2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984) Gave *ANSWERS*! - First Time Watching - Movie Reaction/Review
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Hop aboard this reaction to a mystery partly answered as Cameron and Isaiah sit down together and watch 2010: The Year We Make Contact on Amazon Prime Video for the very first time! They did a great job continuing the story and Roy Scheider Was a great pick for the main character! if you agree and enjoyed this reaction, show some support and leave a like, share, and subscribe! Comment down below your favorite scene from the movie "2010: The Year We Make Contact"!
Patreon: / camandzay
Instagram: / camandzay
Twitter: / camandzay
Tik Tok: / camandzayreact
Zay's Twitch: / deifiedzay
Cam&ZayGames: / @camzaygames4252
Cam's Twitch: / justyouraveragecam
Thanks for watching us figure out more from this sequel!
#2010theyearwemakecontact #moviereaction #royscheider #hal Intro and Outro Song
Song: Evan King - Guardians
RUclips: / evankingaudio
Free download at: www.evankingmu...
Yay, Someone actually continuing on to 2010 after 2001!
Ye, first reaction I've seen of it yet.
@@mnomadvfx Reactions to 2010 The Year We Make Contact
on YT channels:
Cam&Zay
Casual Nerd Reactions
GIS
TBR Schmitt
TeaMamba Watches Movies
And countless Reviews
The aerobraking sequence is still awesome. Love the design of the Leonov.
SADLY that design is flawed, because EITHER the entire ship should rotate OR there should be two sections that rotate in opposing directions.
the concept of aerobraking was good, but the execution in the film was flawed.
1) the "ballute" didn't shield the whole ship. The entire main engine structure was exposed ahead of it, and should have been sheered off during the fireball
2) they don't exactly do a good job showing why the whole ship is on fire, and the imagery of such was a bit hokey. It was supposed to be essentially re-entry heating
3) the design of the Leonov in the movie is a radical departure from the design in the book, which was described as having a giant conical ablative heat shield at the front, which would be discarded once the aerobraking maneuver was completed (effectively lightening the ship and thus lowering fuel cost for the duration of the mission).
Also, about the Leonov herself... we see the spinning section, but no indication that gravity is within that section itself. Further, the sets do not fit within the ship in any way, which becomes apparently not only with the angle some of the sets turn off in, but also when we see Max and Curnow leaving in spacesuits, and then Max taking the pod out - the size of them and the size of the sets they left just do not compute.
Also, in the book, Leonov was built for speed. So amenities like artificial gravity were omitted entirely, and also the reason for its smaller size. But... this film did a poor job giving any kind of background on the ship itself.
Thomas-Peters on DeviantArt actually did a very wonderful set of renderings of what a book-accurate Leonov would have looked like
Full spacecraft with fuel tanks for journey to Jupiter:
www.deviantart.com/thomas-peters/art/Leonov-American-crew-Arriving-136698961
After jettisoning fuel tanks, and with antenna and radiator panels tucked in for aerobraking maneuver:
www.deviantart.com/thomas-peters/art/Skimming-the-Jovian-Clouds-139442464
Heat shield jettison:
www.deviantart.com/thomas-peters/art/LEONOV-Heatshield-Release-139696540
And being attached to the Discovery:
www.deviantart.com/thomas-peters/art/Heeding-Bowman-447540799
I read the book all the way back when it was published in 1982, and I was wondering how a filmmaker could ever top 2001. Turns out, Peter Hyams didn’t have to try, because this sequel is really good. Glad you watched it. Also, the aliens who created the Monolith used it to multiply and increase Jupiter’s density, turning it into a star, to give the Europa lifeforms a chance.
Bit of trivia in case you didn't read it someplace. The original name for the computer was going to be the IBM 9000, but when IBM realized what evil it was going to do, They didn't allow their company name to be used. So The production company and writers simply went backwards from each of the letters I-B-M and came up with H-A-L: ergo, Hal 9000 lived!
I know a lot of people don't like this movie but I thought it did a good job. I especially liked the way they redeemed HAL. Oh, and the dolphins, maybe that is a hint that we are going to uplift them into conscious intelligence; that humanity is following in the path of the makers of the monolith? Just a thought.
Apparently Peter Hyams talked to Kubric. He explained that they taking it in a new direction and Kubric replied don't try to remake 2001; this is your movie and it should tell your story. Makes me respect him even more.
He also authorised his own cameo, I wonder if there are other movies with his face inside.
A great mainstream Hollywood movie follow-up to an artistic avant-garde film!
The Europa Clipper launches this year! We could be seven years from finding extraterrestrial life.
Excellent film, thanks for reacting.
I feel like Peter Hyams is a super underapprechiated director. He did a number of great films: _Capricorn One, Timecop, The Relic, End of Days..._
However, there is one I recommend more than any of these: _Outland_ with Sean Connery, sort of a Sci-Fi-Remake of _High Noon,_ that is actually set on the Jupiter Moon Io. Fantastic Movie, a real hidden gem.
This is a really solid and sadly underrated movie, although that's not hard to understand given the legacy of the film that came before it. But one thing's for sure: this film had a lot more influence on much more recent sci-fi films than many people are aware of. For example, if you watch Ridley Scott's "The Martian", the way he constructed and edited the scene where the crew intentionally let off an explosive to slow the ship down is almost exactly the same as the scene in 2010 when Hal is counting down to fire the Discovery's rockets.
I also really love the slightly weird but cool synthesiser score on this movie, it definitely gives it a unique feel unlike a lot of films today.
There's a line in the book that still gives me chills 30 years. There's just a passing mention that they have altered billions of worlds but also made millions of mistakes.
Ever read The Expanse series?
"They sowed, and occasionally they reaped. And sometimes, they had to weed."
Guess which we are...
@@joesworld396 First two guesses don't count....
YES! YEEEES! Every time a reactor watches 2001, I beg them to watch 2010 right away, but they almost never do.
This movie is extremely underrated. I instantly know that someone hasn't seen it if they say they didn't understand "2001".
I actually like this one better than the first. It has tighter pacing, a more thrilling finale and an incredible cast.
Heywood Floyd, as a character, was in 2001, with a different actor. He's the man we follow to the moon, inspecting the monolith. So he was directly involved in both the mission planning, and its operation. Which is why he's so driven. They talk around it, but he feels responsible. So finding out he got iced out of the pivotal decision that led to the missions doom was also redemption for him as well as HAL.
The key moment for his responsibility is that, right after HAL (IBM) 9000 was deactivated, immediately appears the pre-recorded message of him, telling the crew the real mission and that HAL was the only one who knew the real purpose of the mission; so yes, he told HAL the existence of the monolith, the radio emission to Jupiter and the clear instruction to hide all that to David and Frank, so he was fully responsible for the carnage of the Discovery 1 mission.
This is one of those things that Clarke/Kubrick/Hyams didn't line up on that led to Clarke saying each book and movie were slightly different universes. I think this was initially because Kubrick had to change the planet from Saturn to Jupiter to avoid having to get the rings right, which they weren't confident they could make look good at the time. There's a few things here in 2010 as well, including Floyd being out of the loop.
The fact the movie starts with "my God, it's full of stars!" being Bowmans last transmission, which wasn't in the filmed 2001, and lean hard in to that last transmission for the first third kinda indicates that they're going to make the story and will fill any perceived gaps, whether they need to be or not.
In the scene in the park, the guy to the left of the screen, feeding the birds, is none other than the author, Arthur C. Clarke.
There's a Time magazine in around the middle of the movie that says "WAR?" that shows depictions of Clarke and Kubrick as the American and Russian leaders.
Finally someone reacting to this!!!!!!!!!
I'm one of those that likes more this one than the first. More because it has a story and I watched it back in '87, when I was 13 years old and I felt so close the fear of the cold war. The idea that we could blow up any minute was very real and perfectly portraided here.
It's crazy how many nuclear/cold war themed movies there were back then, and in music etc. If you don't know, here's a mind blower: than song "The Future's so Bright I gotta Wear Shades" was actually about nuclear war.
I liked 2010 better back then too, but like 2001 way more now. I can watch 2001 over and over but not this one so much. Really, the two movies are too drastically different to compare though.
@@silikon2 Many, many songs and movies. It really inspired a lot.
But to fair, I haven't seen the first one in years, so. I should give It another try.
@@letmadora28 I think ultimately the movies shouldn't be evaluated against each other any more than comparing tennis to hockey or something like that. Way different than, say, A New Hope vs Empire Strikes Back.
I also prefer this film over the original. It’s an under appreciated sequel.
I saw this one first as well. The fear of war didn't hit me nearly as hard as Jupiter sucking itself in, only to end with young Me anticipating the year 2010 to see the two suns in the sky. Yeah, I was naive at a young age :P
When Arthur C. Clarke published his novel 2010: Odyssey Two in 1982, he telephoned Stanley Kubrick, and jokingly said, "Your job is to stop anybody from making it [into a movie] so I won't be bothered." Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer subsequently worked out a contract to make a film adaptation, but Kubrick had no interest in directing it. However, Peter Hyams was interested and contacted both Clarke and Kubrick for their blessings:
I had a long conversation with Stanley and told him what was going on. If it met with his approval, I would do the film; and if it didn't, I wouldn't. I certainly would not have thought of doing the film if I had not gotten the blessing of Kubrick. He's one of my idols; simply one of the greatest talents that's ever walked the Earth. He more or less said, 'Sure. Go do it. I don't care.' And another time he said, 'Don't be afraid. Just go do your own movie.
There is a series of books written by Arthur C Clarke (who developed the original story with Kubrick), in order they are: 2001 A Space Odyssey; 2010: Odyssey Two; 2061 Odyssey Three and 3001 The Final Odyssey. You can see Clarke and Kubrick on the cover of Time Magazine 26:43 as the Presidents of the US and Soviet Union.
I don't know what happened in the following novels, but I find it unlikely humans won't land on Europa. (Or at least try... the message said to not ATTEMPT to land, possibly suggesting it'll be prevented.)
You can also see a cameo by Clarke in front of the White House sitting on the park bench.
edit: you can only see the top of his head in this reaction 🤣
I hope they turn the other books into movies too!
I read books 3 & 4. I was not that impressed. Why? It removed all mystery of the monolith & who’s operating it. The “5th dimensional beings” from Interstellar at least keep their mystery. The books made it like Jupiter Ascending, a more advanced race. As opposed to cosmic entities of omnipotent knowledge & power. Treating the galaxy as their clay to mold.
One final recommendation: “The Andromeda Strain” (1971). This movie will intrigue you and also make you wonder if this could have been the original man-made Pandemic. 🤔
Jupiter has a ton of moons, moons for days. That small star that Jupiter has now become is intended to make them habitable. The monolith(s) job seems to be to advance sentient life.
Sapient.
Any "moons" around a sun would be completely INHOSPITABLE for life, ... unless it can somehow be based upon molten lava.
[Writers need to RESEARCH PHYSICS before writing stuff ... Hollywood is very much guilty of this, but also writers of books.]
@@Belzediel- Have to have sentient life before sapient. They said, “advance sentient life”, which is correct.
@@Parallax-3D Not if you know what the word means.
It's the same voice actor for HAL. And the same actor playing Dave Bowman, refusing to age when he's not in makeup.
Further trivia, regarding the voice of HAL: The actor who voiced him, Douglas Rain, was selected by Woody Allen (or his casting director), to voice an A.I. character just like HAL, in the 1973 film, Sleeper (occurring 200 years after that film's release date, and 149 years in our future, 2173.). The character, 'Biocentral Computer 2100 Series G, doesn't have a big role in the film, but the voice and deadpan mannerism of HAL is unmistakable. It's a little like HAL returned for a cameo, in a film that came out only five years after the film 2001 was released. (It's an entertaining film; I've always enjoyed it.)
@@tranya327 Even the AE-35 unit was back in 2010!
And Keir Dullea is still kicking. He looks a little different now, being 87, but he's still going.
In "2001, A Space Odyssey" they called the computer "HAL", because the letters each were one letter before those in the name of computers from the biggest computer company in 1969: IBM.
Read the book! It explains everything in complete detail. It’s nothing you can guess by watching. In 2001 the monolith in the end was uploading his whole life which is why he was aging rapidly and then he was reborn as a star child… hid memories and experiences were incorporated into the larger spiritual beings who no ,longer require bodies. He was no longer Dave bowman, though those memories faintly remain. He can travel through the universe with thought as a new spiritual life form and revisits his home of earth and gazes in it newly as a star child. Hard to explain…seriously read the book!
Thanks to Cameron and Isaiah! 🌌 I'm so glad y'all watched this. So many reacters never get around to it... and I think it's very good. Cheers to director Peter Hyams. I've also read the two novels that carry the story even further. All hail the author Arthur C. Clarke.
This is one of those semi-lost ‘80’s movies that is really good but overlooked. I saw this at the theater and we were very excited.
In the book, the Soviet crewmember that gets in Floyd’s bunk during the aerobraking had been in a plane crash and burned which is why she is so frightened. It’s never explained in the movie.
Bowman visits his mother and brushes her hair. In the book it explains how he didn’t like doing it as a kid but his mother loved it which is why he does it; a very sweet moment.
Another fun overlooked ‘80’s movie with John Lithgow is “The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across The 8th Dimension.”
My God, it's full of stars...
So many people miss the significance of that line in the book.
@@neilsimpson6870 Yeah and it's one of the most iconic lines ever imho
Not only did they give conflicting orders to HAL, they programed him to lie about it. His core programing was basically not to lie.
Three fun facts:
- In the early scene in front of the white house, the old man feeding the birds is actually played by Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote the book.
- In the hospital scene when the nurse drops her copy of Time Magazine, the presidents depicted are actually Arthur C. Clark and Stanley Kubrick
- The voice of SAL-9000 was played by "Olga Mallsnerd". This is a pseudonym for then-insanely-popular actress Candice Bergen
The TIME magazine cover is Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick.
So glad you guys reacted to this film. It’s a very under appreciated sci-fi film and sequel, but I think it’s fantastic.
Unpopular opinion - 2010 is a better movie than 2001
I always thought this was a very solid sequel, and Roy Scheider is always fun to watch.
I prefer this one to the original honestly.
Same Here
Because this one isn’t boring!
LOL
@@StarShipGray It also is not a masterpiece.
@@betsyduane3461neither is the first one. It’s overrated and dull as hell.
I liked this one better than the original
Same Here
Now you get to act smug when people don't understand the first one!
XD
As someone who grew up in West-Berlin since the early 70s ... this movie's message is important to me. Sadly the Cold War DIDNT END ... only one side stopped fighting it, while the other continued it to keep justifying the funding for military and "intelligence" agencies.
Greed is the worst side of mankind, so sad.
D. Bowie does HERO's as an anthem of a sort, gives a little taste of the wall : ))
Going to the movies every week back in the long long ago was so much fun , every week something different for everyone, fun times
I am pleasantly surprised you chose this film. I use to own the DVD but i always felt like it was a film that was never mentioned or acknowledged by anyone. EVER!
While I know 2001 is rightly considered the masterpeice, this one has a frigging tight script and pays full homage and is at least as smart. For all his brilliance, Kurbrick's stengths were not in scriptwriting nor script supervision. I prefer 2010 only because it can literally make you laugh or cry. Yours is the funniest reaction I've seen to it.
🔔 C&Z, DON'T MISS THE NEXT MOVIE IN THIS TRILOGY, THE LITTLE-KNOWN PREQUEL "1888: THE YEAR WE MADE CONTACTS" 😂
2010 is one of my favorite movies. I think it's very good that they didn't try to ape Kubrick's style.
Have you guys watched Sunshine directed by Danny Boyle? If you haven’t it’s got a similar yet very different vibe.
Yes, that was David saying goodbye to his mom in the hospital. In the novel, it stated when he was young he would brush her hair.
I prefer this movie to 2001. It's paced much better than 2001. 2001 sparked questions and answered almost none. 2010 answered a lot and introduced new questions while being well paced and not being confounding.
We now need someone to be brave enough to make books three and four in the series.. 2061 and 3001. Denis Villeneuve anyone?
If anyone can do them justice, it's him. But first he's going to be tackling Rendezvous With Rama, which is another cool 'big alien thing in space' mystery.
Roy Scheider was on fire after steadily building his career with Jaws making him a household name. You can watch most of his films around this time without qualifying them and gain entertainment. While I'm the type whom doesn't need everything answered, I'll admit once we hit the final act of 2001 I gave up reading my crystal ball.
Very well done! Try the film Legend with Tom Cruz and Tim curry great nostalgic fairytale movie
The movie is sublime as a sequel that stands on its own. It doesn't try necessarily to follow the first. It is really compelling. The thing that draws me in is the fact that it's a slower pace, but still super hard hitting. There are two more stories after this one - 2063, and 3001, but 2010 was the only sequel film adaptation. I'd be super interested in seeing 2063 made.
Really glad to see you guys reacting to this one...I have always liked it a lot. I can see why folks compare it to Kubrick's 2001, but the two are so different in focus, I think this one is really good in its own way. I hope you both like it a lot too.
Hey, guys. I'm glad you liked this movie. Many fans of 2001 are very dismissive of 2010 because Kubrick didn't direct it. Small piece of trivia; all of the models and sets for 2001 were destroyed after the movie was released in order to prevent a sequel from being made. So, everything had to be reconstructed by visual references alone. Even the original drawings were destroyed.
I'm really curious what you guys would think of the movie "The Black Hole", which was Disney's first PG rated movie from 1979. Myself, I love it despite its flaws. I saw it in theaters in 1979 when it came out and loved it. It is on Disney+, but you'd have to use the Search function to find it.
I really enjoyed this! I liked the sequel! It tied up loose ends. Brought everything together. You guys were great! Thanks Guys for being you! 😂😊
The guy who's hyperventilating's best role is in "Third rock from the sun". Playing an alien studying humans on earth.... highly recommend👍
John Lithgow
@@Parallax-3D That's the one👍 Ta, couldnt remember his name🙂
I'd say his best role was in Buckaroo Banzai as Lord John Wharfin(sp?) Now THATs a fun movie to react to
FULL RECTANGLE! Brilliant comment!
This movie is why I loved Event Horizon. It is a CSI in space. “What happened to the first crew?”
Mr Fishburn: “We’re leaving”
spider man’s (Toby) landlord’s freak out on the discovery is a nice touch after Lithgow freaking out just before. They switch spots and became friends.
Dasha from Russian Girl Reactions looks exactly like Young Helen Mirren, it’s uncanny..
Maybe if you can’t land on an acceptable pun or word play, perhaps a Prop of some kind is necessary...
The historical background of the movie is the Cold War, a time in history when people thought a hot nuclear war between the super powers could start at any time in 24hours. The news coming from Earth reflect a then common sudden rise of tensions between the US and the Soviet Union going all the way until the end and at a brink of an inevitable war.
This video is how I found your channel, via searching for (reactions to) "2010" on YT. Then I saw you had done "2001", so had to go back and watch that reaction first, then come back to this one and watch it right afterwards.
Appreciate your in-depth discussion at the end, and enjoyed your reactions overall...2010 isn't artsy and ponderous the way 2001 was, it's more conventional and accessible-but that's okay, together I think they work well (despite the differences in style & technique).
Great job you two :)
Q: “How much are they getting paid for this?”
A: “They’re Soviets. Communists. They don’t get pay.”
Great movie I seen both movies in the theaters.
The Monolith is an unearthly higher Power of Technology aka Supercomputer mainly in today's Technology known as the Internet as it has and knows everything about everything in our Galaxy. The Monolith is as well a Stargate teleporter, as in the first movie when David Bowman enters the one in space and you see the freaky looking color's well that's David Bowman traveling across the Universe as the Stargate of the Monolith can make traveling supersonic faster than light. David Bowman became a void a Vessel used to communicate with human life as it is known humans can react more willingly to than the opposite.
If you really think about it in today's society, I'm willing to bet there is a Real Monolith on Earth and our government is hiding it from the people of Earth as you can't explain the sudden jump in Technology in certain Decades over the last 100 years. Schooling and teaching have stayed the same for over 100yrs but the Technology has changed rapidly. Makes you question and wonder.
Did you see on the news about a silver looking monolith appeared in the Utah desert in 2020?
Hell Yes!!!
When reading the book and HAL says "look behind you", I damned near peed myself. When watching the film, I knew that this scene was coming and it STILL freaked me out :)
22:56 I believe the widow of Dave Bowman is played by Mary Jo Deschanel - the mother of actresses Emily and Zoey Deschanel
I'm not smart enough for 2001. I found 2010 more approachable.
2001 in a nutshell. Aliens come to Earth millions of years ago and transform pre-humans into being able to think and reason. The aliens plant a highly magnetic slab buried in the Tyco creator to let them know when humans advanced enough to travel to the Moon and find it, and when humans do, the slab transmits that info to a wormhole near Jupiter. Then the aliens bring a human (who survives murderous HAL) though the wormhole to their planet and transform him into a higher life form. End credits.
You do realize that "2001" and "2010" are just the first two books in a quadlogy, right? Arthur C Clarke also wrote "2061" and "3001." Movies could, hypothetically, still be made based on those two books.
Do androids dream of electric sheep?
The novel that Blade Runner is based on, by Philip K Dick.
Kier Dullea's favourite film.
Loved this reaction! But I have to say that after watching 2001, you're saying that THIS ONE started slow?!?
I love 2010. I don't think it's a great sequel to 2001, but I do think it's a great adaptation of the book 2010, and a great, more grounded (though still high concept) 80's scifi flick.
For G*d's sake, please stop making your opening 60 seconds so unbearable with the horrific puns! I don't care if it's a brand: a poop emoji could be a brand, but that doesn't make it a plus. Truly, I like your channel, but I fear a lot of people might be dropping away almost immediately when confronted with that... stuff. Anyway, hoping this feels like constructive criticism. I like you guys, I swear.
Arthur C. Clarke was a wonderful writer. Funny you should mention a sequel 😂😂😂there was talk of one but I guess it either fell through or the science is too technical. If I may suggest a couple more you might like. Once were warriors and Red Dawn. Oldies but goodies imho.
If you really cared about it you would read the books... this is how I found out these guys are hacks... I followed them for a while, thought they were smart... until they actually feel there is a comparison between the Kubrick film and this.... the Kubrick films stands alone... the idea was brought by Arthur's "Sentinel" and when the movie deal came about. Kubrick influenced Arthur to keep writing a novel for 2001 etc... I dunno how many books are out now... but there are a few ... but this channel pays more attention to plot than artistic merit... dudes.... this movie... as a film... cannot be compared to the Kubrick one... they're not even in the same level... you guys are trippin' ....
There are two more books in the series that have yet to be adapted to film: 2061: Odyssey Three and 3001: The Final Odyssey. However, I would not trust today's hollywood to do these correctly. Note the year 2061 as you should be around to witness it.
Poor HAL. Didn't know that everyone who has ever done business with politicians gets done dirty.
There are four SPACE ODYSSEY books by Arthur C. Clarke. 2001, 2010, 2061 and 3001. In 2061, a spacecraft has a malfunction and must make an emergency landing on Europa! That's all I'm sayin'. 🧑🚀
Attempt no landing there. Humans will never learn
They're actually a monolith on the moon on Saturn! Look up Buzz Aldrin!
I love both movies in 2000 I did read some wear that kubrick was getting ready to make 3001 the final odyssey still not been made yet ? It would be awesome if they make it. ❤😂🎉😢😮😅😊
I'm so glad you guys watched this and enjoyed it! This is what got me into 2001. I have always loved HAL the most... and SAL. There could always be more of HAL and SAL! Peter Hyams actually directed a "feel good" sequel to 2001!
Thanks for this reaction: it's a VASTLY underappreciated film!
Read the book. It is very good. Arthur C. Clarke wanted to wait until the Galileo mission to Jupiter so he could incorporate as much of what we discovered there into the story as possible. Galileo was delayed and he decided to go ahead and write 2010 anyways. Like I said, the book is great. It's detailed enough that you feel like you were there.
Clarke collaborated very closely with the director, e-mailing each other every day when e-mail was a new thing and Clarke basically had personal use of the satellite and the only Internet connection in Sri Lanka.
What is the monolith? Essentially a cosmic version of the Swiss army knife. It's not one tool, it's a multi tool.
There are 4novels in the series:
2001: A Space Odyssey
2010: Odyssey Two
2061: Odyssey Three
3001: The Final Odyssey
I cried for HAL at the end, the first time I watched this in a theater opening weekend...😭 So glad you two reacted to this! It's my favorite of the two!
The best scene in this movie was when the original astronaut Dave Bowman. Appeared behind him. because that actor looked exactly the same as if he didn't age since 1968.
Check out The Day the Earth Stood still (1951), The Thing (1951), The War of the Worlds (1953), THEM! (1954). Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Forbidden Planet both released in (1956).
All great scifi films that were remade horribly.
This movie made me cry for a computer and that’s incredible. 👍🏻
FUN FACT - The old man sitting on the bench on the left side of the screen (at 5:56 in the video, you can see the top of his head) is actually Arthur C. Clarke himself (he wrote the books "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "2010" and many others).
This is a good movie, but it's just so overshadowed by the first one, it just didn't stand a chance. I wish they would make the last books into movies.
I always forget Helen Mirren is in this.
Queen Elizabeth in space? (She played both Queen Elizabeths 1 and 2)
Next, you need to watch “Oblivion” (2013). Highly underrated sci-fi movie which will
keep you captivated.
This follows Arthur C Clarke's book better than the 2001.
I still insist this is the best cinematic climactic payoff ever!
The soundtrack to this is highly, highly UNDERRATED!
I love 2010. It's one of my favorites.
The film suffers from the inevitable comparison with Stanley (the GOAT) Kubricks original, but I found Arthur C. Clarkes book of 2010 really satisfying and equally mind blowing conceptually
Both were great but very different styles of films. The film follows the book much more than for 2001.
"They could do another" - sadly you probably won't ever see a film of it but if you're up for it try reading 2001, 2010 and then 2061. Just take note that 2010 was written after the movie of 2001 and follows the movie more than the book.
Ever thought of doing a bond movie reaction ?
FYI HAL is making fun of IBM (each letter in HAL is one letter BEFORE IBM), IBM was the big tech company when 2001 was made
Kubrick dismissed this theorizing, saying that the computer’s name is an acronym for heuristic and algorithmic, “the two methods of computer programming,” in his words. Seeing the IBM acronym in those letters “would have taken a cryptographer,” he said.
There are two more books I. The series, 2068 and 3001.
I actually LOVE this one
Yep, liked this one way more than the original. Strangely creepy.
I believe it takes years to get to Jupiter. Six(?), one way.
There were some differences between the movie and the book version of 2001. This film is a sequel to the book version which is why a small handful of things don't line up with the last movie. (Mainly in the movie Floyd knows HAL knows about the Monolith, in the book it was "The Government", not Floyd that told HAL about the Monolith). So in this film Floyd doesn't HAL knew about the Monolith beforehand which is why he's surprised and angry.
Mind you book 2010 kept the movie 2001's location of Jupiter. 2001 original script and Clarke's novel placed monolith in Saturn's orbit. 1968 VFX couldn't make a satisfactory image of Saturn. I believe Interstellar can be seen as a reboot of Space Odissey.