You ended asking if we've seen this lately and I have! Within the last month actually. I happened to see it listed on some streaming service and wanted to give it a rewatch. I haven't seen it in a long, long time and I have seen 2001, several times even, in the last few years. Most notably when it was re-released to certain theaters in 70mm. So I figured I should give 2010 another shot. Anyway, I really like 2010. Another commented said something along the lines of "Not as good a movie as 2001 but a better sci-fi story" and I agree with that. It's certainly more accessible. Long before Easter Eggs became standard fare this movie gave us this gem at 10:30 (Clarke and Kubrick). I've read the other two books and would love to see them adapted, which is certainly unlikely but who knows.
14:40 10 year old kids of the 70s and 80s were perfectly suited for this film, because they had grown up with Star Trek TOS and Space: 1999 and other similar science fiction films and TV shows, not just Star Wars; in those progressive times they were much more interested in science and science fiction and there was no profusion of fantasy, medieval troglodyte warriors and dragons, and we didn't have any flat-earthers, not even a clue, it would have seemed as surreal as it is idiotic now.
For my friends and myself, Star Wars and Star Trek fans, this was a top movie. I knew how to do the Hal voice and the Bowman voice and the lines. I started reading the book in the afternoon, and when I looked up next it was dark and 3AM. Spookeee. Today, everyone knows Helen Mirren from many roles, but for years, she was to me the woman from 2010. It was an important part of my life. It is dated, but a quality solid sci-fi in the best tradition.
Glad to see people discovering this movie at last. At the time, it was hailed for its groundbreaking visuals: the BBC in the UK even featured it in a 1 hour special called 'Filming The Impossible', and put it into context with the Apollo moonshots. A tremendous film.
Clarke wrote 2 more books after 2001 and 2010. 2061 and 3001! In 2061 we learn Dr Chandra died on the return trip home. They believed it was from a broken heart cause by the loss of HAL. In 3001 they find Pool's body and are able to revive him. HAL actually didn't kill him ,but made the pod hit him in such a way that he flash froze. Technology of the day was able to revive him.
3:05 -- uh, no. "2001" was based on a short story, which covered the first Monolith on the Moon, then left the question open after the radio signal was sent. The "2001" novel was based on the film script.
I think the short story was "The Sentinel." Clarke wrote the book simultaneously with Kubrick making the movie. They would get together to consult, but at a certain point went their own ways. Which is why the book takes place around Saturn and the movie around Jupiter. (Have I geeked out too much?)
@@thepagecollectivethe reason the setting for the final scenes was changed from Saturn to Jupiter was that Kubrik's special effects team could not convincingly portray Saturn's rings with the technology of the day.
@@SpaceOdditiesLive The book and the movie were being produced at the same time. Kubrik had his own reasons for going with Jupiter and Clarke with Saturn. The point is it was a simultaneous thing that eventually departed in different directions
I was 12 when this movie came out in theaters, and then onto HBO. I didn't see it in the theater, wish I had, but even on TV, the spaceship special effects, indeed all of the visual effects were simply stunning. They were, to that point, the best I'd ever seen, and watching it now, forty years later, they still hold up. I still get that sense of vast scale. The two spacecraft feel big when I see them on screen. I know younger generations brought up on 21st century CGI in movies and TV shows have different expectations and different experiences, but I submit that the model-makers and visual effects team that Hyams put together for "2010" not only did an absolutely first-rate job of bringing that universe back to life, but even improving on it from Kubrick's "2001: ASO" in some ways. "2001: ASO" was this vast, arcane, somewhat esoteric thematic exploration and visual experience. The human characters of Heywood Floyd, Dave Bowman, Poole, they weren't characters driving forward a narrative as much as they were components in a mechanism. In "2010", the characters were now very human, and they were telling a very different story, but one which ultimately tied into the previous narrative. Even with all of the rather stark, utilitarian feel of the Leonov, the color pallet is much richer and warmer, the costuming felt more natural and lived-in. Most importantly, the characters have much more personality than the virtual androids that Dave Bowman and Frank Poole depicted in "2001: ASO". Like I said, I know that was a creative decision made by choice on the part of Kubrick to tell the story his way, but that's what made "2010" such a different movie. Hyams was making a movie about people, not grand themes.
One thing I wanted to add...Their are two novel sequels to 2001: ASO and 2010. 2061, and 3001. 2061 focuses on Heywood Floyd again (as a very old man) and his son on two different missions, one of the missions involving Halley's Comet. 3001 sees the return of Frank Poole (the astronaut on the first Discovery mission who was killed by Hal-9000 and his body left to drift around the solar system) He freeze-dried corpse is discovered, reconstituted, and essentially brought back to life. It's around this time that the Monolith's intentions toward humanity are revealed. It is not our friend.
I have long held that 2001 was the greater work of cinematic art, but 2010 was the better sci-fi flick. Hyams gave a crap whether you understood what was happening, for one thing.
The thing that makes it close but not quite is the use of all the synced tv monitors on Discovery instead of the read projection flat-screen simulated monitors. The studio either cheaped out or Hymns' didn't seem to think it mattered to really go 100% on the recreation of Discovery that would have made it perfect. The Russian ship also looked too much like a copy of the ALIEN Nostromo instead of cramped and they really over-did the hundreds of blinky buttons. The story and acting though are great and I can forgive all the above - the aero-braking and the scared Soviet girl climbing in with Floyd was great and Helen Mirren as the commander was fantastic considering the time when women didn't often get roles like that. The thing that you really can't write is super-duper advanced aliens and their motivations and Clarke deftly handled that and the film executed it. I like that Dave can't express himself as he's on some higher intelligence plane than Floyd - and that Floyd gets it anyway. It's a HOPEFUL future that it ends on and that makes it great, maybe not 2001 great, but a nice bookend to the original that might make people who wouldn't want to watch 2001 do so and get it to a degree.
@@geekinreviews I do wonder who made anything with multi-function touch screen displays first - I can't recall any before Star Trek TNG 3 years after this movie. And I think that was to make the production cheaper than scattering buttons - working or fake everywhere. A lot of TNG hasn't aged well, but that one set design choice along with the PADD devices that look like iPads of today make it hold up to new generations who take for granted how scifi that was in the 80s. A lot of things in film are compromised to make filming easier - so space ships tend to be sets that make room for dollies and gear used to film instead of be claustrophobic like they should probably be. And it's hard to judge where the money went on many films - a lot to salaries for stars and Teamster crews and for scifi before computer graphics and CGI it looks to have been shockingly small on spending. With 2010 the external stuff and FX still hold up - but the sets are barely just okay like the assumption was hardly anyone watched 2001 and we are going to only go for close, not flawless which was going to be even cheaper than the original to recreate. It's just maddening to watch. We don't even get to see the centrifuge set which was the spectacular visual of 2001! And yeah - all this is a nitpick to the extreme - but it was the extra effort that could have really raised the bar between really good and EPIC I think - but Hollywood just never really lays out the cash often and when they do it's always a SPECTACULAR DISASTER more often than not.
I did ask Mike Okuda in twitter once if the iPad was close to how he envisioned PADDS and he replied saying basically yes but the multi functionality was different t
They used CRTs not because it was difficult to simulate a flat screen, but to feel it closer to our times than futuristic due to the anti-war message. That message was the most important because people in those years were really scared of the nuclear holocaust, as you can see in many movies: The Day After, Wargames, and many others of that time. A too futuristic look, in theory even more than 2001 (maybe holographic/3D screens in 2010!?) was cool, but too alien. This is also the reason why this beautiful movie became soon outdated after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it was too much a movie of its time, for its time. Unfortunately it is less outdated right now…
@paulmoons @paulmoons I don’t people can think what they wants that’s life baby. I didn’t show up telling others their opinions were wrong ! If you didn’t watch the video how do you know what I said about the two films . If you don’t like feedback don’t comment or interact. As I’m about to stop after this …….
I agree that 2010 is a really good movie that stands on it's own legs. I still think 2001 is the better movie out of the two. So I don't know if 2010 is "the better sequel" which is a phrase that doesn't even make sense imo since it's the only sequel...
You ended asking if we've seen this lately and I have! Within the last month actually. I happened to see it listed on some streaming service and wanted to give it a rewatch. I haven't seen it in a long, long time and I have seen 2001, several times even, in the last few years. Most notably when it was re-released to certain theaters in 70mm. So I figured I should give 2010 another shot.
Anyway, I really like 2010. Another commented said something along the lines of "Not as good a movie as 2001 but a better sci-fi story" and I agree with that. It's certainly more accessible.
Long before Easter Eggs became standard fare this movie gave us this gem at 10:30 (Clarke and Kubrick).
I've read the other two books and would love to see them adapted, which is certainly unlikely but who knows.
The last book would be insane on screen ! Thanks for watching
In the scene in front of the White House, there is an old man sitting on a park bench -that's Arthur C Clarke.
@Hykje owww good catch !
@Hykje and thanks for watching
14:40 10 year old kids of the 70s and 80s were perfectly suited for this film, because they had grown up with Star Trek TOS and Space: 1999 and other similar science fiction films and TV shows, not just Star Wars; in those progressive times they were much more interested in science and science fiction and there was no profusion of fantasy, medieval troglodyte warriors and dragons, and we didn't have any flat-earthers, not even a clue, it would have seemed as surreal as it is idiotic now.
For my friends and myself, Star Wars and Star Trek fans, this was a top movie. I knew how to do the Hal voice and the Bowman voice and the lines. I started reading the book in the afternoon, and when I looked up next it was dark and 3AM. Spookeee. Today, everyone knows Helen Mirren from many roles, but for years, she was to me the woman from 2010. It was an important part of my life. It is dated, but a quality solid sci-fi in the best tradition.
Agreed ! Thanks for watching
Glad to see people discovering this movie at last.
At the time, it was hailed for its groundbreaking visuals: the BBC in the UK even featured it in a 1 hour special called 'Filming The Impossible', and put it into context with the Apollo moonshots.
A tremendous film.
Oww thanks for that I’ll need to see if I can find it and thanks for watching means a lot !
I feel like I'm the only one who likes this movie, but I love it
It is great. Love to see a 4K version ! Thanks for watching
I saw this in the theatre when it first came out. Still one of my favorite movies!
@michaelmerritt2990 I seen it on a wore down VHS 👍 would love to see it on the big screen ! Thanks for watching
Clarke wrote 2 more books after 2001 and 2010.
2061 and 3001!
In 2061 we learn Dr Chandra died on the return trip home. They believed it was from a broken heart cause by the loss of HAL.
In 3001 they find Pool's body and are able to revive him. HAL actually didn't kill him ,but made the pod hit him in such a way that he flash froze.
Technology of the day was able to revive him.
@@jimacmercebay6272 would love for them to try adapting 3001 it was crazy
3:05 -- uh, no. "2001" was based on a short story, which covered the first Monolith on the Moon, then left the question open after the radio signal was sent. The "2001" novel was based on the film script.
I think the short story was "The Sentinel." Clarke wrote the book simultaneously with Kubrick making the movie. They would get together to consult, but at a certain point went their own ways. Which is why the book takes place around Saturn and the movie around Jupiter. (Have I geeked out too much?)
@thepagecollective bit enough ! This is the place for it !
@@thepagecollectivethe reason the setting for the final scenes was changed from Saturn to Jupiter was that Kubrik's special effects team could not convincingly portray Saturn's rings with the technology of the day.
@@SpaceOdditiesLive The book and the movie were being produced at the same time. Kubrik had his own reasons for going with Jupiter and Clarke with Saturn. The point is it was a simultaneous thing that eventually departed in different directions
@@SpaceOdditiesLive Trumbull’s special effects, he achieved later for his movie Silent Running.
I was 12 when this movie came out in theaters, and then onto HBO. I didn't see it in the theater, wish I had, but even on TV, the spaceship special effects, indeed all of the visual effects were simply stunning. They were, to that point, the best I'd ever seen, and watching it now, forty years later, they still hold up. I still get that sense of vast scale. The two spacecraft feel big when I see them on screen.
I know younger generations brought up on 21st century CGI in movies and TV shows have different expectations and different experiences, but I submit that the model-makers and visual effects team that Hyams put together for "2010" not only did an absolutely first-rate job of bringing that universe back to life, but even improving on it from Kubrick's "2001: ASO" in some ways.
"2001: ASO" was this vast, arcane, somewhat esoteric thematic exploration and visual experience. The human characters of Heywood Floyd, Dave Bowman, Poole, they weren't characters driving forward a narrative as much as they were components in a mechanism. In "2010", the characters were now very human, and they were telling a very different story, but one which ultimately tied into the previous narrative. Even with all of the rather stark, utilitarian feel of the Leonov, the color pallet is much richer and warmer, the costuming felt more natural and lived-in. Most importantly, the characters have much more personality than the virtual androids that Dave Bowman and Frank Poole depicted in "2001: ASO". Like I said, I know that was a creative decision made by choice on the part of Kubrick to tell the story his way, but that's what made "2010" such a different movie. Hyams was making a movie about people, not grand themes.
One thing I wanted to add...Their are two novel sequels to 2001: ASO and 2010. 2061, and 3001. 2061 focuses on Heywood Floyd again (as a very old man) and his son on two different missions, one of the missions involving Halley's Comet. 3001 sees the return of Frank Poole (the astronaut on the first Discovery mission who was killed by Hal-9000 and his body left to drift around the solar system) He freeze-dried corpse is discovered, reconstituted, and essentially brought back to life. It's around this time that the Monolith's intentions toward humanity are revealed.
It is not our friend.
I have long held that 2001 was the greater work of cinematic art, but 2010 was the better sci-fi flick. Hyams gave a crap whether you understood what was happening, for one thing.
Very true ! He was a great director . Think I might need to give Outland a rewatch
The thing that makes it close but not quite is the use of all the synced tv monitors on Discovery instead of the read projection flat-screen simulated monitors. The studio either cheaped out or Hymns' didn't seem to think it mattered to really go 100% on the recreation of Discovery that would have made it perfect. The Russian ship also looked too much like a copy of the ALIEN Nostromo instead of cramped and they really over-did the hundreds of blinky buttons.
The story and acting though are great and I can forgive all the above - the aero-braking and the scared Soviet girl climbing in with Floyd was great and Helen Mirren as the commander was fantastic considering the time when women didn't often get roles like that.
The thing that you really can't write is super-duper advanced aliens and their motivations and Clarke deftly handled that and the film executed it. I like that Dave can't express himself as he's on some higher intelligence plane than Floyd - and that Floyd gets it anyway.
It's a HOPEFUL future that it ends on and that makes it great, maybe not 2001 great, but a nice bookend to the original that might make people who wouldn't want to watch 2001 do so and get it to a degree.
I think the Russian sub had at least a submarine feel compared to the super sexy future vibe discovery had . Thanks for watching
@@geekinreviews I do wonder who made anything with multi-function touch screen displays first - I can't recall any before Star Trek TNG 3 years after this movie. And I think that was to make the production cheaper than scattering buttons - working or fake everywhere.
A lot of TNG hasn't aged well, but that one set design choice along with the PADD devices that look like iPads of today make it hold up to new generations who take for granted how scifi that was in the 80s.
A lot of things in film are compromised to make filming easier - so space ships tend to be sets that make room for dollies and gear used to film instead of be claustrophobic like they should probably be.
And it's hard to judge where the money went on many films - a lot to salaries for stars and Teamster crews and for scifi before computer graphics and CGI it looks to have been shockingly small on spending.
With 2010 the external stuff and FX still hold up - but the sets are barely just okay like the assumption was hardly anyone watched 2001 and we are going to only go for close, not flawless which was going to be even cheaper than the original to recreate. It's just maddening to watch. We don't even get to see the centrifuge set which was the spectacular visual of 2001!
And yeah - all this is a nitpick to the extreme - but it was the extra effort that could have really raised the bar between really good and EPIC I think - but Hollywood just never really lays out the cash often and when they do it's always a SPECTACULAR DISASTER more often than not.
I did ask Mike Okuda in twitter once if the iPad was close to how he envisioned PADDS and he replied saying basically yes but the multi functionality was different t
They used CRTs not because it was difficult to simulate a flat screen, but to feel it closer to our times than futuristic due to the anti-war message. That message was the most important because people in those years were really scared of the nuclear holocaust, as you can see in many movies: The Day After, Wargames, and many others of that time. A too futuristic look, in theory even more than 2001 (maybe holographic/3D screens in 2010!?) was cool, but too alien. This is also the reason why this beautiful movie became soon outdated after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it was too much a movie of its time, for its time. Unfortunately it is less outdated right now…
2010 was the first movie I saw as a kid and I didn't see 2001 until I was an adult. I have to agree that I thought the second one was better .
Thanks !
It’s an opinion it can’t really be right or wrong when it comes to a movie. It’s a personal thing at the end of the day
@paulmoons you think it’s wrong and I think you can have your own opinion without telling people their wrong.
@paulmoons @paulmoons I don’t people can think what they wants that’s life baby. I didn’t show up telling others their opinions were wrong ! If you didn’t watch the video how do you know what I said about the two films . If you don’t like feedback don’t comment or interact. As I’m about to stop after this …….
I saw this at the theater when I was 12 and loved it so much that it's still a favorite.
I can imagine why. Must have been great in the cinema
👍👏 Always loved this movie & ending since I found it late one night on AMC as a teen.
It is defo thinker ! Like they never try and explain anything and thanks for watching
I agree that 2010 is a really good movie that stands on it's own legs. I still think 2001 is the better movie out of the two. So I don't know if 2010 is "the better sequel" which is a phrase that doesn't even make sense imo since it's the only sequel...
It can’t compare to the original but it still is more accurate to the book and feels more real which I love ! Thanks for watching
I prefer 2010 over 2001 as a story.
2001 is a cinematic work of art, but a story it is not.
Agreed. Thanks for watching
It's great sci-fi film. Great effects work.
Yup it stands up ! Thanks for watching and great profile pic
This is a great movie, I loved way back then!
It is indeed ! Thanks for watching