Ok, so love it or hate it? As good as 2001? Better? Worse? Sound off below! * If you missed me getting my mind blown in 2001 check it out! th-cam.com/video/DAp7dcMYXSA/w-d-xo.html SCI FI Playlist: th-cam.com/play/PLQHhQlj8i5doQmNbYogcJTYZkxhGMHpah.html
I like it, it's a good sci-fi movie in fact better than most. Is it 2001? NO! 2001 made us change what we thought movies could be. It's like Blackbird by the Beatles, great song I really love it, is it Stairway to Heaven by Led Zeppelin? No, but is it really fair to compare much to Stairway? And note, I know that Stairway is WAY overplayed and there are other Zeppelin songs I'd usually rather hear, but if you watch a reactor who's never heard it before, it'll bring you back to the first time you heard Stairway and the whole WHOA! moment you experienced then.
I actually preferred this to "2001" - great science fiction, doesn't put me to sleep like "2001" tends to, fantastic effects and acting. The book is also one of my favorites.
I grew up during the cold war. I watched 2010 while still living under the shadow of the threat of global nuclear annihilation. The movie's message about overcoming petty national political differences hit harder than any milleenial could even imagine. It gave us the permission to dream about about a future where things MIGHTbe okay.
Yeah kids these days have no idea how good they have it. Living during the Cold War with the specter of nuclear war on the back of people's minds was scary times.
@@Serai3we aren't back to the cold war. Don't let power hungry politicians and drama based fear monger journalism make you feel that way. Putin isn't an ideologue and the US and Europe are afraid pansies.
I think that the book is worthy, but this movie is kind of a cheap knockoff sequel when compared to the original. But It is not as bad as "the queen of damned x interview of vampire"
@@alexandretorres5087 While he was writing the screenplay in 1983, Hyams (in Los Angeles) began communicating with Clarke (in Sri Lanka) via the then-pioneering medium of e-mail using Kaypro II computers and direct-dial modems. They discussed the planning and production of the film almost daily using this method, and their informal, often humorous correspondence was published in 1984 as The Odyssey File. As it focuses on the screenwriting and pre-production process, the book terminates on February 7, 1984, just before the movie is about to start filming, though it does include 16 pages of behind-the-scenes photographs from the film.[5][6] Clarke's preface offers a gleeful, elaborate primer on the use of electronic mail. The Odyssey File is available in its entirety on the Internet Archive.[7] (Wikipedia)
I always liked this movie. But its a different style of movie than 2001. Much like how different "Aliens" was to "Alien". Both are excellent movies, but they are not the same kind of movie.
2010 is much more Arthur C. Clarke than "Kubrick". It's truer to Clarke's vision. 2001 is a masterpiece of filmmaking that used Arthur's book as a launching pad.
I could not agree more. Just like _Alien_ is a masterpiece of Suspense and _Aliens_ is a masterpiece of Action so to this sequel doesn't try to recreate the lightning in a bottle which was _2001: A Space Odyssey._ Instead, Peter Hymas presents a mystery or better yet a murder mystery where we know _Who did it._ But we don't know why. I think it is brilliant that Hymas didn't try to over-reach. He provided a satisfying answer to the mystery of HAL and he fed our imaginations when it comes to the monolith and what it's all really about. I do not think Hymas could have made a better sequel.
When the conversation is taking place in front of the White House, there is an older man sitting on the bench to the left of the screen. That man is Arthur Clark, the author of the original 2001 novel and co-writer of the movie with Kubrick.
Oh so he's in another movie? He's also in the background of the hospital in Bridge Over the River Kwai he and his friend were tapped as extras while they were filming in Ceylon (Sri Lanka)
In my head canon, not only is HAL at physical risk, but Chandra's "I don't know" might imply that the disconnection and revival of SAL might not have gone as smoothly as Chandra had hoped.
This movie is an underrated gem. It’s not a masterpiece like 2001 but it’s still a pretty good sequel and it also answers a lot of the questions we had from the last movie.
It may not be a masterpiece but that doesn't stop me from preferring it. This is a more human, character driven film, not the pretentious overblown artsy-fartsy thing that 2001 is. I saw this film in 70mm THX on a giant curved screen and it was awesome!
The two movies can’t be meaningfully compared. It’s like comparing Alien to Aliens but worse because 2001 is so unique. I like this movie but it’s basically a very well made standard movie. I’ve seen this a handful of times but have seen 2001 dozens of times. There’s just something about many of Kubrick’s films that can keep bringing you back.
@@blechtic afaik, no one expected some fans of "Blazing Saddles" ("no kick from champagne") to enjoy "2001" in that way, despite the conveniently-placed "intermission."
Back when 2010 was being made, I was a special effects apprentice and got to hang out in the studios. The set for Europa was built within a huge building, which was flooded to create the liquid landscape. The camera was on a track and remotely controlled by a computer. Since they needed an extreme focused depth of field, the studio was bathed in bright light and the camera lens was stopped down to a pinhole. Each frame was captured with a very long exposure, so that in the end, the planet surface appeared massive. An amazing amount of time and work went into just that brief final shot...
2010 succeeds because it doesn't TRY to be 2001. Honestly, that was the best way to go about it. Its a more traditional sci-fi film that does a great job of continuing the story...and a good one at that. While it does solidify some of the mystery from the first film, it still maintains an air of "wth is happening "...even as the ending is rolled out for us. The monoliths and the intelligence behind them is still completely unknown to us. We just get to witness one of their endeavors.
@@n.d.m.515 The book 2010 was actually based off the film 2001. The novelized screenplay of Space Odyssey was set on or around the moons of Saturn and very different from the film. At least in the first edition, I don't know if Clarke ret-conned the book after the film's release. I believe Clarke and Kubrick's collaboration was a brief and contentious one that basically ended with them ignoring each other while both book and film were still unfinished.
I'm so glad that you were able to react to this sequel. I believe that it's been underrated. I especially enjoyed Roy Schieder being in the lead roll as he is one of my favorite actors. Great reaction, Jen!!
The scenes where HAL asks Dr. Chandra if he will dream, and when he talks to the spirit of Dave Bowman, always make me tear up. This is definitely a worthy sequel to 2001.
@@WhiteCamry oo boo hoo .. did you actually pay any attention to the film ..specifically when they said Hal was forced to lie even though he was programmed not to .. It made him paranoid ....so yeah go figure ..
@@WhiteCamry oh sure, let's blame the AI for having been rendered psychotic by humans who didn't read the manual. What's next ? Blame cars for drunk drivers ?
I can't accept that identification without proof" I understand. It is important that you believe me. Look behind you. Has got to be the creepiest line in cinema history.
I don't get creeped out easily by movies at all. But when Floyd turns around and sees Dave just standing there smiling at him, and especially with that music underlining the scene, I always feel goosebumps erupting all over me. Brilliant scene!
After the one in the forst movie where HAL says that he isn’t going to comply with Dave Bowman’s order. THAT is creept because it is not uttered with any emotional inflection.
Fun fact: In the hospital scene, the cover of the copy of Time magazine that the nurse is reading has the face of Arthur C. Clarke as the American president and Stanley Kubrick as the face of the Soviet premier.
2010 is a worthy follow-up to 2001. It works. It holds up by being its own thing. Most important to me, the story doesn't suffer, doesn't get lost, in any attempt to continue, or mimic, 2001 cinematically. It's a good film. I'm happy to see it here, and so soon. Thanks! Here we go! :)
It was a chore for me to read 3001. Was very disappointed with it. It read like Clarke was just fulfilling a book contract obligation...which i found out later was exactly the case.
@@montylc2001 Clarke's later books are sadly not that good in general. (During his last 20 years he also mostly only "cowrote" stuff with other author. Meaning that the other author actually did the writing and they only put Clarke's name on the cover.)
Hmm, I remember 2061. But not 3001. Though I must have read it. No way, I wouldn't have read the last one. Either it was indeed just not so good, or I am simply mixing both books into one. Been decades since I read them, so that might be it. I think I will remedy that.
@@MarijnvdSterre 2061 was the book with very old Heywood Floyd on the Halley Comet. 3001 was Buck Rogers.... ehhh... Frank Pool in the 31st century. (Yep, he didn't die, he was just frozen.)
The problem with 2010 has always been its predecessor. It will always suffer in comparison, and I've always thought that's unfair, as they're two completely different animals. 2010 is a really good sci-fi movie. 2001 is a work of art. That doesn't reflect badly on 2010. But the word "sequel" doesn't really apply here. Trying to make a sequel to 2001 is like trying to make a sequel to a painting in a museum: it's an inherently nonsensical project.
Well said and I agree. I don't see them as sequels, so much as bookends, in cinema, with art on one end and hard-science reality on the other end. I love the minimalist look of the surface details of one ship, and also love the detailed wall-to-wall buttons and gizmos and just outright naked instrumentation on the other ship. Peter Hyams had a hard job to do and he nailed it.
All that tension before the launch with Hal's ASMR voice was so powerful. I remember the first time I watched this that entire scene gave me goosebumps.
@@JJ_W Funny thing, in the book, they never restore HAL's vocal abilities, and he communicates with words on a screen. But they just knew for the movie, that the iconic HAL voice needed to come back.
Don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but the voice of SAL is an uncredited Candice Bergen. You probably aren't familiar with her, but she was a popular actress in the 80s. She was the lead in the series Murphy Brown.
Wow, did not know that! I was wondering who did the voice, it's so intriguing and, like HAL's, is also really creepy at the same time. Btw, Bergen as an actor is really good. (Was? Is she still around? I don't know this either.)
The initial spacewalk to the Discovery is one of my favorite parts. Max is such a bro to Dr. Curnow, reassuring him and helping him overcome his fear, then as soon as they get on board and Max has his own panic attack and Curnow quickly helps to quell his worries. Also, fun fact, the actor who played Max - Elya Baskin - also plays Mr. Ditkovich (Peter Parker's landlord) in the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films!
The first four spacecraft to visit Jupiter did flybys in the years between the release of the two movies, namely Pioneer 10 (1973), Pioneer 11 (1974), Voyager 1 (1979), and Voyager 2 (1979).
At ~7:15. I remember watching this scene and back in '84 thinking: "A little portable computer you can take with you and use outdoors? That would be really cool if they ever invented that!" Sure enough, 40 years later I'm typing this on my laptop while sitting outside shirtless with my veiny biceps glistening in the sunlight and enjoying a Budweiser juice box (well, not that last part).
Did you catch the Easter Eggs? Arthur C. Clarke feeds the pigeons in front of the White House. He barely made Jen's edit, you see the back of his head at 04:39. And in the hospital, Clarke and Kubrick appear on the cover of Time (25:08) as the leaders of the US and USSR.
One of my favourite moments is where Irina Yakunina climbs into Floyd's sleeping pod during the air-breaking procedure. It's nothing romantic, nothing sexual. It's just one scared human seeking out contact with another scared human so they can hold and comfort each other during a terrifying moment. It's beautiful.
A very good film and underrated. Director Peter Hyams was apprehensive about making it and contacting Kubrick for his blessing who said he was happy for Hyams to “go and make your own film”. Remember going to the cinema to watching it as a kid.
The field of giant radio dishes is the Very Large Array (VLA) in NM. It's a serene place. I visited during the 2012 eclipse, and it was fantastic. Each dish is as big as a pro infield. There were only about 70 people, including experts for the VLA. They took us inside for a very rare tour of the place. They had a signed picture of Jodie Foster from the movie Contact.
@@cshubs It was very cool. But I'd enjoy seeing the VLA at some point. I've also been to Mt. Palomar and Yerkes Observatory. Even got to look at Saturn through the 40" refractor.
In the novel the meeting takes place at the Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico, and the movie was going to be shot there too. But on inspection the location looked so grotty and run-down that it didn't seem right for a high-tech science fiction movie, and they decided to film at the VLA instead. Arecibo did get its moment of glory in the Bond movie Goldeneye, and in Contact with Jodie Foster.
Fun fact: When John Lithgow's character is at the ball field in Interstellar his statement: "Popcorn at a ball game is unnatural, I want a hot dog." is a call-back to the scene in this movie where Curnow and Floyd discuss things of Earth that they miss...
Good Afternoon, Jen💜and OH how I've been waiting for this one🙏Hoping it does as Well as "2001" has done for You! Btw Jen, I saw You on CineBinge this morning👋I'm Glad that You can Laugh about such Comments, but I am still Sorry that You ever have to Read them at all!💔If I may say so: to Know You is to Love You💝and We (All of Us here) do Love You, Jen...👍
A book released by Clarke about the time the movie came out called “The Odyssey File” details his email collaboration with Peter Hyams in writing the film. In one bit, Hyams was wailing a bit about the difficulty of the production, swearing that his next picture would be just two guys in a single set, and no fish in the living room.
@@rustygunner8282 Thank you for mentioning this book! As a kid I saw it in a bookstore when this film came out, and I practically read the whole thing right there in the store. Hyams and Clarke had computers + modems installed in their houses in California and Sri Lanka, with the ability to send each other script notes and messages in real time. It was functionally different from a BBS, and as far as I know it was basically the first civilian email system (although only for two users).
The ship was the Alexei Leonov - perhaps the most famous cosmonaut save Yuri Gagarin. He was the first to spacewalk. It seems generally agreed he was to be the Soviet's choice for the first lunar landing. He is an underrated historic figure - it was a brilliant move by Arthur C. Clarke to name the Soviet ship after him. ....side note.... this continues the ironic knack of 2001 for projecting entities - Pan Am, Howard Johnson, Bell Telephone (at least in the U.S>) and ultimately even the USSR - that would not actually exist in 2001 ....let alone 2010. 🙄
He also commanded (in 1975) the Soviet half of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, and drew portraits of his American counterparts, in space, for them to take home, much as Dave drew portraits of his comrades on Discovery. Alexei Leonov was a beloved figure on both sides of the Iron Curtain, and this Kentucky boy cried buckets of tears when he recently passed away. A cosmonaut Van Cliburn in reverse.
Hey, that's really cool stuff. Thanks, did not know! And yeah, the Pan-Am, Bell etc stuff is quirky. Like, the first speaking character we meet in the original "2001" movie, the very stiff, formal, 1960s way of talking to his child over the video telephone thing in the original movie dates that production more than anything else, including Pan-Am not existing anymore etc. Almost nobody in the actual year 2001 would bother to say the words "telephone call". :) Another interesting (admittedly in a very Sci-Fi nerd-y kind of way) tidbit is that the overall shape of the spaceship Alexei Leonov, including its rotating artificial gravity section, also inspired the basic shape of the Omega Class destroyer capital ships of the Earthforce Alliance in 1990s TV series "Babylon 5". :)
The design language of the Leonov in this movie was a strong influence for the Earth space ships in the TV Show Babylon 5. One of the Discovery-1's spacesuits from this film also ended up with a Hollywood costume rental company where it then showed up in a very pivotal set of 3 episodes of that same TV Show. We know the spacesuit was from 2010, because when production on 2001 wrapped, Kubrick famously had all sets, props, and wardrobe destroyed. He'd seen other famous Sci-fi movie props get recycled into other productions and felt that 2001 was too important of a film for that to happen to. So everything you see in 2010 is a meticulous recreation based on what was seen in the original film and archival production photos.
@@radwolf76 The design for the Leonov interiors was done by Syd Mead, who also did some design work for Tron, Blade Runner (the police spinner was all his), and Aliens. Also, referring to the original thread starter, Arthur C. Clarke had also met Leonov in person during an international space conference.
I love the ending of this where it says we’re only tenants on this earth, then shoots billions of years in future on Europa where the same thing is happening all over again.
@@johnpooky84the development of vegetation on Europa is decades and beings develop quickly as well. There is a reason which you found out in the subsequent novels .
Ok that did just blow my mind. I went to the premiere of this flick when it came out in high school; still have my ticket stub and Marvel comics adaptation, lol. I even have the special effects mag talking about the special effects in the movie. Fourty years ago you say? :(
In the novel, as they are about to board Discovery for the first time, one guy warns the other not to go after the ship's cat. They then argue over what idiot picked that movie to watch on the trip. You can probably guess what movie they were talking about.
@@AlanCanon2222 I don't recall that one, but in Clarke's novel "The Ghost of the Great Banks" (about an attempted raising of the wreck of the Titanic) one of the subs with its mechanical arms reminds a character of a space pod in some sci-fi movie the name of which "he could not remember."
The special makeup here was done by Michael Westmore (same guy who went on to do the makeup on Star Trek later). One day, he and Keir Dullea walked to lunch together after applying the makeup, when a guy stopped them and shouted out "Damnit, are you the old guy from 2001?" Dullea just smiled and nodded. Westmore was pretty proud that he matched everything so closely, given that reference material was hard to come by (a lot was destroyed except the original movie negatives and prints).
I love the character writing for HAL, he's not your typical murder AI who just hates humans he was put in an impossible situation and did something that's cruel to a human mind but makes perfect sense to him.
There was a great line in the book that I don't remember if it made it into the movie or not... They get to Discovery and the one guy says to Lithgow, ""Whatever happens... don't go after the cat." Lithgow looks at him and says, "I want to speak to the guy who thought that movie would be appropriate for this mission's entertainment library." Someone put a copy of Alien in the entertainment media library. Lol
Many people didn't understand why HAL did what he did, so it was good to explain its reasons, that it wasn't really a villan, it was a human error in the end. I love this sequel, and I think that the other two books, 2061 and 3001 could have been great movies too. Something amazing about 2001 is the look of it, how futuristic it was, and in this case you can see it in a simple detail like the screens we can see on the control panels. In 2001 the screens were completely flat, like a tablet or any kind of flat screen now. We can see Bowman and Poole watching BBC's news on "tablets" while they have dinner, amazing !! In this movie we see tv screens from the eighties, tube screens, like the tv sets we had in our homes. 2001 is the best sci fi movie ever... but 2010 was a very good and interesting sequel.
I LOVE LOVE LOVE this movie. I actually watched it before I saw 2001 when I was at that perfect age of 14 or 15. Also is largely why I absolutely adore Roy Schneider. That laugh he gives when he checks Discovery's orbit.
Can we talk about how Keir Dullea basically _did not age_ in the 16 years between these two movies? Dude looked just like his 31-year-old self at 47, it's damned uncanny. I mean, it's fortuitous, too, since Dave is basically non-corporeal now, but damn.
Love this movie. Very underrated sequel, which wisely does not try to copy the style of 2001, as nothing or no one could. Have been waiting a while for someone to do a reaction to this. Hope you like it.
I long awaited this sequel. When it finally came out it wasn't what I expected. The feel of it was just different. Not a bad movie, just different. You can tell it's a movie from the 80's, not the 60's.
Keir Dullea, the actor who played Dave Bowman, changed remarkably little in the 16 years between 2001 and 2010 (odd way of putting that sentence, heh). They did an excellent job of recreating the sets, makeup and wardrobe from 2001 for this movie too, and I think did a decent job of bridging the eras of a retrofuturist 1960s to a now retrofuturist 1980s, even though canonically there's only 9 years separating the two movies. The shame is, Arthur C. Clarke wrote two more books in this series and who knows if they'll ever become movies: 2061 and 3001. The benefit there, of course, is that enough time will have passed for there to be good reason for a lot to look different for a possible 2061 movie, and canonically it's really close to that amount of time to the actual time that's passed since 2010 came out in theaters. One can only hope if they do make it that they don't CGI it to death and use many practical sets and effects.
They did ok reproducing the sets. Only thing that was glaringly wrong to me were the cathode ray tube screens on Discovery. In 2001 they were flat screens, in 2010 they were obviously curved tubes. I'm sure the movie budget had a lot to do with it.
Sadly 3001 contradicts 2001, while in 2001 Dave makes the next evolutionary step, in 3001 he is just part of an alien AI that was placed to monitor the human evolution.
...I think its a great sequel, Jen... I didn't have any expectation on this one to be able to get near Kubrick's masterpiece, but it did develop the story, from human perspective... they also couldn't resolve or understand, what the monolith is, or the intelligence behind it, so the mystery stayed protected and didn't get trivialized... Peter Hyams did contact Kubrick, when he was considered to direct the sequel, and asked for advice, and maybe also 'sanctification' by the master, so to speak, but Kubrick suggested, that Hyams just makes it his own work, and gave it his blessings - the respect and adoration to Kubrick was immense, and no one expected Hyams to properly follow in his footsteps... considering all this, I think he did a good job. I love it as a sequel, and yet: it can't touch Kubrick's masterpiece... 👾🌈🌟
2010 will always feel like half sci-fi, half horror to me. This is a movie I grew up with. As a kindergartener, the hospital scene creeped me out and the spacewalk scene literally gave me nightmares. I didn't see 2001 one until my late teens. Afterwards, the "...I was David Bowman... Look behind you" really got my hairs standing on end.
I was 15 when 2010 hit theaters in 1984. 2001 had been my favorite book/movie since age 10 or so (read the book when I was 8). My dad liked it too so it was probably a family outing with young friends invited. This was in Louisville, bourbon capital of Kentucky, where the Louisville Cardinals practice and the Kentucky Derby (that "big, big horse race") are run, so of course there was laughter and applause when Floyd described our native land to Kirbuk. As Roger Ebert wrote, once we admit 2001 as the inimitable premier work of art that it is, 2010 stands on its own as a fine movie. I love that it was written by Clarke, who loved showcasing the nuts and bolts of futuristic space tech (you know, like we have now, inspired by visionaries like him). Whatever flaws the film might have, for me it's redeemed by the utter sincerity with which it was made, including A-game performances from Scheider, Mirren, Lithgow, Balaban, Rain, Dullea, and Baskin. On the stop motion animation of the "Balut" (shield): yes it does look stop motion animated, but I think it makes it look "crinkly", like inflating a folded mylar toy balloon. There are little discontinuous pops as the fabric unfolds. This movie's artwork and science background, especially on Io and Europa, were enhanced by the data and photography recently returned by the twin Voyager 1 and 2 missions, launched in 1977, which are still both operating, and returning useful scientific data from interstellar space, at the time of this writing (2024). "ALL THESE WORLDS...." Oh yeah, 15 year old me was pretty smitten by Helen Mirren in a flight suit and Russian accent.
It has been said -- and not just by me -- that there are only two audiences for sci-fi: those that prefer _2001: A Space Odyssey_ (1968) and those that prefer _2010: The Year We Make Contact_ (1984). Surely it is not because of the respective directors. Peter Hyams made it a condition that he would have to secure Kubrick´s blessing to do _2010,_ else he would not do it. Indeed, he states that he stood at attention for all the two hour conversation he had with him, and had nothing but positive feelings of the man and the call. Hyams himself co-wrote, directed, produced, _and_ filmed it. Kubrick also co-wrote, directed, produced, _and_ filmed (but usually just the handheld shots) most of his films, and well as preferring to work on set with only five crewmembers. This director, notorious for rebuffing all those who sought to capitalize on his works (going so far as to destroy most of the props and burning all unused footage), facilitated the fellow native New Yorker Peter Hyams. _2001_ is the film of an open-ended plot, of stylistics and innuendo, mystical import, realized by the slow process of considered camerawork and SFx -- usually done over and over until he was satisfied, to the frustration of all those who worked for him. On the other hand, _2010_ has its explicable linear plot, close-ended plot, realized by the slow process of considered camerawork and SFx -- until the budget demanded Hyams move on. While ostensibly based on the same “universe“ of A.C. Clarke´s published books, even this is not technically so: Kubrick would not allow Clarke to see the developing film or publish his eponymous book until after the movie was completed; therefore the book is really just Clarke´s vision. _2010_ is not the superior work -- it´s just not; however, it is often the more favored work, as mentioned, because like a dense work of literature, _2001_ requires _work_ to appreciate. I can understand this, but find _both_ intellectual _and_ aesthetic fulfillment in the process and revelation.
I love this movie. The probe scene to Europa is so tense and the space howls add a great haunting mood. Love the scene where Bowman appears on the Discovery and “visits” his wife and mother too. It added such an eerie mood to the movie.
17:18 - Minor nitpick, but there shouldn't have been any pods left. Of the three, the first went spinning off into space when Hal used it to attack Poole, the second was used by Bowman to recover Poole's body, but was lost when Bowman had to blow the hatch because Hal wouldn't open the pod bay doors, and the final one was used by Bowman to encounter the monolith, from which he never returned.
I really like '2010' and it is highly underrated, but yes, it can't compare to '2001'; it just can't, but remember too, this movie was released in 1984 during the Cold War when nuclear war was on many people's minds [my mind too as a teenager back then having watched movies like 'WarGames' (1983) and the TV movie 'The Day After' (1983)] and this movie reflected upon those very real concerns (but falsely assumed the Soviet Union would still exist and the same Cold War tensions even in 2010).
I don't know if young people today can actually relate to what it was like living back during the cold war days. So while Russia is again seen as "the bad guys" here in the West (and for the record, I would like to attest that it's well deserved), they're more like petty, comically inept, typically drunken small-time hoodlums now, compared to the menacing, forceful entity they were seen as back then, basically up to its point of collapse. Btw... Another (very interesting) story which features a now-fictional future Soviet Union is Greg Bear's 1985 novel "Eon". ...Which is pretty damn epic, by the way. I highly recommend, if the genre interests you.
When this came out I was 15. The 'cold war' was in full effect, so much so that some of the most popular hit songs on the radio at the time were all about nuclear war (Two Tribes, Had A Dream, Land of Confusion etc), and us kids were scared sh*tless. I recall like it was just a moment ago - during one social studies class in school, our awesome yet usually reserved and stick-to-the-program teacher Mr. Harding suddenly broke character and stopped talking about the topic at hand, looked around at the students and nervously asked, "How many of you believe there will be a nuclear war in our lifetime?". We were stunned. This is a class of 35, all different little usual junior-high cliques represented, and slowly all hands rose. We all looked around at each other and all the distinctions we applied to ourselves to be cool and separate just vanished. The class was suddenly a graveyard. And I don't mean 'as quiet as', I mean... 'This classroom will be our graveyard'. I've never felt this since then. He looked terrible. After a blank look to the air in front of him he dropped his head, sighed, and got back to teaching the task at hand, and we resumed normalcy, and our little cliques went on disliking each other for petty crap. Sanity prevailed. We had no "The Day After", and we all grew up and had deep, deep anxiety complexes and this is where your generation sprouted from. Um. Great movie! The Russian/USA tension is 100% legit. A non-exaggeration. It's not Godfather II status, but it's tiers above Empire Strikes Back sequality.
Wow, what a story, thanks for sharing that. I have a similar one: One day in 10th grade (so 1984, the year of this movie) I walked into my biology class, and a classmate I didn't know all that well pulled me down into the chair next to him and said, "You've gotta hear this!" And he put his Walkman headphones over my ears and pressed Play. It was the intro to the extended version of "Two Tribes", where a radio announcer's voice says calmly, "In the event of a nuclear attack, mine will be the last voice you hear." And then the voice proceeds to talk about what to expect -- really grim stuff, but told in disaffected way. My classmate said, "Isn't that the creepiest thing you've ever heard?!" He was excited about how cool it sounded on the album, but also creeped-out by it. This guy was not a friend (nor was he an enemy, to be fair), he was just a classmate who just had to share what he'd just heard with the nearest human. So yes, a lot of us bonded over existential dread in the 1980s.
I agree with what you said about 2010 vs 2001. Nothing will ever match the masterpiece that is the original. But I still appreciated 2010 because it answered so many questions that were left ambiguous in 2001. I had what can only be described as a transformative and revelatory experience after watching 2001. Nothing has affected me the way 2001 has to this day after first watching it decades ago. It's difficult to describe what that effect was. But I gained a heightened consciousness from the film. I didn't feel like I was the same person before and after watching it. Seeing and feeling the vastness and wonderment of the cosmos. The brilliance of creation and of being. The majesty of evolution. The preciousness of intelligent life. And the life-affirming glory of interdependence and existence - were all things 2001: A Space Odyssey gave me that I didn't have before. Loved seeing your reaction to it because I think you felt some of the same. And thanks for your reaction to 2010 because not many follow up with it after watching 2001. If you want to explore more of the world, A Space Odyssey is a book series (including audiobooks on YT and elsewhere too). I hope one day someone makes films out of the other books in the series as well. Arthur C. Clarke was a master of sci-fi stories that we need to see more of on the big screen.
Great reaction! It varied from the book in that the book didn't have any political drama, and the Chinese had also launched an exploratory team in the book. 2001 was a legendary movie, but while it was less impressive than the original, I liked 2010 more for the story that was more complete. 2001 was a movie of questions without any answers, which was somewhat unsatisfying. 2010 gave us some answers, but not all, but it was more satisfying.
6:22 Mark! Jen, greetings to you! 🖖 About this movie, I saw it when it was new in 1984 at the "McSwain Theater" in Ada, Oklahoma, with some "ECU" college friends. The first movie, to me, still looks like "The Future" and this movie, to me, looks like 1984! 😮 But anyway, the dolphins! 🐬 Hehe! Roy goes on to play the captain of "SeaQuest DSV" for "NBC" and "Ensign Darwin" is one of the crew! He's a dolphin! 😊
Thorough Jen Murray! Of course you have to react to 2010. I would have been disappointed if you didn't. Your enthusiasm for these films is appreciated. Thank you Jen 😊
Thanks Jen, it’s been a while since I’ve seen 2010. I like your reactions, you always react to the music, which unfortunately gets missed by many reactors on YT. This story, while not as epic, still has a really nice message, some nail biting, and few thrills along the way. I really like your interest in SciFi, and was happily surprised by your reactions once again!
Only for another five years. Edit: I consider the fall of the Soviet Union as the year the Berlin Wall came down, even though, technically, the Soviet Union didn't end for another couple years.
Saw 2001 in grade school , read the book when I was a teenager , read 2010 when it was published , saw the movie years later . For me that's the whole package The films are great but at heart I'm a book guy .
Same here. I was excited when it was announced that 2010 was being produced. But I must say the final novel in the series...3001...was a big disappointment. I found out later that Clarke was just fulfilling a book contract obligation, and boy did it show.
Thank you for reacting to this Jen. There are so few reactions to this movie (even from people who've reacted to 2001) and this movie deserves more love. 2010 is one of (imo) the most underrated sequels ever made and easily one of my favorite sci-fi movies of the 80s. While it's certainly not as good as 2001, it has its own voice and way of doing things. The acting is top notch, the music is terrific (though 2001 is magical in the music department lol) and while the SFX are good, some of it doesn't age too well which is one of the only knocks against it. While I would recommend reading the other two novels (2061 and 3001) just be aware they fall off in quality after 2010 and the story gets, wild lol Like legit crazy pants at some points :D
Wow .. such life changing wisdom ... my life is now complete .. and i will die a happy man knowing that the fundamental meaning of life has just been answered by the profound knowledge you have just posted
I love David Shire's score for '2010: The Year We Make Contact' with menacing chords when one sees Jupiter or the Monolith (or Monoliths) and then very aspirational music during the 'New Worlds' sequence. :)
@@AlanCanon2222, yes, David Shire composed 67 scores for various movies and TV series which is really impressive including his scores for 'The Hindenburg' (1975) and the original 'The Taking of Pelham One Two Three' (1974), and two tracks for the 'Saturday Night Fever' (1977) soundtrack that did so well (It went 16X Platinum and therefore 16 million albums were sold), he never technically had to work ever again thanks to the residuals he received. Haha!
I know I said in a previous post that I thought I liked this one even better but I get what you are saying, and I have to agree. The first was and IS a classic for good reason. It was a shattering movie for the time, both in the style, the content, and the effects. It was poetry, and that part didn't even come close to being surpassed. That being said, if you are going to do a sequel to such a movie, I think you either have to surpass all those things, which is virtually impossible, because those perfect storms of skill, timing, and art rarely coincide to make new paradigms, and you can't just force another out of the tin. Or, you do what they did very nicely here. They respected the original, and came up with a story and narrative that did not try to compete with it, that lives in that universe, but just tries to be a humbly good story. And you throw in some marvelous actors, and some great scenes, and a few surprises. They did that well here. I really enjoyed the whole Russian vs United States vs Scientists and Humans trying to be their best regardless of the politics. It was a nice sub plot that made the whole thing even more dramatic. And I liked that they did what they tried to do in the first one. Create more questions than answers. The mystery remains. Databyter
It's a fantastic sequel and is definitely more approachable than 2001. I have to be in the right mood to watch 2001 (which is one of my favorites), but I can watch 2010 anytime.
Arthur C. Clark co-wrote 2001 (the movie) with Kubrick, and he wrote the 2001 novel. In that novel he explained why HAL did what he did with the same explanation given in the 2010 novel - and this movie: HAL was ordered to lie about Discovery's true mission, so he got paranoid and got stuck in a logic loop and ended up killing the crew. So this idea that the question of why HAL did what he did in 2001 was never this big mystery - as pop culture portrayed it - if you had read the 2001 book.
I totally agree with you, '2001: A Space Odyssey' is more than a film, '2010: The Year We Make Contact' is a great Sci-Fi film, but it's nowhere near the original.
This was a great movie. It was a completely different movie. I love that they answered the obvious questions, while leaving the more existential questions up in the air. And I love the explanation as to why HAL malfunctioned. And yes, he had a great redemption.
34:44 Last little Easter Egg: David Bowman asks HAL to turn the AE-35 antenna towards Earth…the antenna that HAL claimed was malfunctioning in “2001” to start off the whole mess.
When "2010" - the book - was released, I read it, and sent a remarkably impudent multi-page letter to Arthur C. Clarke. Among the things I wrote, I told him: "In '2001: A Space Odyssey', you asked some very timeless questions. In '2010: Odyssey Two', you offered some very '80s answers..." He responded that my letter was food for thought, and that I should wait until "2061: Odyssey Three". (Though he gave no indication of what I was waiting FOR...) I remember asking what role the Jupiter intelligence's creation of the Star Child played in all this. Was the Star Child's purpose only to be a harbinger of the new order of our solar system? Seemed like a lot of showboating when a simple announcement card would have done the trick... Odyssey Three was a forgettable sci-fi adventure story as I recall. There was no exploration or exploits of "The Star Child"; no postulation on its (our) future... Almost like he was trying to move away from that... smdh
Fun observation. The opening scene with the sunrise over the VLA (Very Large Array) radio telescopes with the mountains in the background is actually a sunset run in reverse since the light effect over the mountains only happens with the Mount Crosby to the west of the telescopes.
Ok, so love it or hate it? As good as 2001? Better? Worse? Sound off below!
* If you missed me getting my mind blown in 2001 check it out! th-cam.com/video/DAp7dcMYXSA/w-d-xo.html
SCI FI Playlist: th-cam.com/play/PLQHhQlj8i5doQmNbYogcJTYZkxhGMHpah.html
I love them both, but they are different kinds of movies...I like them both like I like both pizza and cherry pie.
Luv them both but I am partial to 2001! No shade at 2010 but I do luv an Original! HAL made me say that! 😂
I like it, it's a good sci-fi movie in fact better than most. Is it 2001? NO! 2001 made us change what we thought movies could be. It's like Blackbird by the Beatles, great song I really love it, is it Stairway to Heaven by Led Zeppelin? No, but is it really fair to compare much to Stairway? And note, I know that Stairway is WAY overplayed and there are other Zeppelin songs I'd usually rather hear, but if you watch a reactor who's never heard it before, it'll bring you back to the first time you heard Stairway and the whole WHOA! moment you experienced then.
I actually preferred this to "2001" - great science fiction, doesn't put me to sleep like "2001" tends to, fantastic effects and acting. The book is also one of my favorites.
It's a shame we never got part three. 2061.
I grew up during the cold war. I watched 2010 while still living under the shadow of the threat of global nuclear annihilation. The movie's message about overcoming petty national political differences hit harder than any milleenial could even imagine. It gave us the permission to dream about about a future where things MIGHTbe okay.
Never thought we'd end up right back there again.
Well said, I too saw this at the movies, it was amazing.
Yeah kids these days have no idea how good they have it. Living during the Cold War with the specter of nuclear war on the back of people's minds was scary times.
Red Dawn was better 😂❤😂
@@Serai3we aren't back to the cold war. Don't let power hungry politicians and drama based fear monger journalism make you feel that way. Putin isn't an ideologue and the US and Europe are afraid pansies.
Does it compare? No. Is it an excellent film? yes. It is hard to compare to one of the most influential movies ever made.
Well said, and totally true.
“Space cuddle!” See its comments like that that make us love your reactions.
2001 is poetry. 2010 is prose. They are both very good.
Well said.
Certainly a worthy sequel. HAL deserved his redemption arc.
I think that the book is worthy, but this movie is kind of a cheap knockoff sequel when compared to the original. But It is not as bad as "the queen of damned x interview of vampire"
I'm a fan of Kubrick, but referring to 2010 as a cheap knock off is silly. It is definitely a product of its time, but so is 2001.
@@alexandretorres5087 While he was writing the screenplay in 1983, Hyams (in Los Angeles) began communicating with Clarke (in Sri Lanka) via the then-pioneering medium of e-mail using Kaypro II computers and direct-dial modems. They discussed the planning and production of the film almost daily using this method, and their informal, often humorous correspondence was published in 1984 as The Odyssey File. As it focuses on the screenwriting and pre-production process, the book terminates on February 7, 1984, just before the movie is about to start filming, though it does include 16 pages of behind-the-scenes photographs from the film.[5][6] Clarke's preface offers a gleeful, elaborate primer on the use of electronic mail. The Odyssey File is available in its entirety on the Internet Archive.[7] (Wikipedia)
@@fastertove Agreed. The two aren't even comparable, as they have different objectives, styles, vision...everything but the source.
@@BouillaBased Isn't the source kind of different with "2010: The Year We Make Contact" being made after its book?
I always liked this movie. But its a different style of movie than 2001. Much like how different "Aliens" was to "Alien". Both are excellent movies, but they are not the same kind of movie.
2010 is much more Arthur C. Clarke than "Kubrick". It's truer to Clarke's vision. 2001 is a masterpiece of filmmaking that used Arthur's book as a launching pad.
Book and movie was made at the same time. They launched each other if anything.
That is a VERY Apt Comparison.
I could not agree more. Just like _Alien_ is a masterpiece of Suspense and _Aliens_ is a masterpiece of Action so to this sequel doesn't try to recreate the lightning in a bottle which was _2001: A Space Odyssey._ Instead, Peter Hymas presents a mystery or better yet a murder mystery where we know _Who did it._ But we don't know why. I think it is brilliant that Hymas didn't try to over-reach. He provided a satisfying answer to the mystery of HAL and he fed our imaginations when it comes to the monolith and what it's all really about. I do not think Hymas could have made a better sequel.
@j.kevvideoproductions.6463 yeah the original books were more hard science fiction/techno thrillers
When the conversation is taking place in front of the White House, there is an older man sitting on the bench to the left of the screen. That man is Arthur Clark, the author of the original 2001 novel and co-writer of the movie with Kubrick.
Oh so he's in another movie? He's also in the background of the hospital in Bridge Over the River Kwai he and his friend were tapped as extras while they were filming in Ceylon (Sri Lanka)
That is certainly one way to spell his name.
Time Magazine cover. Clarke is US president while Kubric is the soviet premier.
@@blechtic I prefer to spel it Arfur Clarq, sounds close enough.
@@robertc49 Did Arfur See Clarq or not?
The final interaction between HAL and Chandra... "Will I dream?" "I don't know." It gets me every time.
In my head canon, not only is HAL at physical risk, but Chandra's "I don't know" might imply that the disconnection and revival of SAL might not have gone as smoothly as Chandra had hoped.
@@AlanCanon2222 I always assumed he was talking about the possibility of dreams after HAL's death, rather than him being shut down.
That and "Give 'em hell 54th" from Glory. 😭
This movie is an underrated gem. It’s not a masterpiece like 2001 but it’s still a pretty good sequel and it also answers a lot of the questions we had from the last movie.
It may not be a masterpiece but that doesn't stop me from preferring it. This is a more human, character driven film, not the pretentious overblown artsy-fartsy thing that 2001 is. I saw this film in 70mm THX on a giant curved screen and it was awesome!
It was trying to tell a story, not sell psychedelics.
The two movies can’t be meaningfully compared. It’s like comparing Alien to Aliens but worse because 2001 is so unique.
I like this movie but it’s basically a very well made standard movie. I’ve seen this a handful of times but have seen 2001 dozens of times. There’s just something about many of Kubrick’s films that can keep bringing you back.
@@blechtic afaik, no one expected some fans of "Blazing
Saddles" ("no kick from champagne") to enjoy "2001" in that
way, despite the conveniently-placed "intermission."
Well put
Jen (choosing her wardrobe): "My top - it's full of stars!" ✨
😂😂😂❤
Thank you for watching the sequel, Jen. Not enough reactors do. It's a truly underrated film.
Fun fact: Helen Mirren comes by her Russian accent honestly: her father was Russian, and her birth name was Ilyena Lydia Vasilievna Mironov.
And another movie where she uses a Russian accent os in White Nights. :)
Mironova. If male last name ends with "ov", feminine "ova". Same with "iy" & "aya","in"&"ina"😅.
@@zvimur interesting. Then Natasha Romanoff should be Romanov or more accurately: Romanova.
@@Darkstar72SR I think it's the Germans who transformed ov into off. See Beef Stroganoff.
Father rule: -ovna or -evna for girls.
Back when 2010 was being made, I was a special effects apprentice and got to hang out in the studios. The set for Europa was built within a huge building, which was flooded to create the liquid landscape. The camera was on a track and remotely controlled by a computer. Since they needed an extreme focused depth of field, the studio was bathed in bright light and the camera lens was stopped down to a pinhole. Each frame was captured with a very long exposure, so that in the end, the planet surface appeared massive. An amazing amount of time and work went into just that brief final shot...
"Kids" can never appreciate practical effects and the effort that went into making them happen.
2010 succeeds because it doesn't TRY to be 2001. Honestly, that was the best way to go about it. Its a more traditional sci-fi film that does a great job of continuing the story...and a good one at that. While it does solidify some of the mystery from the first film, it still maintains an air of "wth is happening "...even as the ending is rolled out for us. The monoliths and the intelligence behind them is still completely unknown to us. We just get to witness one of their endeavors.
It was based on a book, and so whatever differences there were was intended by Arthur C. Clark.
It explains the mystery that it can while maintaining the ones that can't be explained. Exactly as it should have done.
exactly.
@@n.d.m.515 The book 2010 was actually based off the film 2001.
The novelized screenplay of Space Odyssey was set on or around the moons of Saturn and very different from the film. At least in the first edition, I don't know if Clarke ret-conned the book after the film's release. I believe Clarke and Kubrick's collaboration was a brief and contentious one that basically ended with them ignoring each other while both book and film were still unfinished.
I'm so glad that you were able to react to this sequel. I believe that it's been underrated. I especially enjoyed Roy Schieder being in the lead roll as he is one of my favorite actors. Great reaction, Jen!!
The scenes where HAL asks Dr. Chandra if he will dream, and when he talks to the spirit of Dave Bowman, always make me tear up. This is definitely a worthy sequel to 2001.
But not a mention of the people HAL killed.
@@WhiteCamry oo boo hoo .. did you actually pay any attention to the film ..specifically when they said Hal was forced to lie even though he was programmed not to .. It made him paranoid ....so yeah go figure ..
@@WhiteCamryto me Hal will always be 2001 Space Odyssey version .. not this crap one
@@WhiteCamry oh sure, let's blame the AI for having been rendered psychotic by humans who didn't read the manual. What's next ? Blame cars for drunk drivers ?
@@TheNefastor Blaming guns for the people firing them.
I can't accept that identification without proof"
I understand. It is important that you believe me. Look behind you.
Has got to be the creepiest line in cinema history.
Yeah. The second creepiest would probably be "Affirmative, Dave. I read you."
I don't get creeped out easily by movies at all. But when Floyd turns around and sees Dave just standing there smiling at him, and especially with that music underlining the scene, I always feel goosebumps erupting all over me. Brilliant scene!
When HAL spoke that line, just like Jen, I said "Oh, frig". Well, it wasn't exactly frig
After the one in the forst movie where HAL says that he isn’t going to comply with Dave Bowman’s order. THAT is creept because it is not uttered with any emotional inflection.
@@BigAl53750 *first
Fun fact: In the hospital scene, the cover of the copy of Time magazine that the nurse is reading has the face of Arthur C. Clarke as the American president and Stanley Kubrick as the face of the Soviet premier.
haha. LOVE that. I had never heard it; I so enjoy those bits of cinema lore... thank you!
2010 is a worthy follow-up to 2001. It works. It holds up by being its own thing. Most important to me, the story doesn't suffer, doesn't get lost, in any attempt to continue, or mimic, 2001 cinematically. It's a good film. I'm happy to see it here, and so soon. Thanks! Here we go! :)
And it still manages to keep the tension of the original.
Very good point, it's a very skillful sequel. Makes me appreciate the difference in tone and focus more
Excellent sequel, and there are an additional two books to this series: 2061 & 3001.
It was a chore for me to read 3001. Was very disappointed with it. It read like Clarke was just fulfilling a book contract obligation...which i found out later was exactly the case.
@@montylc2001 Clarke's later books are sadly not that good in general. (During his last 20 years he also mostly only "cowrote" stuff with other author. Meaning that the other author actually did the writing and they only put Clarke's name on the cover.)
2061 is a good read, 3001... not so much
Hmm, I remember 2061. But not 3001. Though I must have read it. No way, I wouldn't have read the last one. Either it was indeed just not so good, or I am simply mixing both books into one. Been decades since I read them, so that might be it. I think I will remedy that.
@@MarijnvdSterre 2061 was the book with very old Heywood Floyd on the Halley Comet. 3001 was Buck Rogers.... ehhh... Frank Pool in the 31st century. (Yep, he didn't die, he was just frozen.)
The problem with 2010 has always been its predecessor. It will always suffer in comparison, and I've always thought that's unfair, as they're two completely different animals. 2010 is a really good sci-fi movie. 2001 is a work of art. That doesn't reflect badly on 2010. But the word "sequel" doesn't really apply here. Trying to make a sequel to 2001 is like trying to make a sequel to a painting in a museum: it's an inherently nonsensical project.
It's more like two stories told about a series of events by two different storytellers.
Well said and I agree. I don't see them as sequels, so much as bookends, in cinema, with art on one end and hard-science reality on the other end. I love the minimalist look of the surface details of one ship, and also love the detailed wall-to-wall buttons and gizmos and just outright naked instrumentation on the other ship. Peter Hyams had a hard job to do and he nailed it.
All that tension before the launch with Hal's ASMR voice was so powerful. I remember the first time I watched this that entire scene gave me goosebumps.
The moment when HAL starts speaking I always smile, because I'm so happy about that.
Agreed. That moment wouldn't have been so powerful, if HAL had a different voice. So glad that Douglas Rain was able to reprise his role.
@@JJ_W Funny thing, in the book, they never restore HAL's vocal abilities, and he communicates with words on a screen. But they just knew for the movie, that the iconic HAL voice needed to come back.
Don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but the voice of SAL is an uncredited Candice Bergen. You probably aren't familiar with her, but she was a popular actress in the 80s. She was the lead in the series Murphy Brown.
Wow, did not know that! I was wondering who did the voice, it's so intriguing and, like HAL's, is also really creepy at the same time. Btw, Bergen as an actor is really good. (Was? Is she still around? I don't know this either.)
@@lennyvalentin6485 She's still around.
She was also little sister to a ventriloquist dummy named Charlie.
@@AnOldYoungGuy Cool! Gob less! :)
@@lennyvalentin6485The Sand Pebbles is a must watch as well.
Bergen, Steve McQueen, Richard Attenborough, Mako, Simon Oakland
The initial spacewalk to the Discovery is one of my favorite parts. Max is such a bro to Dr. Curnow, reassuring him and helping him overcome his fear, then as soon as they get on board and Max has his own panic attack and Curnow quickly helps to quell his worries.
Also, fun fact, the actor who played Max - Elya Baskin - also plays Mr. Ditkovich (Peter Parker's landlord) in the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films!
One of the nice things about this movie is that we knew so much more about Jupiter and its moons in 1984 than in 1968.
Trivia: 3 Earths could fit in the big red spot ( which is a storm ).
@@treetopjones737 If we regard diameters and depth more than a dozen. But in about 2000-3000 years the storm will peter out and the spot disappear.
@@Avatar2312 More like 20 to 30.
The first four spacecraft to visit Jupiter did flybys in the years between the release of the two movies, namely Pioneer 10 (1973), Pioneer 11 (1974), Voyager 1 (1979), and Voyager 2 (1979).
The voice of SAL is Candice Bergen.
The female Soviet Cosmonaut, (Tanya Kirbuk), is Helen Mirren.
Yeah, in a Russian accent, a flight suit, and command.... 15 year old me was pretty hard smitten. (My first Helen Mirren movie).
And Betty, David Bowman’s widow, seen at 22:25, is played by Mary Jo Deschanel, mother of Emily and Zooey.
@@AlanCanon2222I’d first seen her in “Excalibur,” though it took me a long time to connect the two roles.
She has some Russian ancestors
@@gerstelb She played Donna's mother on Twin Peaks.
“Will I dream?”
“I don’t know…”
This movie made me cry for a computer that knew that it was going to die. Incredible.
"Would you like me to stay with you?" A father ready to die with his child.
Scheider deserved an Oscar just for his silent reaction to the Starchild. chills.
At ~7:15. I remember watching this scene and back in '84 thinking: "A little portable computer you can take with you and use outdoors? That would be really cool if they ever invented that!" Sure enough, 40 years later I'm typing this on my laptop while sitting outside shirtless with my veiny biceps glistening in the sunlight and enjoying a Budweiser juice box (well, not that last part).
Watching and typing on my phone... 😊
Did you catch the Easter Eggs? Arthur C. Clarke feeds the pigeons in front of the White House. He barely made Jen's edit, you see the back of his head at 04:39. And in the hospital, Clarke and Kubrick appear on the cover of Time (25:08) as the leaders of the US and USSR.
One of my favourite moments is where Irina Yakunina climbs into Floyd's sleeping pod during the air-breaking procedure. It's nothing romantic, nothing sexual. It's just one scared human seeking out contact with another scared human so they can hold and comfort each other during a terrifying moment. It's beautiful.
A very good film and underrated. Director Peter Hyams was apprehensive about making it and contacting Kubrick for his blessing who said he was happy for Hyams to “go and make your own film”.
Remember going to the cinema to watching it as a kid.
The field of giant radio dishes is the Very Large Array (VLA) in NM. It's a serene place. I visited during the 2012 eclipse, and it was fantastic. Each dish is as big as a pro infield. There were only about 70 people, including experts for the VLA. They took us inside for a very rare tour of the place. They had a signed picture of Jodie Foster from the movie Contact.
Very cool you got a tour. I thought I recognized the VLA. I haven't been there, but I have visited Kitt Peak, AZ.
@@kevinlewallen4778 That place looks even cooler!
@@cshubs It was very cool. But I'd enjoy seeing the VLA at some point. I've also been to Mt. Palomar and Yerkes Observatory. Even got to look at Saturn through the 40" refractor.
In the novel the meeting takes place at the Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico, and the movie was going to be shot there too. But on inspection the location looked so grotty and run-down that it didn't seem right for a high-tech science fiction movie, and they decided to film at the VLA instead. Arecibo did get its moment of glory in the Bond movie Goldeneye, and in Contact with Jodie Foster.
@@JaccovanSchaik Interesting. A real shame the Arecibo dish collapsed in 2020, and my understanding is there are no plans to rebuilt it.
Fun fact: When John Lithgow's character is at the ball field in Interstellar his statement: "Popcorn at a ball game is unnatural, I want a hot dog." is a call-back to the scene in this movie where Curnow and Floyd discuss things of Earth that they miss...
I wondered about that!!!
I like to think that it Roy Scheider had still been alive, he would've been one of Lithgow's buddies at the game for maximum meta.
Good Afternoon, Jen💜and OH how I've been waiting for this one🙏Hoping it does as Well as "2001" has done for You!
Btw Jen, I saw You on CineBinge this morning👋I'm Glad that You can Laugh about such Comments, but I am still Sorry
that You ever have to Read them at all!💔If I may say so: to Know You is to Love You💝and We (All of Us here) do Love
You, Jen...👍
"My God, its full of stars" from Dave Bowman and from me now in regard to Jen's shirt! ⭐⭐⭐
Roy Scheider’s house at the beginning is INSANE. I would love that indoor/outdoor pool type setup.
A book released by Clarke about the time the movie came out called “The Odyssey File” details his email collaboration with Peter Hyams in writing the film. In one bit, Hyams was wailing a bit about the difficulty of the production, swearing that his next picture would be just two guys in a single set, and no fish in the living room.
@@rustygunner8282 Thank you for mentioning this book! As a kid I saw it in a bookstore when this film came out, and I practically read the whole thing right there in the store. Hyams and Clarke had computers + modems installed in their houses in California and Sri Lanka, with the ability to send each other script notes and messages in real time. It was functionally different from a BBS, and as far as I know it was basically the first civilian email system (although only for two users).
@@Johnny_Socko It was very gee-whiz for its time but totally unremarkable today. Gotta love progress.
The ship was the Alexei Leonov - perhaps the most famous cosmonaut save Yuri Gagarin. He was the first to spacewalk. It seems generally agreed he was to be the Soviet's choice for the first lunar landing. He is an underrated historic figure - it was a brilliant move by Arthur C. Clarke to name the Soviet ship after him.
....side note.... this continues the ironic knack of 2001 for projecting entities - Pan Am, Howard Johnson, Bell Telephone (at least in the U.S>) and ultimately even the USSR - that would not actually exist in 2001 ....let alone 2010. 🙄
He also commanded (in 1975) the Soviet half of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, and drew portraits of his American counterparts, in space, for them to take home, much as Dave drew portraits of his comrades on Discovery. Alexei Leonov was a beloved figure on both sides of the Iron Curtain, and this Kentucky boy cried buckets of tears when he recently passed away. A cosmonaut Van Cliburn in reverse.
Hey, that's really cool stuff. Thanks, did not know! And yeah, the Pan-Am, Bell etc stuff is quirky. Like, the first speaking character we meet in the original "2001" movie, the very stiff, formal, 1960s way of talking to his child over the video telephone thing in the original movie dates that production more than anything else, including Pan-Am not existing anymore etc. Almost nobody in the actual year 2001 would bother to say the words "telephone call". :)
Another interesting (admittedly in a very Sci-Fi nerd-y kind of way) tidbit is that the overall shape of the spaceship Alexei Leonov, including its rotating artificial gravity section, also inspired the basic shape of the Omega Class destroyer capital ships of the Earthforce Alliance in 1990s TV series "Babylon 5". :)
@@AlanCanon2222 Interesting. Thanks for sharing!
The design language of the Leonov in this movie was a strong influence for the Earth space ships in the TV Show Babylon 5. One of the Discovery-1's spacesuits from this film also ended up with a Hollywood costume rental company where it then showed up in a very pivotal set of 3 episodes of that same TV Show. We know the spacesuit was from 2010, because when production on 2001 wrapped, Kubrick famously had all sets, props, and wardrobe destroyed. He'd seen other famous Sci-fi movie props get recycled into other productions and felt that 2001 was too important of a film for that to happen to. So everything you see in 2010 is a meticulous recreation based on what was seen in the original film and archival production photos.
@@radwolf76 The design for the Leonov interiors was done by Syd Mead, who also did some design work for Tron, Blade Runner (the police spinner was all his), and Aliens. Also, referring to the original thread starter, Arthur C. Clarke had also met Leonov in person during an international space conference.
I'm pretty sure Roy Scheider wears those sunglasses in all his movies.
Probably, I saw Bruce Willis in the 4 Seasons Bali twenty years ago and he wears a vest on holiday
And says, "That's some bad hat, Harry" a lot.
@@vilefly Let Polly do the printing, HAL
I love the ending of this where it says we’re only tenants on this earth, then shoots billions of years in future on Europa where the same thing is happening all over again.
I don't think it's billions. Probably under 20,000 years.
It is implied in the last two books how long the time skip is on Europa..
@@johnpooky84 Because the epilogue chapter in the novel is called "20,001."
@@johnpooky84 WHY even that long???
@@johnpooky84the development of vegetation on Europa is decades and beings develop quickly as well. There is a reason which you found out in the subsequent novels .
Blows my mind this movie is 40 years old.
Prepare to have your mind blown again....I'm 40 years old!
(*Evil laugh at having caused a second cranial catastrophe*)
Ok that did just blow my mind. I went to the premiere of this flick when it came out in high school; still have my ticket stub and Marvel comics adaptation, lol. I even have the special effects mag talking about the special effects in the movie. Fourty years ago you say? :(
@@chefskiss6179 *Forty
Saw it when it came out at the cinema while at university, 40 years!
Im 46.
In the novel, as they are about to board Discovery for the first time, one guy warns the other not to go after the ship's cat. They then argue over what idiot picked that movie to watch on the trip. You can probably guess what movie they were talking about.
In 2061, Clarke has two characters reference a movie where neither one can remember the title, "What was it? Space Wars 2000?"
Yeah. I think the ship's cat thing was an Alien reference.
@@AlanCanon2222 I don't recall that one, but in Clarke's novel "The Ghost of the Great Banks" (about an attempted raising of the wreck of the Titanic) one of the subs with its mechanical arms reminds a character of a space pod in some sci-fi movie the name of which "he could not remember."
The third novel, 2076 has a whole conversation involving Star Wars that's pretty funny.
The special makeup here was done by Michael Westmore (same guy who went on to do the makeup on Star Trek later). One day, he and Keir Dullea walked to lunch together after applying the makeup, when a guy stopped them and shouted out "Damnit, are you the old guy from 2001?" Dullea just smiled and nodded. Westmore was pretty proud that he matched everything so closely, given that reference material was hard to come by (a lot was destroyed except the original movie negatives and prints).
I love the character writing for HAL, he's not your typical murder AI who just hates humans he was put in an impossible situation and did something that's cruel to a human mind but makes perfect sense to him.
If you create a logic error in a logic driven system, the system fails
A completely unappreciated sequel. Love this movie
The sulphur is from the volcanic activity on Io.
There was a great line in the book that I don't remember if it made it into the movie or not...
They get to Discovery and the one guy says to Lithgow, ""Whatever happens... don't go after the cat."
Lithgow looks at him and says, "I want to speak to the guy who thought that movie would be appropriate for this mission's entertainment library."
Someone put a copy of Alien in the entertainment media library. Lol
Hal has a redemption arc don’t blame the computer blame the chimpanzee at the keyboard . . .
If u watch my outro I say I liked the Hal redemption arc...
"It can only be attributable....to human error..."
@@leftcoaster67 computers are funny that way.
PEBKAC: Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair.
@erikbjelke4411 error code: one-dee-ten-tee
Many people didn't understand why HAL did what he did, so it was good to explain its reasons, that it wasn't really a villan, it was a human error in the end.
I love this sequel, and I think that the other two books, 2061 and 3001 could have been great movies too.
Something amazing about 2001 is the look of it, how futuristic it was, and in this case you can see it in a simple detail like the screens we can see on the control panels. In 2001 the screens were completely flat, like a tablet or any kind of flat screen now. We can see Bowman and Poole watching BBC's news on "tablets" while they have dinner, amazing !! In this movie we see tv screens from the eighties, tube screens, like the tv sets we had in our homes.
2001 is the best sci fi movie ever... but 2010 was a very good and interesting sequel.
Ren and Stimpy’s “Space Madness” is actually pretty funny
Agreed!
Must...have...chocolate covered ice cream bar!😂
The jolly, candylike button!
I LOVE LOVE LOVE this movie. I actually watched it before I saw 2001 when I was at that perfect age of 14 or 15. Also is largely why I absolutely adore Roy Schneider.
That laugh he gives when he checks Discovery's orbit.
One of the first Sci-Fi films my late Dad watched with me ❤
That's a warm memory to have. Thanks for sharing.
Can we talk about how Keir Dullea basically _did not age_ in the 16 years between these two movies? Dude looked just like his 31-year-old self at 47, it's damned uncanny. I mean, it's fortuitous, too, since Dave is basically non-corporeal now, but damn.
Good makeup and good aging?
Love this movie. Very underrated sequel, which wisely does not try to copy the style of 2001, as nothing or no one could. Have been waiting a while for someone to do a reaction to this. Hope you like it.
I long awaited this sequel. When it finally came out it wasn't what I expected. The feel of it was just different. Not a bad movie, just different. You can tell it's a movie from the 80's, not the 60's.
Keir Dullea, the actor who played Dave Bowman, changed remarkably little in the 16 years between 2001 and 2010 (odd way of putting that sentence, heh). They did an excellent job of recreating the sets, makeup and wardrobe from 2001 for this movie too, and I think did a decent job of bridging the eras of a retrofuturist 1960s to a now retrofuturist 1980s, even though canonically there's only 9 years separating the two movies. The shame is, Arthur C. Clarke wrote two more books in this series and who knows if they'll ever become movies: 2061 and 3001. The benefit there, of course, is that enough time will have passed for there to be good reason for a lot to look different for a possible 2061 movie, and canonically it's really close to that amount of time to the actual time that's passed since 2010 came out in theaters. One can only hope if they do make it that they don't CGI it to death and use many practical sets and effects.
Funny thing is Keir Dullea's old man makeup pretty accurately predicted his current appearance
They did ok reproducing the sets. Only thing that was glaringly wrong to me were the cathode ray tube screens on Discovery. In 2001 they were flat screens, in 2010 they were obviously curved tubes. I'm sure the movie budget had a lot to do with it.
@@montylc2001 For 2001, they actually used film projectors inside the little screens to make them look like monitors.
Sadly 3001 contradicts 2001, while in 2001 Dave makes the next evolutionary step, in 3001 he is just part of an alien AI that was placed to monitor the human evolution.
@@wolf310ii From memory 3001, I read it years ago, made the aliens more ruthless and less benevolent
...I think its a great sequel, Jen... I didn't have any expectation on this one to be able to get near Kubrick's masterpiece, but it did develop the story, from human perspective... they also couldn't resolve or understand, what the monolith is, or the intelligence behind it, so the mystery stayed protected and didn't get trivialized...
Peter Hyams did contact Kubrick, when he was considered to direct the sequel, and asked for advice, and maybe also 'sanctification' by the master, so to speak, but Kubrick suggested, that Hyams just makes it his own work, and gave it his blessings - the respect and adoration to Kubrick was immense, and no one expected Hyams to properly follow in his footsteps... considering all this, I think he did a good job. I love it as a sequel, and yet: it can't touch Kubrick's masterpiece... 👾🌈🌟
2010 will always feel like half sci-fi, half horror to me. This is a movie I grew up with. As a kindergartener, the hospital scene creeped me out and the spacewalk scene literally gave me nightmares. I didn't see 2001 one until my late teens. Afterwards, the "...I was David Bowman... Look behind you" really got my hairs standing on end.
I love it. Seen this as a kid, in the 90's. It altered my perception of the universe, even more so than Star Wars or Star Trek. Bless Arthur C. Clark!
I was 15 when 2010 hit theaters in 1984. 2001 had been my favorite book/movie since age 10 or so (read the book when I was 8). My dad liked it too so it was probably a family outing with young friends invited. This was in Louisville, bourbon capital of Kentucky, where the Louisville Cardinals practice and the Kentucky Derby (that "big, big horse race") are run, so of course there was laughter and applause when Floyd described our native land to Kirbuk.
As Roger Ebert wrote, once we admit 2001 as the inimitable premier work of art that it is, 2010 stands on its own as a fine movie. I love that it was written by Clarke, who loved showcasing the nuts and bolts of futuristic space tech (you know, like we have now, inspired by visionaries like him).
Whatever flaws the film might have, for me it's redeemed by the utter sincerity with which it was made, including A-game performances from Scheider, Mirren, Lithgow, Balaban, Rain, Dullea, and Baskin.
On the stop motion animation of the "Balut" (shield): yes it does look stop motion animated, but I think it makes it look "crinkly", like inflating a folded mylar toy balloon. There are little discontinuous pops as the fabric unfolds.
This movie's artwork and science background, especially on Io and Europa, were enhanced by the data and photography recently returned by the twin Voyager 1 and 2 missions, launched in 1977, which are still both operating, and returning useful scientific data from interstellar space, at the time of this writing (2024). "ALL THESE WORLDS...."
Oh yeah, 15 year old me was pretty smitten by Helen Mirren in a flight suit and Russian accent.
Excalibur...
@@JnEricsonx I'm still too young to see that.
It has been said -- and not just by me -- that there are only two audiences for sci-fi: those that prefer _2001: A Space Odyssey_ (1968) and those that prefer _2010: The Year We Make Contact_ (1984).
Surely it is not because of the respective directors. Peter Hyams made it a condition that he would have to secure Kubrick´s blessing to do _2010,_ else he would not do it. Indeed, he states that he stood at attention for all the two hour conversation he had with him, and had nothing but positive feelings of the man and the call. Hyams himself co-wrote, directed, produced, _and_ filmed it.
Kubrick also co-wrote, directed, produced, _and_ filmed (but usually just the handheld shots) most of his films, and well as preferring to work on set with only five crewmembers. This director, notorious for rebuffing all those who sought to capitalize on his works (going so far as to destroy most of the props and burning all unused footage), facilitated the fellow native New Yorker Peter Hyams.
_2001_ is the film of an open-ended plot, of stylistics and innuendo, mystical import, realized by the slow process of considered camerawork and SFx -- usually done over and over until he was satisfied, to the frustration of all those who worked for him. On the other hand, _2010_ has its explicable linear plot, close-ended plot, realized by the slow process of considered camerawork and SFx -- until the budget demanded Hyams move on.
While ostensibly based on the same “universe“ of A.C. Clarke´s published books, even this is not technically so: Kubrick would not allow Clarke to see the developing film or publish his eponymous book until after the movie was completed; therefore the book is really just Clarke´s vision.
_2010_ is not the superior work -- it´s just not; however, it is often the more favored work, as mentioned, because like a dense work of literature, _2001_ requires _work_ to appreciate. I can understand this, but find _both_ intellectual _and_ aesthetic fulfillment in the process and revelation.
I love this movie. The probe scene to Europa is so tense and the space howls add a great haunting mood. Love the scene where Bowman appears on the Discovery and “visits” his wife and mother too. It added such an eerie mood to the movie.
Sadly his exit kills Max. :(
17:18 - Minor nitpick, but there shouldn't have been any pods left. Of the three, the first went spinning off into space when Hal used it to attack Poole, the second was used by Bowman to recover Poole's body, but was lost when Bowman had to blow the hatch because Hal wouldn't open the pod bay doors, and the final one was used by Bowman to encounter the monolith, from which he never returned.
2010 is a solid contemporary sci fi movie. 2001 is an experience.
I always loved the friendship between John Lithgow character and the Russian bear and how they calm each other.
I really like '2010' and it is highly underrated, but yes, it can't compare to '2001'; it just can't, but remember too, this movie was released in 1984 during the Cold War when nuclear war was on many people's minds [my mind too as a teenager back then having watched movies like 'WarGames' (1983) and the TV movie 'The Day After' (1983)] and this movie reflected upon those very real concerns (but falsely assumed the Soviet Union would still exist and the same Cold War tensions even in 2010).
I don't know if young people today can actually relate to what it was like living back during the cold war days. So while Russia is again seen as "the bad guys" here in the West (and for the record, I would like to attest that it's well deserved), they're more like petty, comically inept, typically drunken small-time hoodlums now, compared to the menacing, forceful entity they were seen as back then, basically up to its point of collapse.
Btw... Another (very interesting) story which features a now-fictional future Soviet Union is Greg Bear's 1985 novel "Eon". ...Which is pretty damn epic, by the way. I highly recommend, if the genre interests you.
When this came out I was 15. The 'cold war' was in full effect, so much so that some of the most popular hit songs on the radio at the time were all about nuclear war (Two Tribes, Had A Dream, Land of Confusion etc), and us kids were scared sh*tless. I recall like it was just a moment ago - during one social studies class in school, our awesome yet usually reserved and stick-to-the-program teacher Mr. Harding suddenly broke character and stopped talking about the topic at hand, looked around at the students and nervously asked, "How many of you believe there will be a nuclear war in our lifetime?". We were stunned. This is a class of 35, all different little usual junior-high cliques represented, and slowly all hands rose. We all looked around at each other and all the distinctions we applied to ourselves to be cool and separate just vanished. The class was suddenly a graveyard. And I don't mean 'as quiet as', I mean... 'This classroom will be our graveyard'. I've never felt this since then. He looked terrible. After a blank look to the air in front of him he dropped his head, sighed, and got back to teaching the task at hand, and we resumed normalcy, and our little cliques went on disliking each other for petty crap. Sanity prevailed. We had no "The Day After", and we all grew up and had deep, deep anxiety complexes and this is where your generation sprouted from. Um. Great movie! The Russian/USA tension is 100% legit. A non-exaggeration. It's not Godfather II status, but it's tiers above Empire Strikes Back sequality.
Wow, what a story, thanks for sharing that. I have a similar one: One day in 10th grade (so 1984, the year of this movie) I walked into my biology class, and a classmate I didn't know all that well pulled me down into the chair next to him and said, "You've gotta hear this!" And he put his Walkman headphones over my ears and pressed Play. It was the intro to the extended version of "Two Tribes", where a radio announcer's voice says calmly, "In the event of a nuclear attack, mine will be the last voice you hear." And then the voice proceeds to talk about what to expect -- really grim stuff, but told in disaffected way.
My classmate said, "Isn't that the creepiest thing you've ever heard?!" He was excited about how cool it sounded on the album, but also creeped-out by it. This guy was not a friend (nor was he an enemy, to be fair), he was just a classmate who just had to share what he'd just heard with the nearest human. So yes, a lot of us bonded over existential dread in the 1980s.
I agree with what you said about 2010 vs 2001. Nothing will ever match the masterpiece that is the original. But I still appreciated 2010 because it answered so many questions that were left ambiguous in 2001.
I had what can only be described as a transformative and revelatory experience after watching 2001. Nothing has affected me the way 2001 has to this day after first watching it decades ago. It's difficult to describe what that effect was. But I gained a heightened consciousness from the film. I didn't feel like I was the same person before and after watching it.
Seeing and feeling the vastness and wonderment of the cosmos. The brilliance of creation and of being. The majesty of evolution. The preciousness of intelligent life. And the life-affirming glory of interdependence and existence - were all things 2001: A Space Odyssey gave me that I didn't have before.
Loved seeing your reaction to it because I think you felt some of the same. And thanks for your reaction to 2010 because not many follow up with it after watching 2001. If you want to explore more of the world, A Space Odyssey is a book series (including audiobooks on YT and elsewhere too).
I hope one day someone makes films out of the other books in the series as well. Arthur C. Clarke was a master of sci-fi stories that we need to see more of on the big screen.
Great reaction!
It varied from the book in that the book didn't have any political drama, and the Chinese had also launched an exploratory team in the book.
2001 was a legendary movie, but while it was less impressive than the original, I liked 2010 more for the story that was more complete. 2001 was a movie of questions without any answers, which was somewhat unsatisfying. 2010 gave us some answers, but not all, but it was more satisfying.
It's not the masterpiece that 2001 is but it's still pretty good. Not enough reactors have done this one after reacting to 2001.
Never saw the OG, but I grew up on this one.
Hearing 'Something wonderful...' Got me. First viewing memories came back.
The large monolith in Jupiter orbit was a gateway that Dave Bowman went through. It was "full of stars" on the other side of the galaxy...
6:22 Mark! Jen, greetings to you! 🖖 About this movie, I saw it when it was new in 1984 at the "McSwain Theater" in Ada, Oklahoma, with some "ECU" college friends. The first movie, to me, still looks like "The Future" and this movie, to me, looks like 1984! 😮
But anyway, the dolphins! 🐬 Hehe! Roy goes on to play the captain of "SeaQuest DSV" for "NBC" and "Ensign Darwin" is one of the crew! He's a dolphin! 😊
Thorough Jen Murray! Of course you have to react to 2010. I would have been disappointed if you didn't. Your enthusiasm for these films is appreciated. Thank you Jen 😊
Thanks Jen, it’s been a while since I’ve seen 2010. I like your reactions, you always react to the music, which unfortunately gets missed by many reactors on YT. This story, while not as epic, still has a really nice message, some nail biting, and few thrills along the way. I really like your interest in SciFi, and was happily surprised by your reactions once again!
Keep in mind. When this movie was made, the USSR still existed.
Only for another five years.
Edit: I consider the fall of the Soviet Union as the year the Berlin Wall came down, even though, technically, the Soviet Union didn't end for another couple years.
@@jodonnell64it didn’t really matter. The 3 books were written way before the movies. So there is that.
The guy on the other bench in the background outside the White House is Arthur C Clarke.
If memory serves, Dana Elcar played McGyver's handler.
Jen, you truly appreciate the gravity of both 2001 & 2010.
You also have wonderful hair.
Saw 2001 in grade school , read the book when I was a teenager , read 2010 when it was published , saw the movie years later . For me that's the whole package The films are great but at heart I'm a book guy .
I read the books, too. Clarke is a favorite of mine.
Same, I read the books before i saw the movies.
Same here. I was excited when it was announced that 2010 was being produced. But I must say the final novel in the series...3001...was a big disappointment. I found out later that Clarke was just fulfilling a book contract obligation, and boy did it show.
0:12 In movie 2001, the Monolith was actually discovered in the Tycho crater which is not in the Sea of Tranquility.
Thank you for reacting to this Jen. There are so few reactions to this movie (even from people who've reacted to 2001) and this movie deserves more love. 2010 is one of (imo) the most underrated sequels ever made and easily one of my favorite sci-fi movies of the 80s. While it's certainly not as good as 2001, it has its own voice and way of doing things. The acting is top notch, the music is terrific (though 2001 is magical in the music department lol) and while the SFX are good, some of it doesn't age too well which is one of the only knocks against it.
While I would recommend reading the other two novels (2061 and 3001) just be aware they fall off in quality after 2010 and the story gets, wild lol Like legit crazy pants at some points :D
Bowmans widow is played by Mary Jo Deschanel, mother of actresses Zoey Deschanel(New Girl) and Emily Deschanel(Bones)
She also played John Glenn's stuttering wife in The Right Stuff.
Wow .. such life changing wisdom ... my life is now complete .. and i will die a happy man knowing that the fundamental meaning of life has just been answered by the profound knowledge you have just posted
I love David Shire's score for '2010: The Year We Make Contact' with menacing chords when one sees Jupiter or the Monolith (or Monoliths) and then very aspirational music during the 'New Worlds' sequence. :)
All the President's Men (1974) is a good one of his, too.
@@AlanCanon2222, yes, David Shire composed 67 scores for various movies and TV series which is really impressive including his scores for 'The Hindenburg' (1975) and the original 'The Taking of Pelham One Two Three' (1974), and two tracks for the 'Saturday Night Fever' (1977) soundtrack that did so well (It went 16X Platinum and therefore 16 million albums were sold), he never technically had to work ever again thanks to the residuals he received. Haha!
The novels went even further with 2 further sequels. In 3001 they find frank poole frozen in space and revive him
I know I said in a previous post that I thought I liked this one even better but I get what you are saying, and I have to agree. The first was and IS a classic for good reason. It was a shattering movie for the time, both in the style, the content, and the effects. It was poetry, and that part didn't even come close to being surpassed. That being said, if you are going to do a sequel to such a movie, I think you either have to surpass all those things, which is virtually impossible, because those perfect storms of skill, timing, and art rarely coincide to make new paradigms, and you can't just force another out of the tin. Or, you do what they did very nicely here. They respected the original, and came up with a story and narrative that did not try to compete with it, that lives in that universe, but just tries to be a humbly good story. And you throw in some marvelous actors, and some great scenes, and a few surprises. They did that well here. I really enjoyed the whole Russian vs United States vs Scientists and Humans trying to be their best regardless of the politics. It was a nice sub plot that made the whole thing even more dramatic. And I liked that they did what they tried to do in the first one. Create more questions than answers. The mystery remains. Databyter
"Space Cuddle!"...lol 😆
Ashamed to say I didn't know this sequel existed until you added it as upcoming. Another one to add to the ever growing watch list, thanks Jen!
It's a fantastic sequel and is definitely more approachable than 2001. I have to be in the right mood to watch 2001 (which is one of my favorites), but I can watch 2010 anytime.
Oh, this movie reminded me... I want Jen to watch Blue Thunder. 😊
Arthur C. Clark co-wrote 2001 (the movie) with Kubrick, and he wrote the 2001 novel. In that novel he explained why HAL did what he did with the same explanation given in the 2010 novel - and this movie: HAL was ordered to lie about Discovery's true mission, so he got paranoid and got stuck in a logic loop and ended up killing the crew. So this idea that the question of why HAL did what he did in 2001 was never this big mystery - as pop culture portrayed it - if you had read the 2001 book.
Top 3 of my favourite movies, so for me, better than 2001. Not that 2001 is bad, but those first and last 15 minutes are a tough watch.
I totally agree with you, '2001: A Space Odyssey' is more than a film, '2010: The Year We Make Contact' is a great Sci-Fi film, but it's nowhere near the original.
it wasn't meant to be a remake of 2001 ...
This was a great movie. It was a completely different movie. I love that they answered the obvious questions, while leaving the more existential questions up in the air. And I love the explanation as to why HAL malfunctioned. And yes, he had a great redemption.
34:44 Last little Easter Egg: David Bowman asks HAL to turn the AE-35 antenna towards Earth…the antenna that HAL claimed was malfunctioning in “2001” to start off the whole mess.
Except the AE-35 wasn't the _antenna._ It was an electronic module inside the communication system.
@@wwoods66 Yeah, that was a continuity error and a half.
When "2010" - the book - was released, I read it, and sent a remarkably impudent multi-page letter to Arthur C. Clarke. Among the things I wrote, I told him:
"In '2001: A Space Odyssey', you asked some very timeless questions. In '2010: Odyssey Two', you offered some very '80s answers..."
He responded that my letter was food for thought, and that I should wait until "2061: Odyssey Three". (Though he gave no indication of what I was waiting FOR...)
I remember asking what role the Jupiter intelligence's creation of the Star Child played in all this. Was the Star Child's purpose only to be a harbinger of the new order of our solar system? Seemed like a lot of showboating when a simple announcement card would have done the trick...
Odyssey Three was a forgettable sci-fi adventure story as I recall. There was no exploration or exploits of "The Star Child"; no postulation on its (our) future... Almost like he was trying to move away from that... smdh
2001 is a film. Film as in art. 2010 is a movie made as entertainment. That’s how I see it anyway and I like both. But they are different.
Fun observation. The opening scene with the sunrise over the VLA (Very Large Array) radio telescopes with the mountains in the background is actually a sunset run in reverse since the light effect over the mountains only happens with the Mount Crosby to the west of the telescopes.