@@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
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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
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
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 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.
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.
This movie was, in one "professional" reviewer's opinion, "Plodding and Prosaic". But I think they were "Apples vs Oranges": The First being Mysterious; the Second being more Expository, and more mass-appeal entertainment. But 2010 kinda suffers by being more (outdated) CGI. Vs the MASTERFUL Practical effects of the Original.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.]
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.”
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.
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.
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 :)
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!
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.
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.
You have to love Peter Hyams. He’s one of those “working man directors” that does his own cinematography and has a “mid budget dramatic thriller” style that lends itself to making “popcorn movies”.
Hal's redemption was the best part of the movie. In the novel his consciousness becomes linked to the Bowman consciousness/entity and lives on after Discovery is destroyed.
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.
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 :)
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!
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
The atmospheric "braking" maneuver has a scientific basis: in the vacuum of space there's no wind resistance to slow down a moving object, so astronauts have to come up with creative ways to slow down to a near stop. Newton said, "An object in motion tends to stay in motion until acted upon by an outside source (i.e. the atmosphere)." Like Alien declared, "in space no one can hear you scream."
There's a sort of scary detail built in to this: most star systems have more than one star in them. How long has this been going on? - and do the gardeners weed their garden? 2061 Odyssey Two asks these questions.
56:39 I think the dolphins were a metaphor for the ocean life that was/could happen in Europa's ocean, it wasn't just a random decision on the film director's side. The part when they sent the probe to Europa, there was also this audio cue, a whale song or whatever, that implied something possibly living there. It took me a while to realize that connection, but I think it was a nice and subtle touch that many people missed.
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!
My major complaint with this movie is the lack of care with the scenes in the ships. The Leonov flight deck and the Discovery pod bay, tunnel, and bridge are all zero-G environments, but everyone is moving like they're in gravity. The scene of the three Americans walking through Leonov after Chandra is back on board has the same issue; the rotational section of Leonov isn't spinning, but Floyd flips the cable cutter and it falls back into his hand. I saw this opening night in a theater in ninth grade, and I was _not_ pleased, especially after the care Kubrick took with those scenes and environments in 2001.
All part of science FICTION. Easier to forget about zero gravity to save money making a space film. At least Sandra Bullock gets it right in "Gravity".
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!
Damn I feel old I saw this in the theaters at age 22. I can't believe that was forty years ago. Times goes by so fast each year. I noticed when I turned 25 each year seemed to go by faster. There was a lot of great movies made in 82, 84, 85 and 1986.
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.
When I watched this in theaters many years ago; I never heard of Helen Mirren, but this was one of two movies I'd seen her in. Excalibur was the first. Her Russian was amazing. One of the Russian actors was a famous Russian comic back in the 80s
Elya Baskin, right? I've seen him in *Raise the Titanic,* *Moscow on the Hudson* and a slew of other things as well. And this was my first Helen Mirren movie as well. Loved her then, love her now. 😎
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.
One of my favorite sequels, it was cool revisiting it with you! (There's no N in Scheider!) The book is quite different, mainly because there was no conflict between the nations on Earth, but it answers a lot more of those questions you presented.
A little fun fact: SAL was voiced by actress Candice Bergen, under a pseudonym, Olga Mallsnerd (likely the "snerd" part references Mortimer Snerd, a dummy character of her ventriloquist father, Edgar Bergen).
Let's have 2061 as well, have a third actor play Heywood Floyd as an old man, still active thanks to advances in medical technology, with a large family who rarely talk to him.
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.
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.
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
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's son, feeding the dolphins, is Taliesin Jaffe, now a well-known voice actor for One Piece, Lords of War, Street Fighter, WOW, and, of course, one of the Critical Role players.
Who I have happily met 2x! I joked when I met him, "First thing I ever saw you in was LA By Night, not counting 2010 as a kid of course!" Long may he reign.
This movie is a great example about the fundamental flaw with AI. It untimely is a recreation of its designer. All the complexity and faults of a human mind with none of the filters and checks that evolution has built into the brain.
Such a good, fun movie, though as is usually the case, the book is better. As for 2001, the Kubrick movie and Clarke book were intended to be consumed together, as the book gave details and "answers" to the more symbolic scenes of the film.
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.
FUN FACT - The 2 men on the TIME magazine cover (at 26:44 in the video) are Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick (Clarke is on the left side and Kubrick is on the right side).
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.
Poole didn't get "eaten" by a robot... He was attacked by his pod, under HAL's control, and died due to lack of oxigen (his oxigen hose was cut), and afterwards Bowman took another pod and tried to rescue him, eventually giving up.
Spoiler ….. about Frank Poole….. In 3001, future humans find Poole’s corpse floating in space, and realize that because his brain and body were frozen so quickly, there was no decay and his brain structure is mostly intact. They are able to rebuild his body, restore his memories, and bring him back to life.
@@barreloffun10 He finds out that they tried several times, later in the story. The Book is hard to film, but if they explain how he's the closest they could get, and actor with similar features could play him.
I'm not sure but the scene at the Whitehouse in the wide shot the old man sitting on the bench feeding the pigeons was Arthur C Clarke. I remember a behind the scenes video of this movie and he was filming that scene.Great movie great cast stills holds up today.
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.
Just happened to run across this vid. Great reaction. Actually, "all the worlds are yours except Europa" is referring to Jupiter's many moons... which can now be considered planets around the new ex-Jupiter-now-star mini solar system. You can only add so much mass to a planet (i.e., the millions of monoliths added to Jupiter)... before the pressures inside get high enough to ignite nuclear fusion.... turning it into a small star. ... and thus giving the developing life on Europa a better energy source than the distant sun.
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
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....
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.
YES! YEEEES! Every time a reactor watches 2001, I beg them to watch 2010 right away, but they almost never do.
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 : ))
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
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
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
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.
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.
This movie was, in one "professional" reviewer's opinion, "Plodding and Prosaic".
But I think they were "Apples vs Oranges": The First being Mysterious; the Second being more Expository, and more mass-appeal entertainment. But 2010 kinda suffers by being more (outdated) CGI.
Vs the MASTERFUL Practical effects of the Original.
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.
Frank Poole actually is found and revived in the books!
This is such a fun movie, great cast and story!
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
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!!!!!!!!!
"The minute AI asks me "Will I dream?" I'm fucking out!"
Lol, seriously? I'd love to have that conversation with a true AI.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
Chandra lost Hal once and then he was losing him again in an act of self sacrifice
22:56 I believe the widow of Dave Bowman is played by Mary Jo Deschanel - the mother of actresses Emily and Zoey Deschanel
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.
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 :)
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 always thought this was a very solid sequel, and Roy Scheider is always fun to watch.
Q: “How much are they getting paid for this?”
A: “They’re Soviets. Communists. They don’t get pay.”
The TIME magazine cover is Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick.
Not only did they give conflicting orders to HAL, they programed him to lie about it. His core programing was basically not to lie.
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.
Thanks for this reaction: it's a VASTLY underappreciated film!
I still insist this is the best cinematic climactic payoff ever!
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.
Going to the movies every week back in the long long ago was so much fun , every week something different for everyone, fun times
You have to love Peter Hyams. He’s one of those “working man directors” that does his own cinematography and has a “mid budget dramatic thriller” style that lends itself to making “popcorn movies”.
Hal's redemption was the best part of the movie.
In the novel his consciousness becomes linked to the Bowman consciousness/entity and lives on after Discovery is destroyed.
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.
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.
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 :)
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!
26:43 - It's Arthur and Stanley!
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.
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! 😂😊
2010 is one of my favorite movies. I think it's very good that they didn't try to ape Kubrick's style.
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.
Candice Bergen was the voice of SAL. I never would have guessed, but it's true.
You guys are getting so close to 25K you can almost taste it!
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.
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).
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.
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.
Excellent film, thanks for reacting.
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.
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.
The atmospheric "braking" maneuver has a scientific basis: in the vacuum of space there's no wind resistance to slow down a moving object, so astronauts have to come up with creative ways to slow down to a near stop. Newton said, "An object in motion tends to stay in motion until acted upon by an outside source (i.e. the atmosphere)." Like Alien declared, "in space no one can hear you scream."
There's a sort of scary detail built in to this: most star systems have more than one star in them. How long has this been going on?
- and do the gardeners weed their garden?
2061 Odyssey Two asks these questions.
Such an underrated film. It should be required viewing as a tandem to 2001.
56:39 I think the dolphins were a metaphor for the ocean life that was/could happen in Europa's ocean, it wasn't just a random decision on the film director's side. The part when they sent the probe to Europa, there was also this audio cue, a whale song or whatever, that implied something possibly living there. It took me a while to realize that connection, but I think it was a nice and subtle touch that many people missed.
I liked this one better than the original
Same Here
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!
My major complaint with this movie is the lack of care with the scenes in the ships. The Leonov flight deck and the Discovery pod bay, tunnel, and bridge are all zero-G environments, but everyone is moving like they're in gravity. The scene of the three Americans walking through Leonov after Chandra is back on board has the same issue; the rotational section of Leonov isn't spinning, but Floyd flips the cable cutter and it falls back into his hand. I saw this opening night in a theater in ninth grade, and I was _not_ pleased, especially after the care Kubrick took with those scenes and environments in 2001.
All part of science FICTION. Easier to forget about zero gravity to save money making a space film. At least Sandra Bullock gets it right in "Gravity".
There was gravity in the pod bay in 2001.
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!
The soundtrack to this is highly, highly UNDERRATED!
Damn I feel old I saw this in the theaters at age 22. I can't believe that was forty years ago. Times goes by so fast each year. I noticed when I turned 25 each year seemed to go by faster. There was a lot of great movies made in 82, 84, 85 and 1986.
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.
This movie made me cry for a computer and that’s incredible. 👍🏻
When I watched this in theaters many years ago; I never heard of Helen Mirren, but this was one of two movies I'd seen her in. Excalibur was the first. Her Russian was amazing. One of the Russian actors was a famous Russian comic back in the 80s
Elya Baskin, right? I've seen him in *Raise the Titanic,* *Moscow on the Hudson* and a slew of other things as well. And this was my first Helen Mirren movie as well. Loved her then, love her now. 😎
Unpopular opinion - 2010 is a better movie than 2001
I love 2010. It's one of my favorites.
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.
One of my favorite sequels, it was cool revisiting it with you! (There's no N in Scheider!) The book is quite different, mainly because there was no conflict between the nations on Earth, but it answers a lot more of those questions you presented.
A little fun fact: SAL was voiced by actress Candice Bergen, under a pseudonym, Olga Mallsnerd (likely the "snerd" part references Mortimer Snerd, a dummy character of her ventriloquist father, Edgar Bergen).
Arthur C Clarke has a cameo in front of the White House feeding the pigeons. I want someone to make 3001 as a movie.
Let's have 2061 as well, have a third actor play Heywood Floyd as an old man, still active thanks to advances in medical technology, with a large family who rarely talk to him.
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.
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.
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
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's son, feeding the dolphins, is Taliesin Jaffe, now a well-known voice actor for One Piece, Lords of War, Street Fighter, WOW, and, of course, one of the Critical Role players.
Who I have happily met 2x! I joked when I met him, "First thing I ever saw you in was LA By Night, not counting 2010 as a kid of course!" Long may he reign.
This movie is a great example about the fundamental flaw with AI. It untimely is a recreation of its designer. All the complexity and faults of a human mind with none of the filters and checks that evolution has built into the brain.
Now you get to act smug when people don't understand the first one!
XD
FULL RECTANGLE! Brilliant comment!
This is one of the most underrated Sci-Fi movies of all time in my opinion
Who rates this low?
Goddamn, you guys are great! Very perceptive and funny as hell. Thanks for the LOLs.
Best movie scene about getting dragged into the gas giant Jupiter is called "The Wandering Earth"
They're actually a monolith on the moon on Saturn! Look up Buzz Aldrin!
There is a third book: 2061 Odyssey Three
Such a good, fun movie, though as is usually the case, the book is better.
As for 2001, the Kubrick movie and Clarke book were intended to be consumed together, as the book gave details and "answers" to the more symbolic scenes of the film.
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.
FUN FACT - The 2 men on the TIME magazine cover (at 26:44 in the video) are Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick (Clarke is on the left side and Kubrick is on the right side).
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.
Poole didn't get "eaten" by a robot... He was attacked by his pod, under HAL's control, and died due to lack of oxigen (his oxigen hose was cut), and afterwards Bowman took another pod and tried to rescue him, eventually giving up.
Spoiler …..
about Frank Poole…..
In 3001, future humans find Poole’s corpse floating in space, and realize that because his brain and body were frozen so quickly, there was no decay and his brain structure is mostly intact. They are able to rebuild his body, restore his memories, and bring him back to life.
@@barreloffun10 He finds out that they tried several times, later in the story.
The Book is hard to film, but if they explain how he's the closest they could get, and actor with similar features could play him.
I'm not sure but the scene at the Whitehouse in the wide shot the old man sitting on the bench feeding the pigeons was Arthur C Clarke.
I remember a behind the scenes video of this movie and he was filming that scene.Great movie great cast stills holds up today.
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
I actually LOVE this one
I don't know if it's urban legend, however I heard a story that the original monolith prop was converted into an executive office desk.
Loved this reaction! But I have to say that after watching 2001, you're saying that THIS ONE started slow?!?
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.
Just happened to run across this vid. Great reaction. Actually, "all the worlds are yours except Europa" is referring to Jupiter's many moons... which can now be considered planets around the new ex-Jupiter-now-star mini solar system. You can only add so much mass to a planet (i.e., the millions of monoliths added to Jupiter)... before the pressures inside get high enough to ignite nuclear fusion.... turning it into a small star. ... and thus giving the developing life on Europa a better energy source than the distant sun.