MovieChat Forums > 2010 (1984) Discussion > Does anyone prefer 2010 to 2001?

Does anyone prefer 2010 to 2001?

posted 12 years ago by JohnWelles
83 replies | jump to latest

Yesterday, I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey and 2010: The Year We Make Contact. I have heard a lot of praise for 2001, and hence was expecting something to stand up with the likes of Blade Runner, District 9, etcetera. However, I personally found it to be a cold and frankly dull experience, and while I can appreciate the expertise with which every shot was meticulously framed and placed within the film, I found the design aesthetic (important to me, I like good looking sci-fi) to be more in tune with the old style sets and effects of the 40s-50s with the clean lines and uncluttered, sterile nature of the interiors and models on display. In some sense, I believe this film has dated even worse than 2010 as frankly, with such set designs looking totally devoid of the past 40+ years of space exploration, and where we are likely to go with future space development. Perhaps I just do not like films shot in the style of the silent era?
(The less said about the opening Monkey sequence the better.)

2010 on the other hand, I found to be a much human experience with characters I could actually care about, something I found impossible in 2001 (with he exception of Keir Dullea) also, the cold war subplot, the staple of many of the best sci-fi novels of the era (Eon by Greg Bear for example) I found to be greatly enjoyable. I do appreciate that some people have issues with this, but the same plot elements are in 2001 as well… Also I will admit that I am a huge Syd Mead fan, and thought his work on this film was amazing, although I will concede that the interior of the Leonov was more by way of Alien than anything else.

Does any one else feel the same way about 2010?

[–] HALs_eyeball 12 years ago

There's a place for both 2001 and 2010 side by side. They are different creatures and it's perhaps "wrong" (or is that too strong a word?) to compare them.

2001 is often accused of being "cold" and emotionless. It's important to accept what Kubrick was trying to say with his film. Whole books have been written on the subject, so I'm not going into detail here. For me personally, I see something new every time I watch it - and I have seen it over 80 times!! I'm not saying that makes me an expert, quite the reverse: it shows I have lots to learn! (Although I had to laugh at your "monkey" comment - don't let those crazies on the 2001 board hear you say that!)

2010 is a different kettle of fish altogether. It's a good old roller-coaster of a ride with a clear story telling structure and it attempts to create a realistic vision of what a voyage to Jupiter would be like. In a way, it is shackled by the connection with 2001 and Hyams bravely and wisely decided to give his film a unique identity of its own. It is a good film, don't get me wrong, and I do watch it repeatedly and enjoy it every time. But it does not have any hidden depths. It is what it is: a very well made, well acted and well crafted science-fiction film. And there's nothing to apologise for there!

Its origin and purpose, still a total mystery

[–] mcgill-646-33556 12 years ago

I think you have to look at both movies as separate entities. I'm one of those who think 2001 is the ultimate in science fiction cinema and 2010 is a good ride. What really gets under my skin is that it was decided to use the 'Star Wars' noisy universe for 2010 rather than keeping some sort of continuity with the 2001 silence-in-a-vacuum.

[–] HALs_eyeball 12 years ago

"I think you have to look at both movies as separate entities."

^^ Yes, I agree totally!

4th Doctor: There's no point in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes.

[–] mandeep_basarke 12 years ago

How's that saying go " In Space, no one can hear you scream! "

"Gentlemen, This is a War Room, There's no fighting allowed in Here!"

[–] mcgill-646-33556 12 years ago

Exactly! And I guess (tongue firmly in cheek) most people would think that sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Of course you can hear people scream in space... and rocket exhaust... and shooting stars (or whatever that was that destroyed Max's probe...

I watched 2010 again last night. I enjoyed it, but still think it wouldn't have hurt the movie to borrow more heavily from Stanley's vision of space travel. Especially the aero-braking scenes which I thought, visually, were spectacular.

And here's a thought: If Frank's murder occurred in the 2010 universe, he would he have heard the pod coming for him.

[–] mandeep_basarke 12 years ago

Space is a vacuum where sound doesn't travel, for that you need an medium for the sound to travel in. So with a lack of any medium sound can not travel and therefore nothing can be heard.

"Gentlemen, This is a War Room, There's no fighting allowed in Here!"

[–] gggim25 12 years ago

Love them both.

[–] Sidewindr 8 years ago

Space is actually NOT a vacuum and sound can travel through it .. albeit at VLF..

[–] dawnrunsamok 10 years ago

Thanks. I'm in sincere agreement, the silence of the Void that permeated 2001 was such an insightful and brave choice. It changed modern cinema. Okay, perhaps that's a bit hyperbolic, but just look at how it has polarised viewers for decades, and created a sub-genre technique for filmmakers to endlessly emulate. While 2010 is a masterful film on many levels, the choice to break with the silence was a mistake. And I say that with the full acknowledgement that film is a truly subjective art. That's what makes it so magical.

"Renoir. I once knew a woman who modeled for Renoir. She smelled of paint..." Michel Simon, The Train

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fleischwolf (294) 7 years ago

There's no point in debating taste and if you enjoy this film that's great for you. However I can't comprehend why anyone would think that this forgetable uninspired flick is better than Kubricks timeless masterpiece.

The director: Look, I don't hate on Peter Hyams and following in the footsteps of one of the greatest directors ever and on of the most revered films ever is no enviable task for anyone. But really, he is a worksman director at best. His best work are just ok movies like Capricorn One or Outland, when he's at his worst he produces stinkers like Sudden Death, The Relic or End of Days. But really, to give him the sequel to a film as artistic and sublime as 2001? At least give it to someone like David Lynch or someone like that, there maybe something interesting coming out, not such a run of the mill Hollywood fare.

The Look of the Film: So this is something that's not even up for debate. Kubricks film looks MINDBLOWING even today. The shots look impeccable, totally realistic and still hold up. The merging of the stunning visuals with the classical music is genius and ingrained in the public mind. What did 2010 have? Not much. It really looks dated in its setdesign and the way it's shot. Again apart from the haircuts and some of the womens customs nothing looks 60s in 2001. It's truly a timeless film and a work of art.

The politics: Now, I don't pretend like Kubrick was psychic and foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union, yet is was a stroke of genius to not mention it or the cold war in 2001. We see Russians on the space station and Floyd seems to be on friendly terms with them. He's not sharing secrets with them, like he wouldn't with any other country, but there's nothing to indicate that there's a cold war going on. Now in 2010 with the Cold War being at the core of the story it dates the film horribly and sets it firmly in the 80s.

[–] fleischwolf (294) 7 years ago

The acting: One of the most intriguing aspects of 2001 is the coldness and detached feeling to the humans. It's sort of intriguing that the most human in the movie is actually a machine. Compare this to 2010 which couldn't be more Hollywood in comparison. The recasting of Floyd with Scheider (who I love in other films like Jaws and French Connection) and his cheesy rants and outbursts just takes so much away from the experience and just makes this so generic. Others like Lithgow and Balaban don't help either.

The actual plot: So another thing that was so fascinating about 2001 was the ambiguity of the plot. While what it depicts is fascinating on its own, the scope of the movie is so much larger. Some things are left ambiguous and not shown, because it is too big for a human to comprehend. The aliens are so much beyond the imagination of humans that any depiction of them would be a disappointment. Also, the fascination of human evolution and the destiny of mankind. Now, what do we have in 2010? Right, they want to turn Jupiter into a sun and inhabit Europa with Alien life. While certainly not in the same scope as that of 2001 it's intriguing (though the existence of a second sun in our Solar System would wrack havoc on life on Earth). But the way it is depicted. The way it anthropomorphises the Aliens („Something wonderful is about to happen“) as some sort of benevolent deities is just cringe worthy.

[–] fleischwolf (294) 7 years ago

But the worst disappointment is the plot revolving around HAL. Now, in 2001 the fascinating thing about HAL is that you're not sure how human he is. How sentient. The reason for his actions could well be interpreted as him becoming too human! He even proudly boasts that no computer of the 9000 series ever made a mistake. Now what is a source of making a mistake in humans? Right, hubris! Also, when he starts getting homicidal, what is the reason of that? Right, self preservation. Because he spies on Frank and Dave (due to another human emotion, suspicion and paranoia) he learns that he is about to be shut down. While the reason he gives Dave for his action is that he thinks the mission would be jeopardised, the real reason is self preservation and fear of death. He even says so, when Dave dissembles him („I'm afraid, Dave“, such a disturbing scene).
And what do we get in 2010? Oh, it's conflicting information due to the order for him to lie. So, a literal „glitch in the program“. What a letdown. All the implications of A.I. and human condition gone.

The technical aspects: So 2001 is known for his accuracy of space travel and physics. The iconic shot of Frank running inside the wheel are not only mindbogglingly well done, but also made sense. While they tried to have something similar awe inspiring in 2010 with the space walk the realistic feel and the great thought being put into how things work are nowhere to be seen here. Suddenly there's sound in space (though I admit, it was done for artistic reasons to have sound here, like in so many other films). And now there's gravity everywhere! In the podbay, on the Leonov, everywhere, without a reason. But then, in an inexcusable stupid scene suddenly Floyd picks up a pencil and put it in midair. What? He even picked it up, it was lying there, why suddenly the zero gravity? Did they put any thought into that?

[–] Wuchak (8832) 4 years ago

Now what is a source of making a mistake in humans? Right, hubris!

I didn't see anything about the Hubble Space Telescope in this movie.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 2 years ago

Do the words “smug,” “verbose” and “narcissistic” mean anything to you?

No?

Look in a mirror.

[–] MaximRecoil (4760) 4 years ago

"Again apart from the haircuts and some of the womens customs nothing looks 60s in 2001. It's truly a timeless film and a work of art."

Everything in 2001 has a 1960s look. It's impossible to make a movie that doesn't look like the time period it was made in. The most iconic prop of the movie, the HAL 9000 interface, screams mid 1960s to mid 1970s loud and clear. The black "leatherette" body with chrome trim was found on many devices from that era, such as tape players, cameras, binoculars, etc. It can be found on Star Trek (the original series) props too, such as their communicators and tricorders. The perforated sheet metal covering the speaker was common on radios and tape players back then too, and can also be found on e.g., the Star Trek TOS communicator props.

The graphic design on the food boxes screams 1960s pretty hard too, and so do the extremely basic sneakers with canvas uppers and rubber cup soles, along with the tight short-shorts, tight tucked-in T-shirt, and socks pulled up high. That guy in his exercise garb looked like someone straight out of the Patches O'Houlihan dodgeball training film from the movie Dodgeball (2004) - https://youtu.be/sT47KfDlwI8

That big videophone console made of engineered wood and featuring keys that look like they came from a 1960s IBM Selectric typewriter is blatantly 1960s too. They built similar cheesy-looking consoles for the Star Trek TOS sets. Just the idea that a video call would require a big console and keys like that is, in and of itself, an old-fashioned idea. If the movie were made today instead of in the 1960s, and set 33 years in the future, the character obviously wouldn't be making a video call from a dedicated 200-pound MDF console with typewriter keys and featuring analog video with scan lines. Being charged on a per-call basis, from the Bell System no less (defunct as of 1984), is also a very dated idea.

All of the fake computer monitors were blatantly rear projection, due to the poor black levels and contrast, which is the same thing that they often did on Star Trek TOS.

The "psychedelic" light show at the end was very much a 1960s thing too.

Those weird Djinn chairs in the lounge area not only looked like something out of the 1960s, but they actually were commercial products from the 1960s.

The film stock itself has a late '60s / early '70s look to it as well.

[–] mrbluto-2 11 years ago

2001 was very very slow and confusing which is what Clark wanted. 2010 is a much better movie because it answers the question left from 2001.

[–] MalekTaus 11 years ago

2010 is a continuation of Arthur C. Clarke 2001 book and not of the movie

They did different versions of the same idea (2001)

[–] That_Guy_From_NY 11 years ago

So you're saying that because something is left ambiguous it can't possibly be as good as something that overtly explains everything? I completely disagree.

One of the things that really helped 2001 be what it is, is the fact that it's so mysterious. In real life had we found a monolith like in the movie, then no matter how much we studied it and tried to get answers for our countless questions we would likely never get all the answers we seek. There would always be a air of mystery and we'd always have a longing for more information, we'd be forced to guess at the answers and use our imagination to fill in the blanks.

I believe that's what Kubrick was going for. In the same way that movies generally exaggerate situations to speak more accurately to the emotion of the situation, I believe Kubrick purposely under explained the events of the film so we could feel the same sense of mystery and being left in the dark that that characters who inhabit that world would have felt. It's supposed to be frustrating and unnerving for the viewer because that's how the characters feel, in that respect I think Kubrick hit the nail on the head, he was trying to convey how it would feel to be just another character in that universe with little to no information about something to vast and powerful and how scary that would be and I think he succeeded.

2010 by comparison is just a straight forward narrative that is less concerned with effecting the viewer emotionally so doesn't purposely withhold information to get a stronger reaction from the audience. In that way it plays it safe and takes less skill to craft. I'd argue that 2001 is the superior film BECAUSE it answers less questions... not in spite of it.

And you know it's true because SpaceMonkey -> said so.

[–] HALs_eyeball 11 years ago

"2001 was very very slow and confusing which is what Clark wanted."

Just to pick you up on one point, it was Kubrick who wanted it slow and obfuscated. (Is that even a word?) Clarke's style is to explain everything in great detail.

The Ninth Doctor: "Run for your life!"

[–] mandeep_basarke 11 years ago

If you haven' read the book, may I suggest you read 2001 by Clarke then compare it too the film by Kubrick. You'll see how both were paced and then find out for yourself which is slower. As for 2010 its just a mundane everyday sci-fi moviewith 2001 as its backstory.

"Gentlemen, This is a War Room, There's no fighting allowed in Here!"

[–] MalekTaus 11 years ago

It's based on the book 2010 by Clarke

[–] HALs_eyeball 11 years ago

I think Mandeep was saying you could compare the book and film 2001 with the book and film 2010 and see how similar the books are and how different the films are?

The Tenth Doctor: "Wibbly, Wobbly, Timey, Wimey... stuff."

[–] Bluedusk 11 years ago

Which is like saying that some comic book answers the questions left by Albrecht Dürer's engravings.
The two films don't play in the same league: 2001 is major art, 2010 is Hollywood industry.
I can spend my life watching any film by Kubrick and it improves my life, my senses and my thinking to new and complex thought-processes.
The same experience with 2010 will just put on a few pounds of chips and beer in my organism, nothing more.

[–] HALs_eyeball 11 years ago

If you didn't get the deeper meaning, then it's safe to say 2001 is not the film for you. Fair enough. Everyone's unique.

The Eighth Doctor: I'm half human. On my mothers side.

[–] mandeep_basarke 11 years ago

Well some people will never get the meaning. Is the Doctor half human or has that been changed since the new Who aired?

"Gentlemen, This is a War Room, There's no fighting allowed in Here!"

[–] HALs_eyeball 11 years ago

"Is the Doctor half human"

Hi Mandeep. I've been away for a while. How's things? I liked that line from Paul McGann's 1996 TV movie because it might have been true, but mainly because it upsets a lot of Who fans! (I'm a recovering troll sometimes!!!) I have been updating my sig line each month with one of that month's Doctor's lines. September means the Ninth Doctor and...

The Ninth Doctor: "Run for your life!"

[–] floridagirl47 10 years ago

I think the producers of 2010 didn't get the deeper meaning of 2001 because it is not anywhere near in the same class. Totally different type of movie, and not for the better... just my opinion. I am watching it now and determined to watch it all the way to the end just to see what happens. I have never been able to make it that far... someone said mediocre and I agree... I am not a fan of 2001 either, only because it is a casualty of movie from book that expects everyone to read between the lines when the book has not been read, but it is a masterpiece nonetheless....

[–] muito-merda 11 years ago

2010 is a mediocre movie in comparison in every respect.

[–] goatbut29 11 years ago

I had to watch 2001 yesterday to see what all the fuss was about.

Im not impressed. A good 45-55 minutes of 'trippy' music and images could have been removed and replaced with something interesting. I felt like I was at a hippy-art gallery and could not find the door to leave.

I appreciate what it was trying to do but watching it TODAY just leaves you bored.

2010 could at least keep you interested without all the needless imagery and psychedelic mood music.

[–] detroit-velvet-smooth 11 years ago

I am thankful every day that I am not shackled with the bland limited conception of art that someone like you is.

[–] goatbut29 11 years ago

Awww. Did some nerd get their feelings hurt?

Sorry Nerd. I see it for what it is: great story with some very boring 'lava lamp' type hippie imagery thrown in that was a waste of time.

Sorry your difference of opinion means absolutely nothing to me.

[–] fede_4488 10 years ago

You say nerd as if it's an insult. We are not in the 90's anymore, you know.

Also, you don't seem to be a very smart person. You sound like a Transformer fan and someone who likes to listen to Nickelback while hanging with his bros next to your pick up truck.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lola_mento 10 years ago

Oh, so you're also an homophobe? I'm sure you were the high school bully, not too long ago.

[–] goatbut29 10 years ago

Guess I struck a nerve with a leftist moron eh? Poor leftwing nerd.
Shouldnt you be burning a business down in support of the 'Gentle Giant' somewhere?
Hands up yo!

[–] lola_mento 10 years ago

Oh, God, you're unbelievable. So beside hating nerds, gay people you are also a racist. Quite a package.

Seeing how you bring politics out of nowhere, you should stick to watch Fox News and Duck Dinasty and leave the intellectual movies to the smart ones.

[–] goatbut29 10 years ago

Im everything you want me to be.

And when insulting someone and talking about how intellectual you are, it helps if you spell correctly and use proper grammar. Makes it a little more believable.

Back to bashing conservatives and finding racists everywhere you look I guess. Seeya at the next OWS rally when you're trying to find an ecologically sound bag to poop in.

[–] buckikris 10 years ago

I have both 2001 and 2010, to me they are both great movies. Yes, 2001 did drag some; but I still thought it was a great movie. The reason why I liked 2010 better besides the acting, it explains what 2001 didn't. I know some say that it is dated due to the Cold War back then; but I still find it timeless. A great film that had a great ending, not somewhat confusing like in 2001. Does anyone agree?

THX,
Kris L. CocKayne

[–] I_Created_U 10 years ago

Totally!

Never understood the hype surrounding 2001. Watched it for the first time a year ago and my god, what a snooze fest. Not to mention absolutely nonsensical with the most unsatisfying ending i've ever seen.

I take 2010 over 2001 any day, every day. At least 2010, you know, explains what the hell is happening on screen and if it doesn't, well that means it's simply self-evident.

And no, i don't only like blockbusters, i like all kinds of movies, just not this one which came across as highly pretentious at best. My humble opinion anyway...

People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs

[–] MartyMoose1977 (222) 3 years ago

Hello, I'm from the Future in 2022 and I think the Movie 2022 Cold War element is more relevant then ever. Russia has threatened to Nuke half the Western World plus Japan. These cold war Era Movies should make a huge comeback. Hopefully Netflix and Amazon Prime both showcase them.

[–] TVholic 11 years ago

On the other hand, I never stop being amazed at the pretentious conception of "art" that so many people hold, like the unsuspecting "connoisseurs" who praised "modern art" on camera as bold and filled with meaning, not knowing the whole exhibit was just finger paintings by a pre-teen who said she was just doodling.

[–] Sidewindr 9 years ago

I am thankful every day that I am not shackled with the bland limited conception of art that someone like you is.

Art is purely subjective and you nor anyone else has any right nor authority to dictate what art is, good or bad. Why should anyone have to conform to your perceptions you are no expert and neither is anyone else. It is pompous elitist narcissists like you who have no "conception of art" and what Art truly is.

[–] rizdek 11 years ago

I think I've finally hit on how I view the two movies. Others have said it's like comparing apples and oranges. I agree and to clarify, let me present my experience with both. I watched 2001 in the theater when it came out. It was fantastic. Keep in mind that the 'other' science fiction movies with which I compared it were the early Star Trek shows, Lost in Space, the early Dr Who, My Favorite Martian, and the early Buck Rogers. There were sci-fi that used...marionettes and clutzy aliens. 2001 overcame that and presented what I thought at the time was the most realistic vision of what space travel might really be like and what an "alien" might really be. The scenes and concepts lodged vividly and permanently in my mind and I relived watching it many times. Then, THEN after the advent of video tapes and DVDs, I bought a copy. What a let down to re-watch it. What had become very realistic primates "in my minds eye" appeared poor costumes on galloping lumbering actors. The eternal "color swishing past scene" became boring and almost irritating to watch again...especially on small screens. Around the same time that I got a copy of 2001, I also got a copy of 2010. 2010 while NOT having the striking scenery, and while obviously borrowing on the concept of 2001, has become much more interesting to watch and re-watch. I have NO desire to pick up 2001 and plod through it...at all. I'm already peeved that I "lost" the imagery in my minds eye by rewatching the feeble attempts at special affects that was the state-of-the-art. But to rewatch it would be painful. It's not that the concept becomes dated...it's quite novel and interesting. It's just that the packaging hasn't aged well, IMHO. So 2010, with it faults and foibles that I freely recognize, is the sci fi movie I choose most often when I want a somewhat realistic vision of space travel and the people that might inadvertently get caught up in such an adventure.

I would say anyone interested in the development of sci fi movies over time owes it to them selves to watch 2001. Then, if you are interested read the book. But don't get too caught up in other's claims of how superbly great it is. It's a dated movie, but a lot of it's content/concepts have creeped into society. So, for that alone, you should watch it...so when someone does the "Dave, Dave" in the monotone of Hal...you'll "get it."

[–] TVholic 11 years ago

Agreed 100%. I remember being stoked to watch 2001 for the first time on broadcast TV back in the 70s, can't watch it today. It always puts me to sleep within an hour. A movie can be portentous and deep without being mind-numbingly boring, but 2001 doesn't achieve that.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Soupful 11 years ago

I enjoy them both and never compare its meat & potatoe's really, "2001" was/is intentionally ambigous depicted for visual stimulation with mostly silent emphasis to provoke more thought of a conciousness nature. 2001 demonstrates the journey of humanity from simians at dawn of and beginnings to conciousness from the "Monolith" by an intelligence being whoever or whatever as case maybe?

Then jumps ahead to year 2001 where man has become technological, advanced and cold though the humans in "2010" seemed very human and flawed by comparison with dependence on technology with HAL exploring space from the discovery of a second "Monolith" on the Moon that sets off an alarm bell and signals to another mission to Jupiter to find out what it is?

Hence the mission. The "Monolith's" providing an evolutionary advance in baby steps with each contact no doubt over time.

2010 is a good film also but a very differnt style altogether and has more dialogue with Dr.Floyd (Roy Scheider), John Kithgow, helen Mirren and Bob Balabon resulting in a more straight foward continuation picking up unresolved questions where Kubricks film left-off.

However both movies are author Arthur C.Clarke's story and characters with the continuation of the Monolith's purpose and Dave Bowmans transformation agenda and the fate of Earth and humanity.

[–] Soupful 11 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJKHIzzhrFY

Nancy Sinatra - Bang Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down) Long version

[–] trekkie313 11 years ago

I prefer 2010 over 2001 due to the actors and less ambiguous ending.

"Listen, do you smell something? -Ray Stantz"