ALL SCI-FI Forum Index ALL SCI-FI
Nothin' but pure science fiction!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984)

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies from 1970 to 2000
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 7912
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 10:56 pm    Post subject: 2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984) Reply with quote




Fans of the original 2001 tend NOT to be fans of this sequel. But then I'm not sure there are many folks who are NOT fans of the original who ARE fans of 2010! Shocked

2010 is kind of the bastard child who isn't acknowledge by a prim and proper family.

I suspect the problem with those who dislike 2010 is the way it tried to tell a solid "hard science fiction" story, even though it was a misguided attempt to make a sequel to a beloved movie that dealt with concepts which were almost religious in nature.

Please note that I said "almost religious". Wink

In other words, 2001: A Space Odyssey told a story that presented lofty and nebulous concepts about the origins of man and the possibility that we could "evolve" into almost god-like beings. And it made us nervous about the possibility that A.I. computers might decide we were a nuisance and just get rid of us!

2001: A Space Odyssey gleefully left us pondering unanswered questions about the nature of the aliens who planted the monoliths and then helped us leap-frog ahead of evolution and become super-babies who traveled the galaxy inside comfortable bubbles.






Okay, so what was 2010 about?

It proudly cleared up all that confusion by explaining that poor HAL's murderous actions were our fault, and the mysterious aliens were nice guys who just wanted peace on Earth and good will toward men. Very Happy






Unlike 2001 — which ended with a long list of intriguing questions — 2010 ended with a rosy message about how all mankind would suddenly stop waging war on each other just because friendly aliens turned Jupiter in the ultimate "night light", thereby proving that we were not alone in the universe!





Gee, somebody should tell the government that if they released all their secret data which proves UFOs are actually alien space ships, those crazy bastards in the Middle East would stop slaughtering each other and start singing Kumbayah in Arabic! Cool

I gotta admit, listening to that song actually does make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Maybe we should be beaming it out into space to let the aliens know we're not ALL crazy bastards. Very Happy


_____________________________ Kumbayah


___________

_________________
____________
Is there no man on this earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child? (I mean, other than me.)__Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1655

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I found 2010 to be a satisfactory sci-fi yarn on its own merits. I wouldn't expect any sequel to live up to 2001 without Kubrick at the helm. 2010 was simply tying up loose ends that 2001 left for us to speculate over, so any sequel wouldn't be of the same caliber unless it left additional tantalizing mysteries.
_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 7912
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

orzel-w wrote:
2010 was simply tying up loose ends that 2001 left for us to speculate over, so any sequel wouldn't be of the same caliber unless it left additional tantalizing mysteries.

I'm puzzled by your comment. I think the "loose ends" in 2001 are supposed to be unanswered and unanswerable, Kubrick's way of challenging the viewer to explore the questions poised by the movie.

Conversely, 2010 elected to provide practical answers to philosophical questions. I enjoyed it too, but mostly because I prefer hard science fiction to the kind Kubrick did.

I think it would have been a mistake to make a sequel that "left additional tantalizing mysteries". The original presented plenty of those, and just giving us more of the same would have been frustrating — as if the filmmakers couldn't think of a solid story, so they just imitated the first one.

We do agree, however, on this statement.

"I found 2010 to be a satisfactory sci-fi yarn on its own merits."

If 2001 had never been made, and 2010 came out as an original movie instead of a sequel (with a few changes to explain events which preceded the story), I think it would have done pretty well. But as a sequel it was a bit like making Gone With the Wind II.

Hell, we don't WANT to know whether or not Scarlet got Rhett back! Wondering about is the fun part. Cool

_________________
____________
Is there no man on this earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child? (I mean, other than me.)__Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1655

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bud Brewster wrote:
I'm puzzled by your comment. I think the "loose ends" in 2001 are supposed to be unanswered and unanswerable, Kubrick's way of challenging the viewer to explore the questions poised by the movie.

That's why I said a sequel wouldn't be the same caliber unless it left more questions unanswered. It's those unanswered philosophical questions that placed 2001 in a different category than 2010.

It's what prompted 2001 fans to exclaim, "Ooh... deep!"

_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Krel
Starship Pilot


Joined: 15 Dec 2013
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 3:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey guys, you do know that this was made from Clark's sequel novel, right? It was a pretty faithful adaption too.

My problem with the movie, is that the designs didn't even look to be up to the technology levels of 2001, much less nine years of advancement.

David.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1655

PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 5:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Krel wrote:
Hey guys, you do know that this was made from Clark's sequel novel, right? It was a pretty faithful adaption too.

Yes, but Kubrick wasn't so faithful to the original novel. I had to read the book after seeing 2001 to understand what was going on, because Clarke went into detailed explanations.

Krel wrote:
My problem with the movie, is that the designs didn't even look up to be up to the technology levels of 2001, much less nine years of advancement.

Thus, the Ruskie cover story. Very Happy
_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Krel
Starship Pilot


Joined: 15 Dec 2013
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

orzel-w wrote:
Krel wrote:
Hey guys, you do know that this was made from Clark's sequel novel, right? It was a pretty faithful adaption too.

Yes, but Kubrick wasn't so faithful to the original novel. I had to read the book after seeing 2001 to understand what was going on, because Clarke went into detailed explanations.


The source for the movie was Clarke's short story, "The Sentinel". The novel 2001 ASO, was written while the movie was in production. In the movie, they changed the destination from Saturn to Jupiter after they couldn't figure a way to do Saturn's rings convincingly. Laughing Clarke decided to keep the destination as Saturn. This caused a bit of a continuity problem when he wrote 2010.

orzel-w wrote:
Krel wrote:
My problem with the movie, is that the designs didn't even look up to be up to the technology levels of 2001, much less nine years of advancement.

Thus, the Ruskie cover story. Very Happy


That may explain the Russian technology, but it doesn't explain the 40 year retrogression in the American's space suit technology.

David.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scotpens
Mission Specialist


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 409
Location: The Left Coast

PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

orzel-w wrote:
Krel wrote:
Hey guys, you do know that this was made from Clark's sequel novel, right? It was a pretty faithful adaption too.

Yes, but Kubrick wasn't so faithful to the original novel. I had to read the book after seeing 2001 to understand what was going on, because Clarke went into detailed explanations.

With 2001, it wasn't a case of the movie being based on the book or vice versa. Although they began with the same story outline (inspired by Clarke's short story "The Sentinel"), Kubrick's film and Clarke's novel were separate projects.

Krel wrote:
That may explain the Russian technology, but it doesn't explain the 40 year retrogression in the American's space suit technology.

Weren't the space suits in 2010 supposed to be Russian-made as well? The Leonov spacecraft and all the space hardware was of Russian manufacture.

Of course, the Cold War subplot about increasing tensions between the United States and the U.S.S.R. (which wasn't in Clarke's novel) made the movie hopelessly dated barely seven years after it was released.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Krel
Starship Pilot


Joined: 15 Dec 2013
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 5:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

scotpens wrote:

Krel wrote:
That may explain the Russian technology, but it doesn't explain the 40 year retrogression in the American's space suit technology.

Weren't the space suits in 2010 supposed to be Russian-made as well? The Leonov spacecraft and all the space hardware was of Russian manufacture.

As I recall the suits the Americans wore had American emblems and patches, something I don't think the Russians would put on their suits. Also weren't the Russians suits different then the American ones? It has been over a decade since I have seen the movie, so I don't really remember.

I'll have to go take a look over at the "Say Hello Spaceman" site.

David.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 7912
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

Hello, Spaceman member Steve posted this. If he's correct, the spacesuits where not all Russian.


Steve wrote:
Here we have the Russian suit with the lights on the sides of the helmets, and then we have the American suit with the single light at the top.


____________ ___

Although I don't believe it's been stated specifically, I gather that the criticism of the 2010 suits compared to the 2001 suits is that they are much bulkier.

I agree that more advanced spacesuits would be much trimmer than those being used today, and the suits in 2010 look pretty much like the current versions used by NASA. What we should have seen in 2010 would be the same suits shown in 2001, or noticeably improved versions which were even trimmer.

Something like those which were designed for Prometheus perhaps?



After all, the technology shown in 2001 was meant to be a prediction of a future far more advanced than what we actually had in the year 2001 — or even NOW in 2018! So, making any of the technology in 2010 resemble our current technology is seriously missing the point.

As for the idea that the U.S. and Russia would be butting heads in the "future" which 2010 presented, the optimistic climax of the movie was all about how mankind is brought together by the highly visible "gift" the aliens gave us. The serious global conflict which illustrated how badly mankind needed to work together was included in the story to support that plot point.

Hello, Spaceman member John Nowak posted this.

"After a couple of decades of co-operative space missions between Russia and the United States, it's very hard to take some scenes seriously."

Yes, that was true when the movie came out, but there's a new global threat now — a crazy dictator who has cowed his own people completely, mastered the most destructive weapon in history, threatened to reduce America to ashes, and is now making demands to our own rather egotistical president.

In view of current world events, the conflict in 2010 doesn't seem like such a dated notion. However, we should remember that 2001 and 2010 are about a future in which mankind is supposed to be a bit wiser than we are here in the real world.

_________________
____________
Is there no man on this earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child? (I mean, other than me.)__Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1655

PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2018 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

scotpens wrote:
With 2001, it wasn't a case of the movie being based on the book or vice versa. Although they began with the same story outline (inspired by Clarke's short story "The Sentinel"), Kubrick's film and Clarke's novel were separate projects.

Be that as it may, I came away with a better understanding of the movie after reading the book. (Either that or I was completely led astray by the book.)
_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies from 1970 to 2000 All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group