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?

[–] strangenstein (683) 3 years ago

I enjoy 2001, but, like you, I prefer 2010 for its warmth and humanity. I think it also TELLS its story better. Movies don’t always have to be linear, but they also don’t have to be ponderous and pretentious to get a point across. Both are solid movies, but very different in style, tone and structure. I guess you wouldn’t have 2010 without 2001.

[–] johnmiller (3964) 3 years ago

Lord no! That is completely beyond belief. "2010," as Ebert mentioned, is simply a good space adventure. But, as a sequel to "2001" it is a joke, to be honest. It completely skips over each and every key part of "2001" and comes up with low-rent "answers" to the questions "2001" posed.

[–] Owlwise (1536) 3 years ago

Agreed. I quite enjoy 2010 when taking it on its own terms, which is as a solid, well-made sequel to Clarke's novel. But 2001 is one of the finest films ever made, a true artistic masterpiece that's complete in itself & needs no sequel or further explication. We might even look at 2010 as an attempt by limited human minds to comprehend the Transcendent that is 2001, and of course failing to do so despite every effort.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 2 years ago

2001 is one of my all time favorite movies, but the thing that keeps it from being a perfect classic is it slowness. For its time those special effects made up for it, I remember watching it 12 time in the following years. But today, I could not sit through it again.

The same thing with "Citizen Kane". I cherish the movie, but I cannot watch it again, whereas Casablanca I can watch over and over and over again and appreciate and be entertained by.

Same with some other Kubrick movies, "Spartacus" or "Paths Of Glory".

A real classic has to appeal to people and be able to be watched repeatedly. That is why there are so few of them.

[–] mitzibishi (1950) 3 years ago

I feel about 2010 compared to 2001 as I do about Jaws 2, Psycho 2, Die Hard 2, Predator 2

[–] JosephQCat (706) 3 years ago

I think that 2001 is more timeless. I think the long interludes are a reference to time itself. That things do not unfold as we expect them to or want them to. That in space exploration there is no such thing as instant gratification. 2010 is a product of the 1980's in terms of character depiction namely anti-authoritarianism. I think that at the same time there is more texture in 2010 namely the Russian official played by the great Dana Elcar. Back in 1968 there was nothing like 2001 in terms of films discussing the existence of extraterrestrials and should get much recognition in terms of other production being done to continue the discussion. I'd give 2001 an 8/10 and 2010 a 7/10. Both enjoyable but depending on your tastes and outlook you will favor one over the other.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 2 years ago

Hahaha, ,clever question.
I would not say I prefer it, but I can watch 2010 multiple times, where I having seen 2001 about 15 times altogether just can't sit through it again because it is so slow. It's the idea of 2001 that is so great and what it was for its time, whereas I can watch 2010 again and enjoy it and not get bored enough to fall asleep.

[–] sadpopcorn (1823) a year ago

Yes.