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?

[–] nightwing60 9 years ago

You can crucifies me all you want. But Hal was the only real character in 2001. He was the only thing in that movie that was remotely human. The scene were Hal is begging for his life show that Hal was more Human than Bowman was. He wasn't a villain, he was misunderstood by the two paranoid drones on board . As 2010 clearly pointed out. So yeah i find 2010 to be an out and out better film. I don't watch movies to see pretty Sh!t floating in space or to see monkey throw sticks around. Give me something to remotely care about or jerk off.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chudddds-775-350714 9 years ago

the original is by far better, 2001 all the way

[–] tiberianfiend 9 years ago

I did. 2010: 5/10, 2001: 4/10

[–] residentevil6901 9 years ago

I do, 2001 is very cool but a little too weird, 2010 gets it right.

[–] FlyingPie 9 years ago

I had a similar feeling about the movies. However I do appreciate both. I don't mind the sterile design aesthetic of 2001 so much. I think the only significant thing about 2001 to me is that it feels a bit slow-paced. There's also the abstractness in some of the scenes, but after I heard about the intended interpretation, the movie made more sense to me. I think 2001 was designed to look great on a big screen, and I think it has some good scenes in it, particularly with the ship and the HAL 9000 computer.

I watched 2010 several years ago, and I felt like you, that the characters were more relatable. I also felt like 2010 had a different pacing, and it was easier to keep interest in it (not to say that 2001 is not interesting though).

----------------
We have clearance, Clarence.
Roger, Roger. What's our vector, Victor?

[–] Daenerys-Stormborn 9 years ago

I do, I felt sorry for HAL for the first time since I last saw 2001.

Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.

[–] cdleorivera 8 years ago

I love 2001. Absolutely one of my favorite movies.

I enjoyed 2010, but it's nowhere near the same level of 2001 and tbh it kind of ruined the mysticism of 2001. Im not saying it's a bad movie at all, but I would have much rather preferred not watching it. It offers too much explanation that I preferred remained ambiguous.