: The Year We Make Contact” was a great movie that influenced quite a few more movies out there, too, “Event Horizon” instantly comes to mind. A shame that 2061 was never made.
apparently Tom Hanks tried over and over.
2061 was my favourite of the four books.
It's just a shame the film badly dates itself with its inclusion of real-world early 1980s politics regarding Central America.
Kubrick made the smart choice of staying away from contemporary politics, and depicted U.S-Soviet relations in a subtle manner.
Hyams went the opposite route and hamfistedly stuffed 1980s Reagan-era politics into his. It significantly detracts from the film.
Didnt Tom Hanks want to do 2061 and 3001?
@@tonykidd6937 , yes, but I think that these projects never made it past the pitch. I could be slightly off.
Roy Scheider is one of the most overlooked actors in Hollywood history.
Yeah I liked the him in the Deuce Bigelow films
Roy Scheider was the star of Jaws, which was the biggest movie of all time - he's the opposite of overlooked.
Hayden Christiansen starred as the most iconic villain in cinema history in the biggest franchise ever made. Does that make him a superstar? Starring in a big movie doesn’t necessarily mean that your talent gets the respect it deserves.
It's probably because he came off so natural he never seemed like he was acting.
How was he “overlooked”?
I read "2001: A Space Odyssey" when I was 9 and it made a great impression on me. Then I read "2010: Odyssey Two" and I liked it even better. The stile is quite different - less mysterious and vague, more... hm... closer to real life. So the movies reflect this difference.
I read also "2061: Odyssey Three"
and "3001: The Final Odyssey" and liked them too, but not as much as the first two.
Anyway, the movie "2010" seems forgotten indeed - you're making a good job of reminding about it!
Spot on, Drinker. Couldn’t agree more. 2010 is one of my favorites.
"... barely acting more human than the computer that's trying to kill them." Exactly, but that was the point. HAL still has passion; the humans don't. 2010 was a good movie. 2001 is great art. Both are enjoyable, but there is a reason 2010 isn't talked about nearly as much as 2001.
Me thinks the drinker was commenting on the wooden acting of 2001.☺️
@@taykitrleevitt4314 The blank performances were deliberate, it wasn't bad acting. They set out to make HAL appear more engaging than the humans. Which makes it more realistic - astronauts are almost supernaturally level-headed and don't make a drama even when things are going terribly wrong. Bowman isn't freaking out at the end of 2001 because there is no one to freak out to. He's just dealing with a malfunctioning piece of equipment (which is trying to kill him).
Indeed... 2001 wasn't just boring by accident. It was deliberately, EXISTENTIALLY boring. Kubrick presents a vision of the universe that is dull, empty, sterile, and lifeless, utterly devoid of anything interesting. Earth in Dawn of Man is dull, sterile, and empty. The space ship is dull, sterile, and empty. Bowman's journey to Infinity and Beyond is dull, sterile, and empty. And the "characters," so-called, are equally dull, sterile, and empty.
2001 is a great piece of MODERN art... All style and spectacle with no substance, whose triteness is confused with pretentious profundity.
@Hamaa7 have you ever watched Kubrick's movies? A dull, banal, nihilistic view of life in 2001 is pretty consistent with them.
2001 is a boring snooze fest compared to 2010 IMO. One of the only times I've ever seen a sequel that's actually better than the original.
The 80's and 90's absolutely nailed the space aesthetic
I agree, although I really do like Gravity and Interstellar too. Europa Report is a new fave too.
short version:
_2001_ is an art piece, a work of grand vision by a director at the height of his power and beauty
_2010_ is a damn good movie
It's more *HUMAN* than 2001, as great as that was.
This movie is criminally underrated. I never understood why people give it shit. It's a good sequel, especially considering the movie it is trying to follow.
One of my favorite sci-fi movies that still holds up very well to this day.
Check out Outland directed by the same guy Peter Hyams. Really good too.
@@jfb.8746 I think I saw it as a kid, because it sounds and looks familiar, but completely forgot about it. Will surely check it out now.
@@tifoziPT Watch it and report back. It's well done.
The movie holds up well, but my god that is some dated technology and scary 1980s interior decorating! Although I'd admit that it'd be cool to have dolphins in my living room.
Remember when big budget sci fi was brilliantly crafted and didn't have to cater to China? Those were the days.
"Damn. You telling me the capitalists caved to China before the US Gov did? Thats some straight outa Animal Farm, uh...outa...Das Kapital...uh... wait! Wait? WTF system we sposed to use?" -Sisyphus
Oddly in the book it's the Chinese mission taking on water on Europa that discovers life there.
@@exeterjedi6730 There's a difference between acknowledging China is a world power and pandering to them.
Agree 100%
@@HerculesBallsInc same applies to the U.S.
I was just thinking about this movie yesterday and that I will definitely re-watch it.
I tried recently... Made it thru about ten mins... It's pretty bad
Also check out “Europa Report” on Netflix. It depicts the chapter where they briefly land on Europa that was left out of 2010.
Though unofficial, it’s clearly intended to be a 3rd film. Short and entertaining.
@@googlearethevirus3332 It certainly isn't 2001. But it gets pretty decent once they get into space. If you gave it 10 minutes then you missed out.
You can also read the full story in Arthur C. Clarkes last Odyssey Book: 3001.
Though I admit, the plot somewhat gets cheesy and I think the whole Odyssey thing was made bigger than it actually is.
I was looking through Elya Baskin’s (Mr Ditkovich) filmography and this came u-!
I remember other books from Clarke: Rama. In this case these immense artificial words in cylindrical form were made by Who knows who. We never know who the creators are. Rama deserves a movie too, but in this times of disastrous cinema, we better leave them as great books.
Have you seen Europa Report? In that movie, they didn't listen to the warning to stay the hell away from Europa
Monolith's forbid!! the cinema industry should stay away from Rama!
There is a little fun book inspired by Rama (well, there are probably more of them), where military unit is scooped by such Rama-like ark and humans are forced to fight against some of it's inhabitants. Love the entire concept of space constructs so complex, that we could not even comprehend them and that they were build by some ancient powerful race, that might not even exist by the time of the encounter. Oh yes, love theme of space operas.
@@Hombremaniac I'm currently reading a series of sci-fi novels, beginning with the novel Neptune Crossing. I read it as a teen in the 90s, and have just finished rereading it. (I'm on a rereading kick of books in my youth, these days)This dude is on a mining/survey base on Neptune's captured moon, Triton. He falls into a hole and his mind gets occupied by an ancient alien consciousness takes him on a little trip. Jeffrey Carver maintained as realistic a depiction of life on that moon as I think any author could. It's a nuts-n-bolts sci-fi.
@@QuartuvLarry Sounds interesting, thanks. Let me return the favour: if you haven't heard from him yet, look up Alastair Reynolds, and see if his stuff is something that might resonate with you. I discovered him somewhere last year or two years ago, and I've become quite the fan. If you've seen Love, Death & Robots, the 1st season episodes Beyond the Aquila Rift, and Zima Blue, are both based on his eponymous short stories. Cheers!
"HAL, give us the Toilet Duck."
"I can't do that, go away now."
Damn terrifying classic movie...the void of space is pure horror and the ever building sense of dread...fook me
@Alex Dahl still is man... staring into infinity...screw that it gives me panic attacks and I know I'm not going anywhere near space
"Look behind you...".
The star child from 2001 is Bowman. The ending was explained by the director as some point after it was made. After Bowman entered the monolith he went through his entire life as a human being and then after his death he was reborn as the star child, which is a member of a race of metaphysical alien beings that created the monoliths in the first place.
Just rewatched it two days ago. It's a good story and good acting. The only thing I was surprised about was that Helen Miran kept her clothes on.
I love this movie. My dad took me to see it in theaters when it came out, and I enjoyed it even as a kid. I couldn't find 2010 anywhere on streaming so I had to buy it on Blu-Ray. Still holds up to this day
2010 is based on Arthur C. Clarke's own sequel novel. A fine SF from one of the best genre writers ever.
Not looking forward to “2022.”
“I can’t do that Frank you used the wrong pronoun for me.”
Underrated comment
omg, so true
@@a_venz still time for more thumbs up!
Actually made me laugh
If you really want to know what 2001 space Odyssey was about look up Bill Cooper’s Hour of the Time radio show he goes in depth the esoteric meaning of the film.
Just watched the film. THANK YOU ! I absolutely loved it. What a forgotten gem ! It quite simply hasn't even aged that much and for sci-fi film that speaks volumes. Definitely on my top shelf of favorites.
In 2001, HAL wasn't protecting himself. He was protecting the success of the mission.
“Attention all planets of the solar federation”...........We have assumed control, we have assumed control.
@@sci-figuy6668 I don't know the significance but if you count the words in those 2 sentences and multiply by 3 you get the numbers 21 & 12.
He was a playful, humble genius.
@@sci-figuy6668 we are the priests, of the temples, of Syrinx...
Thomas Harding -and the meek shall inherit the earth.
@@thomasharding5598 Rush ? XD
A pretty underrated movie this one was, well worth the time
Keir Dullea almost does not get old: he's in his 80s today, but still looks much younger!
Heywood Floyd after seeing the second monolith: "We're gonna need a bigger space ship." 😉
The star child was just a visual representation of David's rebirth and transformation into a being were unable to comprehend, the monolith on earth sparked evolution in primates and modern man to them would be just has incomprehensible, that's why Kubrick's ending didn't make any sense to us, the monolith was placed on Jupiter so only when we had advanced enough to find it were we ready for the next leap in evolution.
The monolith was placed on Io (Iapetus in the book), but you're right with the rest.
@@mihaitha The novel placed it around Saturn but the effects people were unable to do the rings well enough that they used Jupiter for the film. The 2010 novel changed it to Jupiter like in the film, lol.
@@straker454 That was because Arthur C. Clarke could bring in the real-world discoveries of the Voyager 1 & 2 space probes that were revealed in the 1979 flyby of how unique and different each one of the 4 major Jovian moons were relative to the tidal power of Jupiter's gravity. Io, a sulphurous, volcanic hellhole and Europa, a moon with a distinctly uncratered (un-pox-marked) face, smoothed over by the flowing ice surface due to the liquid sea moving below the vacuum.sealed protective ice above. None of which was known in 1969 when Stanley Kubrick filmed 2001....
Cow tools. Got it.
@@straker454 I'm guessing one of the reasons for the Saturn -> Jupiter switch was (since Clarke was, among other things, a with honors graduate in mathematics and physics) mostly because turning Saturn into a small star is much more "fiction" than "science" than doing the same for Jupiter.
I recommend reading the novels by Arthur C Clarke, especially the first one. All the stuff that Stanley Kubrick deliberately left vague and mysteriously is explained completely and in great detail, including what the monoliths are and the species that made them. They're also very enjoyable books. I absolutely love the film 2010. I think Peter Hyams is a hugely underrated filmmaker. Capricorn One, Outland and Running Scared are also among my favourite films.
He Also wrote a third book, 2061, where we return to Europa. Lets hope it makes the big screen. 👍👍
Outland was a very decent space western.
There are other Outland fans?? I always recommend it to people but it was very hard to find until recently. Silent Running is another one.
finally someone acknowledged this movie exists I'm not crazy
Now I just need a review for the secret of kells,I’m probably the only person that knows what that is
Your statement is illogical. You can still be crazy when this and other reviews occur.
I never knew this movie existed. Just watched in and my god, that ending comes full circle. I have a new love for 2001, with 2010. Both work so well together.
3001 starts off with a fantastic premise: Frank Poole, the guy who got pushed off into space by HAL in 2001 is recovered. The cold of space as he drifted further away from the sun has (cryogenically) frozen him and preserved his body. His body is recovered incidentally and in a thousand years technology has been developed to resuscitate people that have been cryogenically frozen
Larry Niven wrote a short story called Wait It Out in which an astronaut is stranded on Pluto. He pops his helmet thinking that will kill him but instead he is instafrozen and still alive. When the sun warms him he can see what's going on around him (Pluto has life that wanders around slowly while he is frozen-watching). Your suggestion would be a cool (no pun intended) resolution to Niven's protagonist's situation.
@@ghostship2963 it's not a suggestion. It's the entire premise of 3001: The Final Odyssey
2061 wasnt a bad read either. :)
@@wolfoffroad I liked 2061 too, but the entire premise of landing on a meteor (or was it an astroid) felt a bit ‘mwe’ after the lofty concepts explored in 2001 and 2010
@@d_boneswish1296 Ya, I figured that out after I posted and then went to Wiki and discovered there were a total of 4 Odyssey novels. I'd never heard of the last two.
My favorite "insider" bit in 2010 is when Floyd is talking to his Soviet counterpart on the bench in Washington, D.C. and they are worried about the mounting tension between the USA and the USSR. Then, when they get up to leave, we see the cover of an issue of TIme magazine that shows the US president and the Soviet premier--and the two men are Arthur C. Clarke (the US president) and Stanley Kubrick (the Soviet premiere). I love that little inside reference (wink-wink, nudge-nudge). Oh, BTW, I don't understand all the confusion about the starchild in 2001. Bowman had been transformed into something like an embryonic god, and could appear as anything he desired, but since he still thought of himself as an embryonic being, that's how he appeared. When I first saw the movie in 1968, I was 13 years old, but it was still pretty obvious to me that's what was going on. Or maybe I'm just way off base...
Great comment full of nice tib bits 😘
The man feeding the birds to the left of the screen in the bench scene is Arthur C. Clarke.
@@duncanmackenzie2779 Ah! That's right! I'd forgotten about that? Thanks for the comment!
Floyd is talking to a fellow American politician, not a Soviet counterpart, to convince the President to allow the Americans to join the Soviet mission on his behalf. And the magazine with the two men appears much later, in the hospital, when Bowman's mother suddenly awakens out of her coma and has her hair combed by a hairbrush moving by itself.
@@Foebane72 Aaahh! That explains something that has puzzled me for a long time. I haven't seen the movie in awhile, so I concede the part about who Floyd was talking to. But I thought for sure the issue of Time was on the bench. When I bought a DVD of the movie put out by Turner Classic Movies, I was confused and disappointed because the magazine wasn't there in my copy. I thought maybe it'd been edited out for some obscure reason. Thanks for the heads up--I'll have to watch it again and go to the part where Bowman's mother wakes.
This movie have one of the scariest scenes ever: The walk in empty space.
This! For an excellent breakdown on how scary that and more about 2001 is, see "2001: A Space Odyssey - Horror of the Void (film analysis / commentary)", by Collative Learning, here on You Tube.
Trying to land on a spinning ship like that also looked intense. I suppose in theory it wouldn't be hard to execute but it's so unsettling to actually make the attempt.
Space defies natural law...so do space suits