2010: The Forgotten Odyssey - A Video Essay

[@douggraham5082]

Not quite sure how you can say 2010 is "forgotten." The film was a hit in it's day. While nothing can hold a candle to 2001, I certainly enjoyed 2010.

[@ZoolGatekeeper]

Yes, the Dr Chandra and HAL9000 diallogue at the end of 2010 is really moving.. makes the wholw film memorable.

[@NevrSilent]

'2010' is the type of film that, if you come across it, you'll leave it on, and you'll be happy to. It's more of a "Fun Hang" to watch than the original. It just doesn't have any status as this major "Piece of Art" that Kubrick's did. As a kid though, I "Got" what was going on much more of what was going on in '2010'--I dunno if that's good OR bad; it was just, again, an "Easier Hang" as a movie. '2001' needs you to be a true Film Buff to really wrap your head around some of what Kubrick is pulling off.

[@NevrSilent]

@@ZoolGatekeeper Bob Balaban's performance in that scene is really quite good, and the script is saying a lot, actually about the human condition (or even more accurately "The living condition") and this Man of Science grappling w/ it in a life or death moment. When he's shutting SAL down earlier in the film, and she asks "Will I dream?" he assures her for sure. All intelligent life dreams when they sleep; he takes it as a matter of course. But with HAL, he knows, what's going to happen to HAL is going to mean Death, no matter what, and whether HAL is a genuinely "Intelligent Life Form" or not, HAL is going to die. And since Dr. Chandra sees HAL as his progeny, he wants to be honest with HAL (especially since forcing dishonesty on HAL was what proved so disastrous in '2001'). There is a moment of heartbreak when HAL asks him "Will I dream?" and Dr. Chandra has to admit, really, to HAL and to himself "Honestly, I don't WHAT happens to any of us when we die!" and has to tell HAL, quite sadly: "I don't know, HAL...." Just thinking of the scene has me going "Damn, Bob, fine job there!"

[@RedwoodTheElf]

Well he's a Millenial, so he's not really that knowledgeable about classic sci fi.

[@markmeade2937]

2001 transcends art, film, writing and culture. To watch the film is to behold genius, both Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C Clark where visionary’s and the end result shows in a film that is still ahead of time and space......

[@KNOTTYBUDS]

The fact that Kubrick told Peter to: "Do it. I don't care." And, "Don't be afraid. Do your own movie." really shows the kind of person Kubrick is. That was really a dope thing for him to say.

[@elroyfudbucker6806]

It sounds like the producers didn't want the kind of movie that Kubrick would have made; another 2001-esque spectacular, so they got another director, which might have miffed Kubrick.

[@moogyboy6]

I disagree about being SK being sore about it. Kubrick, being Kubrick, had no interest in doing a sequel, especially a conventional Hollywood style sci-fi adventure. He'd said everything he had to say the first time around and had long since moved on. The "I don't care" comment sounds like stereotypical Kubrick; "make it your own" is the great man inside the genius speaking. I think he recognized that Hyams was a worthy successor for this material and was telling him, "don't just make a bland studio picture, son; put your heart into it. I know you can. Do me proud."

[@Imagineering100]

And he went off and made a crap movie.

[@michaelbrownlee9497]

​@@Imagineering100although Kubrick plagiarized the film, he felt confident that his film will be studied for thousands of years.

[@d.b.1176]

* Was

[@bayareaartist999]

how old are you? Yeah in 1984 I graduated from high school. So I remember the movie. Helen Miren, Roy Shieder, It's actually a real good movie.

[@MobiusBandwidth]

hey me too. class of 84, loved this brilliant film.

[@SuperVstech]

I’m a CO85 myself... a young graduate to boot... but was first in line at the theatre with my father to see this film... read all the books, and Shieder nailed this film...

[@KRAFTWERK2K6]

*Scheider

[@joshuaclayton1313]

I'm 45, I saw the movie and read the book.... I agree Donn, it was good all around. Read in 1982, saw movie in 1984 and bought the book [from a library booksale] in 2007. This saga of understanding the legacy of 2001, 2010, 2061 and 3001 started in 1981....... With that book by Arthur C. Clarke called "The Lost Worlds of 2001".

[@insertdeadname]

I’m 22, just asked my whole group chat about this movie, nobody had heard of it lol.

[@capitalist88]

2010: The forgotten sequel 2061 & 3001: Let us introduce ourselves...

[@youarepredictable]

I read 2061 long ago, but don't remember really liking it that much. I never read 3001 but perhaps I will some day.

[@simonrandall5471]

@@youarepredictable 2061 and 3001. I read them a long time ago. They sucked.

[@penzlic]

2061 was real cashgrab

[@kalakritistudios]

@@youarepredictable I read 3001 straight after 2001 movie.🤣 Wanted to know the reality of the monolith (also the only two books in the book fair in the series were 2001 and 3001 or maybe it was another instead of 2001, anyway, didn't knew how I could relate. Was in for a surprise.)

[@russellpearce3749]

I need to find these two books, preferably in an audiobook

[@jamesbanas1815]

Was so absorbed into 2001 that I had watched it 25-30 times before 2010 was released. Thought that I could NEVER accept Roy Scheider as Dr. Haywood Floyd but the movie and Scheider's acting were so great that I fully accepted Scheider as Floyd. Also, Helen Mirren was GREAT as the Soviet spacecraft Commander.

[@evelynjoy4466]

"You've probably never seen 2010" Me, a huge nerd who has read all four Space Odyssey books and a large chunk of Arthur C. Clarke's short stories (including the Sentinel): You wanna bet?

[@rcschmidt668]

Me too! When he started to mention the books, he neglected the rest of the series.

[@Neil070]

Same here, but struggling with 3001, tbh. Lockdown project, finish 3001

[@stuartyoung4182]

That's me as well...grew-up reading ACC, the master. 2001 will ALWAYS be my favorite movie (more like work of visual art) of all time (I saw it in the theater when I was 8 - imagine how THAT has affected my psyche since!) - but taken on its own, 2010 is one of my favorite sci-fi movies - not a work of art...just a good movie.

[@evelynjoy4466]

@@Neil070 I believe in you!

[@Graytail]

@Muckin 4on 2001, 2010, 2061, 3001

[@kubrick2324]

the monolith at the end is not "some far off world." it's on europa.

[@509Gman]

As evidenced by Jupiter/Lucifer and Sol being in the shot.

[@leggocrewtv2052]

@@509Gman 🤣🔥

[@paspax]

The book and the movie placed the 'monolith multiplication' on different moons.

[@sirsanti8408]

To be fair, it’s quite far off

[@RogueBoyScout]

Except the monolith at the end isn't on Europa! Unless Europa ( A moon ) is a planet clearly growing flora and seems to be in a stage where life has moved beyond Primordial Ooze... Hence the next 2 books ;) ( I could be wrong, it's been a long time since I dwelved in the saga/books (3001 just didn't hold up, for me) Also, if that is Europa, then boy oh boy do we have problems as far as astronomical accuracy goes....

[@Fizbin1701]

The actor's name is Roy Scheider, not "Schneider". Where are you getting the "n" from?

[@JLange642]

Yeah- at least GET THE DAMN LEAD ACTORS NAME RIGHT!!!!! 11:00 mark.

[@vpreggie]

I cringed when I heard him say Scheider’s name wrong...and not just once.

[@Fizbin1701]

Well, it just seems odd that someone would research all of these facts for the entire video, but somehow get the most simple element like the actor's name wrong.

[@rcschmidt668]

Not to mention how he said Lithgow.

[@JubilantCherry]

I don't understand how someone can take such interest in the subtler details of a subject (such as the film, 2010) and get such a major detail wrong. He must have seen the actor's name in text many times. These sorts of things about people baffle me.

[@sethmaki1333]

It is my wish to see the series completed. There are two more stories, 2061 and 3001.

[@sethmaki1333]

@@jd2109 how'd you like Independence Day ripping off the ending to 3001? 😂😂😂

[@sethmaki1333]

@@jd2109 were you living under a rock in 1996? How'd ya miss that one?

[@sethmaki1333]

@@jd2109 bummer bro. You're missing out. It's actually a decent film, if you like mindless action flicks lol

[@sethmaki1333]

@@jd2109 that's fine. Most of the time neither do I. But when I was a teenager, well, explosions, ya know? Lol

[@Prokifiev]

Yeah, always wished they would film these two, or perhaps collaberate them. I especially enjoyed 2061

[@ArcadeMusicTribute]

I watched this movie as a kid in the cinema and absolutelly enjoyed every second of it. At the time I actually thought it was better than the original. In time as I grew up I started to appreciate the 2001 Odyssey for what it was while I still think 2010 is a pretty good movie.

[@macabga5071]

I mean, 2001 is arguably quite of a hard movie to watch. All that symbolism and quiet scenes, all that intention and artistic composition make it go far beyond typical entertainment... Being a simple movie or a complex one is not necessarily bad, though. It just means you won't enjoy them the same way

[@blameyourself4489]

Pretty much my experience, too. :-)

[@natepeace1737]

2010 is a fine film. The comparisons to the first film are rather unfair I think. Tough to compete with a Masterpiece like 2001.

[@generalyellor8188]

One of the worst bigger budget movies of its time.

[@CraftyZanTub]

Comparing 2001 and 2010 is unfair as it's like comparing a beetle to an elephant.

[@natepeace1737]

@@generalyellor8188 Awww c’mon. It wasn’t that bad. The acting was quite good.

[@KevinR1138]

I was going to comment on how young “reviewer’s” always seem to think that films released before they were born which haven’t hit iconic levels of name recognition are somehow “forgotten”. However I see that there’s no need for me to actually go into detail since so many others here basically made the same statement.

[@muldwych2029]

Agreed. If you were born after it had been released and simply hadn't heard of it, then fair enough. But 'forgotten' implies you were old enough to have been aware of it at some point, and it was most definitely high profile at the time. No-one 'forgot' Ghostbusters II, for example.

[@first_namelast_name5139]

It’s because a good amount of us haven’t heard of it

[@KevinR1138]

I know quite a few people born well after the film was released who know the movie. It’s how He keeps making statements like “nobody has heard of it”, even in the title of the vid itself, that are fairly presumptuous.

[@strangeplacestv]

"reviewers"

[@KevinR1138]

@@strangeplacestv I suppose I was implying wanna-be’s.

[@abugden]

The art and the feel of HAL's awakening. The emotion of areobraking. I saw it in theatre, read the books. two different movies. To differ with Ebert, I consider 2001 cinema, an art film. 2010 is firm science fiction. Not space opera. Or one can press nine nines on that red calculator, take the square root and press integer.

[@jeffreyjeziorski341]

In space, there is no sound. Only Kubrick had the nerve and conviction to present this.

[@abugden]

@@jeffreyjeziorski341 Very valid point :-)

[@bsowers22]

I just think it’s funny that they included Ebert’s critique of the movie that says “Freed up from the comparison to 2001....” when they just spent 14 minutes comparing it to 2001.

[@kjamison5951]

It took me a while to work out the nine nines reference... I literally tried this in a calculator until I read the statement again... and then I remembered, Doctor Chandra.

[@Neil070]

A concise and articulate description of the difference between the two, and why they struggled to find a common audience

[@piotrd.4850]

" Of course, Kubrick shot the Moon Landing. As perfectionist he was, he shot it on location".

[@perfectionbox]

The guy who played Chandra did an awesome job. I got teary when he stood up for HAL and then told him the truth about the danger.

[@tedbishop567]

Bob Balaban

[@SSGTStryker]

@@tedbishop567 Yup, legendary actor. Awesome in Close Encounters of the Third Kind and even recently in Condor (TV series remake of 3 Days to the Condor).

[@troyvan6952]

Check out a very young Bob Balaban in Catch 22

[@moogyboy6]

And an even younger Bob Balaban giving Jon Voight a blow job in "Midnight Cowboy"...

[@moogyboy6]

I also really like his pre-Chandra turn as William Hurt's geeky lab assistant in "Altered States". There's a spot where he has a sort of eureka moment and starts ranting with excitement, declaring "I am on fucking FIRE!"

[@bartbethlehem2645]

Why do you assume no one saw 2010? Any scifi afficianado worth his/her salt has seen this film for sure!

[@graemesmith3000]

...AND MAY I SAY MORE THAN ONCE,AND ITS ON MY LAPTOP AND P.C. AND ON DVD AND IN MY VHS COLLECTION. YEHAA!

[@dosmastrify]

Facts

[@momohouse44komodocriss]

Same here seen it manny times and probely wil again.

[@MrRezRising]

"You vould make someone a fine vife!" ""Dolphins. Not fish." "Hello Doctor Chandra. I'm ready for my first lesson." "USE THEM TOGETHER. USE THEM IN PEACE" Amazing film. Never heard that it was forgotten....🙄

[@raleighjones5750]

I asked a coworker if he saw 2001. He did "is it about 9/11?" He claimed to be a science fiction fan. I'm surprised the kid in the video condescendingly tasks shit the way its shot. Btw, son, his list name is not Schneider

[@CantankerousDave]

1 - you mean “noncorporeal” every single time you talk about Bowman. 2 - it’s unclear if you realize that’s Europa at the 6:00 mark. 3 - 2010 is *highly* regarded for its VFX work, both its miniatures and its trailblazing CGI use in Jupiter’s clouds (its also the first depiction of Jupiter’s ring as seen during the aerobraking maneuver). They even rebuilt the dang Discovery model from film images because both the original model and its plans had been destroyed. It’s the last hurrah for old-school model work. 2001 is peak Kubrick, but 2010 is much more human. Those of us old enough to remember the Cold War could easily imagine tensions ramping up like they do here. Anyone else have to watch The Day After in class?

[@olivergard572]

why is it Europa in that scene? Europa is an ice moon whereas this is covered in a swamp. Does the movie explain this?

[@adimifus]

@@olivergard572 At the end of the movie, they show Europa transforming from an ice moon into what's seen here at 6:00, presumably over millions of years.

[@salacious8crumb]

@@adimifus it's continued in 2061 and 3001. In 3001, there are creatures living on Europa.

[@salacious8crumb]

@Stellvia Hoenheim you did - enough to bother to comment

[@toddjh]

@@olivergard572 The movie hints at it, but the book goes into more detail. There's life on Europa, under the ice and occasionally breaking through to the surface (as seen in the scene where the Leonov drops a probe). The intelligence behind the monolith wants to give it a boost, just like it did to our ape ancestors millions of years ago. In this case, it decides the best thing to do is collapse Jupiter into a mini-sun, to provide enough warmth to melt the surface ice on Europa and give the lifeforms there more energy and freedom to develop. The montage at the end is a time-lapse of what happens afterwards.

[@davidyoung5114]

Would it be considered an 'Easter egg' to note that in the scene from 2010 where we see Dave Bowman's spirit visit his mother in a nursing home, we see a nurse reading TIME magazine, and the images on the front of the magazine are those of Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick? It's at 12:21 of this clip!

[@steveschu]

Don't forget the park bench in D.C. scene.

[@davidyoung5114]

I've always thought of Clarke being on the park bench as a 'cameo' appearance, and the images of Clarke and Kubrick on the magazine cover as an 'Easter Egg', but I could be wrong.

[@blueknight5754]

Good catch

[@stardolphin2]

@@davidyoung5114 I never noticed that before. Though the use of stock footage from the first film seen in the TV (they didn't foresee flat widescreen, but hey...) of Space Station Five, implies that its second wheel still hasn't been finished in the last nine years...

[@RaikenXion]

Yes one is playing the Russian President and the other the US President of that particular time.

[@Joe-Exit]

I remember when this movie came out in 84 I can remember seeing advertisements in popular magazines and TV commercials. Anybody who was a fan of 2001 living at that time knew about this movie.They were waiting for it.

[@DeannaGilbert616]

This movie’s story doesn’t seem so “dated” anymore… It’s one of my favorite movies regardless. 🙂

[@mpvmpv9848]

I hate to say it but I watched both films growing up as a kid, and 2010 resonated in my memory more by a long shot. The sound track perfectly captured an eerie feeling whilst the discovery cartwheels around in space.

[@MeMyselfI_69]

I feel the same. I prefer 2010 over 2001.

[@edd4816]

Oh yeah, seeing the discovery for the first time in 2010 is probably one of most impactful and eerie space sci-fi moments, period

[@jonathanross149]

I saw them both as a kid as well and 2010 is much more re-watchable. 2001 is more of an art piece than a film.

[@StreetHierarchy]

Nostalgia. The same reason I preferred MAC & Me to E.T.

[@MattBargain]

Agree.

[@brucelaborin2124]

Once again, I feel 2010 is lost in a review that just simply acknowledges that it's a better film than initially received. It is not. It is a fantastic film that in some ways is better than 2001, and in others it is inferior. I get that you made this point, but as always you stroke the ego if Kubrick. I personally feel that 2010 is more of a human drama which is why the acting and dialogue takes center stage. The effects aren't inferior, they just aren't choreographed like 2001's. The reason is for time. 2001 wasn't so much concerned with narrative as it was with composition and art. 2010 had to take up all the narrative debts left over from the first film, while projecting itself even further. It had to flesh out HAL-9000 of all things. That was probably the hugest narrative challenge, because the first film just painted him as a psychopathic AI. Here in 2010 once it is explained what happened, they then develop HAL a bit more and the scene between HAL and Dr. Chandra towards the end is one of the most tearful and endearing ever between a person and a piece of hardware. That's a tribute to the filmmaker who had to write and direct the film. There's alot more to explore and I feel that this film stands apart from the first, not because its inferior, but because it truly is it's own film, while feeling like a sequel.

[@RaikenXion]

I have to dissagree with you, as you can see it any praise heaped on Kubrick for what he achieved with 2001 you see as stroking his ego, no the man deserves that praise and admiration. He managed to make a "Film" outside of the Hollywood studio and influence, that has so much symbolism and layers to it. It is a truly great and very intelligent sci fi film. 2010 is a nice movie, a "human drama"? yes, a great human drama maybe but it just doesnt touch 2001 and i feel anyone choosing to step up to that plate and make a sequel to Kubrick's 2001, owe it to themselves to try and match that same level of greatness. I'd agree with you on one thing that 2010 is definitely it's own film, it doesnt copy or follow any of the story-structure of 2001 and thats a good thing. But its just the overall set design and directing style, the camera work that really falls short. None of it has that gravitas that 2001 has. The best way i can describe to you what im trying to say and exactly how i see 2010 compared to 2001 is by giving you this example. Ridley Scott's 80s Blade Runner adap, then Denis Villenuve Blade Runner 2049 sequel. That imo is truly a great sequel as good as the first, it is it's own movie, its not a copy-paste of the original, it has many elements from the original, it captures that same feel and style but tells a completely different story tat builds on what the original did and has a truly great plot-twist. BR 2049 also took risks and it truly did not make the money the Hollywood studio may have expected, mainly because it was not the typical conventional movie or movie sequel mainstream audiences are accustomed to and i love it for that. All in all, Blade Runner 2049 is a "true sequel" while still feeling like "it's own film". The visual look, tone, quality set design and budget are all there and the subtext which is everything i feel 2010 greatly lacks. Denis Villenuve manages to make his OWN film, with his own style while staying completely true to everything Ridley Scott once achieved with his original "Blade Runner", this is something i feel Peter Hyams fails at with 2010.

[@toddwalker4301]

Very well said!

[@yungbrat8772]

Could not agree more with you on this,I’ve always argued both movies and the books are all great but for totally different reasons,the first movie being focused on visuals and effects and the second movie focusing on the narrative which was definitely needed

[@Ojisan642]

Bruce Laborin 2001 was an artistic film. 2010 is an entertainment movie. These are different categories. But within those categories, 2001 is a masterpiece, and 2010 is merely great. There are a lot of great movies but very few masterpieces of film. So you are comparing an artistic masterpiece of film, to a great movie. There is very little story in 2001. The pace of 2001 is excruciatingly slow by the standards of the 1980s. There is almost no exposition, and audiences were left confused. By contrast, 2010 is well paced, the story is accessible, and there is sufficient exposition to bring the audience along for the ride.

[@brucelaborin2124]

@@Ojisan642 Pretty much my point that I made. Two different films, and the guy in the video was making it sound like 2010 was the overstated sequel that doesn't fit. I don't agree, which is why I made the point of saying they're both great films, but on different sides of the same railroad tracks. It's like comparing Inglorious Basterds to being the inferior bastard retarded sibling action/comedy side of the holocaust, and Schindler's List being the praise worthy drama side. Both sides of this fence do the same thing, from different perspectives. I think its a false celebration to make on one side over the other. I enjoy 2001 everytime I see it, but when I said to the commentator that 'always he celebrates Kubrick', it was because he was making a terrible point of degrading Peter Hyams and his work with 2010. I wish to break the auteur mentality of films, because not every film needs to be, or can be, a masterpiece. We run the risk of everybody seeking to make a masterpiece, and making poor films, instead of great sequels like 2010. To prove this point, Martin Scorcese derided the Marvel films as not being true films, and I disagree. Their storytelling is everybit as legitimate as his films, and some Marvel films even have a "Masterpiece Impact" on an audience, but because the great Martin Scorcese didn't direct them, he expects that we should slurp on his cock and agree with him for it. I refuse to see comic books, or smaller scoped films that further a story, as being inferior just because an auteur didn't direct them. Auteurs have the eye, and not every director has the eye, which is why Masterpieces exist. The rest of the film world is composed of great films, average films, and poor films. Most are just trying to find that hit, while great filmmakers just want to make great pieces. But the masterpieces stand apart, and should, but that doesn't mean that the filmmaker at the next step down should be deconstructed as a bastard retard wannabe. Peter Hyams just set out to tell the sequel that deserved to be told, and didn't set out to top Kubrick. And because of it, we have some great moments of pathos, not just great photography. That's the difference of a masterpiece from a great film. A masterpiece gives you a delayed reaction that sometimes can take the place of confusion. It might require you to investigate. A great film will hit you in the gut and trigger a certain response that you completely understand, and makes you remember it for that kind of reason. Both 2001 and 2010 are remembered by people for these different reasons. Anyone who steps on Hyams for not being Kubrick is the fool. Thats where this guy who made this critique is. Just another fool throwing petals at Kubrick's feet, at the expense of Hyams.

[@GasCityGuy]

I don't think it's as forgotten as you might think it is.

[@alheno5423]

Lol, same here. Was gonna let it go, but after two times, said something... mean poor guy can’t go around using a word that actually means the opposite of what he’s trying to say! Gotta help the bro out!

[@user-lp7tx1fe6t]

It absolutely is

[@HangTimeDeluxe]

IKR? I saw it in the theater when it first came out, and I rented it on VHS a couple of times as well. In fact, I was thinking about this movie earlier, which is why I'm here watching this right now.

[@mikal]

In fact, not only not forgotten, but widely discussed. People quote this movie in casual conversation on a daily basis.

[@manart6506]

Yeah I don’t buy that statement either.

[@avalon7902]

The Leonov, a stunning ship with artificial gravity, inspired the Omega Class Destroyers of Babylon 5. I love this film, the story, actors, effects and score. RIP Roy Scheider.

[@tonyheaton4941]

I watch it at least once a year, as do many of my friends. It has not been forgotten and hundreds of millions have seen it.

[@kjamison5951]

“All these worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landing there.” I read the book AND saw the movie.

[@marlock6573]

Watched this movie on cable when I was 12, and those sentences have stuck with me ever since.

[@Neil070]

I loved the novel, and the movie was quite faithful to it. Read 2061, now trying to read 3001, but finding it hard going. Lockdown project, rewatch 2010, I have the dvd

[@ba55bar]

whenever NASA or a science account mentions Europa I always quote this at them lol

[@francischambless5919]

Never learned the reason for the reference to Europa. I saw these movies around 2008 or so after having done solar research of my own. I was asking for years why we don't send more missions to explore the most likeliest place off Earth that could harbor life and instead looking at unlikely places like Mars and Titan? Even in early 1980s the knowledge of how much likeliness of life was still low compared to 20 years later.

[@ba55bar]

@@francischambless5919 in the film the Russians send a probe to Europa and something grabs it when it detects plankton. It vas organic!

[@sweezely]

You seem to misunderstand the making of this film. Hyams deliberately shot every scene on the Discovery in the opposite way to Kubrick, mostly in order to focus on the characters rather than comparatively dull nature of spaceflight (the inverse of Kubrick's technique), but also to differentiate the visual style in general. A very important part of the production was making sure 2010 would stand on its own, a difficult task considering its predecessor. Comparing the effects of 2010 with a Doctor Who episode is accentuating the negative far too much, especially considering 2010 pioneered computer graphics as well as 70mm model work. 2010 it's also far more known than you think. The film was not only rather big in its day, but also experienced a renaissance in 2001 and 2010. If anything, it has become more respected as it has aged. Your take comes across as someone who just discovered the film, and assumes no one else has. Not everyone is as young as you, and you do yourself a disservice framing an essay from that perspective. You also mix up "corporeal" with "non-corporeal". Don't do that.

[@megelizabeth9492]

Yeah, I thought the effects actually stand up surprisingly well.

[@simjo59]

DUDE! Quit saying "nobody's ever heard of it"! The fact is, YOU never heard of it. Those of us born in the second millennium know it well.

[@seang3019]

Thank you fellow old geezer! Loved that film. Couldn't wait for it to come out on betamax.

[@mondomacabromajor5731]

Well said ... Millennial's and Gen Z's know nothing .... radio is a new thing to these people!

[@gavc6442]

Well said, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing

[@Elricwulf]

I watched 2010 shortly after its release, as a little kid with a group of adults were pretty excited to see the sequel. I remember there was alot of excitement, at least in that group, they were explaining the premise to me and we marathon watched 2001 first. As a kid, I think I found the first movie a little confusing and even boring at times, but the sequel with the Russians and Roy Scheider, who I probably recognized from Jaws was pretty exciting and memorable.

[@melanierhianna]

Again people forget about Gen X

[@BritishBeachcomber]

A couple of years after Arthur died, I was at a charity lunch in Minehead, Somerset, UK, his hometown. I thought I saw a ghost. It was, of course, his brother Fred. We had a fascinating conversation.

[@bobrobert1123]

I like 2010 better than the first one. Underrated gem

[@pduidesign]

So true.

[@darkurthe]

Not really long forgotten unless you really do not know SF very well.

[@EverettVinzant]

I saw it in the theaters. I’d have been surprised if he was talking about a movie based on 2061: odyssey three. I don’t know anyone that knows sci-fi that doesn’t know 2010....

[@GMeggitt]

Agreed

[@markboomgaarden4679]

You talk about 80s tech showing up but you didn’t cover any of the amazing (and I would argue “timeless”) set design of the Leonov by the late great Syd Mead

[@guspaz]

The Leonov ends up looking better than the 2010 version of Discovery, because one was created from whole cloth with complete creative freedom designed to the available budget, while the other was trying to recreate the sets from the previous film without the budget to get it quite right.

[@robertjames-life4768]

It’s Roy Scheider not Roy Schneider.

[@sheabutter3260]

I used to mispronounce it all the time as a youth.

[@fdaveokc]

@@sheabutter3260 Yes, but I would wager you were not researching and creating a video wherein you had to say his name multiple times. I would also wager the cc is not a youth.

[@dedalus4153]

I agree; 2010 is a good movie. I saw 2001 when it came out back in 1968. I was nine and had no idea what that movie was about. Later, in high school, I read the novel, and while it explained the original story, I was still lost. I saw 2010 at one of the theaters on base when it came out and immediately bought the novel. Many of my questions about 2001 were answered in both the sequel and the novel. Both films are in my iTunes library, and even after all these years, 2001: A Space Odyssey, while I still don't fully understand what Kubrick / Clarke is trying to convey, the photography is beautiful. I can't help but think the juxtaposition between that imagery and "timeless" music (as you say) and how it affects the individual is the real meaning behind 2001. 2010 gives us a new hope, if you'll forgive the shameless connection to modern sci-fi film and an empire that is restarting the Cold War. Quotes from 2010: "easy as cake!" "Piece of pie!"

[@jonjohns8145]

I LOVE 2010 .. It had MUCH better acting, less wooden than 2001 which always came off to me like it was being performed by really elaborate animatronics than humans. And the fact that the story made sense (and explained why HAL went crazy) REALLY helped.

[@domcoke]

There's so many irritating inaccuracies and presumptuous statements in this video. They are not walking through the "vacuum of space" in Discovery One - Bowman is walking deliberately because he's treading on the black adhesive pads which counteract the weightlessness. You make a half decent point, but without really having enough knowledge to know why. And given your "authoritative" tone, this becomes infuriating.

[@gavc6442]

Very poor review indeed

[@MattMcIrvin]

It's true that when he was directing the actors Hyams didn't really seem to understand what parts of the ship were in weightlessness and what parts weren't. He just had them stroll around and lean casually on things like they were on the Battlestar Galactica.

[@Donleecartoons]

The part on "2010" that always sticks out in my mind is when Floyd does a perfectly normal one-gravity run onto the bridge of the Leonov (which is in a non-rotating part of the ship) to persuade Capt. Kirbuk (why her name was changed from the book's "Orlova" I don't know) to do the perturbation burn with Discovery as a booster, and demonstrates by using two pens which are suddenly floating in weightlessness above the chart table. Perhaps Hyams was "drinking his wheeskey from Kentucky."

[@darrenmorris869]

No, look at Bowmans feet. He is walking deliberately because he is stepping through rungs of a ladder. Its likely the camera dolly, but still.

[@domcoke]

@@darrenmorris869 If you watch scenes from 2001 in areas of the ship that include those black surfaces, they always walk gingerly and deliberately - it's never explicitly referenced, but it seems to be that the black surfaces are adhesive & mitigate weightlessness. Also - the centrifuge section of the ship simulates gravity - but it seems to be only one area of the ship, which the pod bay is not a part. Evidence is not conclusive, but if you watch them walk, it's as if they're trying to make it look as if their feet are sticking to the surface, in the same way the air hostess does.

[@huntercressall9728]

The *only* reason some of the 2010 optical effects look "cheap" is because the 1080p version most readily available is (for lack of a better word) over-exposed. The blacks are gray and the matte separations and densities are obvious in a way that were invisible in theaters. In short, it needs the kind of restoration and remastering that Outland got - for all the same reasons and to all the same positive results. If you have the capability, lower the gamma or simply drop the blacks a bit and increase the contrast. This will get you closer to the values and densities audiences saw in the theater. I remember my friend saying at the time "...what did they do, shoot on location in f*cking space?". 2010 remains one of the best motion-controlled, optically composited science fiction films of all time - along with films like Blade Runner and Empire Strikes Back.

[@tripsadelica]

I agree somewhat but I think that when you look at 2001 which did not use motion control at all then 2010 comes across as second rate both in the direction of the space scenes and the quality of the effects work. 2010's art direction was woeful as were the decisions to use picture tube monitors for workstations (when 2001 had shown flatscreens and pad computers) and the tacky costume designs. As to your list of optically-composited scifi films of the time...add to that list, Star Trek-The Motion Picture. Apart from the visible matte lines around the Klingon battle cruisers at the start of the film, the rest of the effects work (the Enterprise and V'ger) is top notch and cannot be matched by CGI to this day.

[@huntercressall9728]

@@tripsadelica I disagree only in that 2001 was shooting for an entirely different look. 2001 was amazing - especially for its time - but the matte paintings of the lunar surface have started to age in a way that the moons of Jupiter haven't. But great films. Both incredible achievements.

[@Success4u247]

2010 Was brilliant. A fantastic line from the movie.SOMETHING WONDERFUL IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

[@kepcar]

Love the line. "What's going to happen?" "Something wonderful."

[@gli7utubeo]

@Stellvia Hoenheim LOL

[@realJimMarshall]

Ignition. Full thrust.

[@secondchance6603]

@@realJimMarshall Full thrust. Hellen Mirren.

[@ProfitPower13]

Fulfilling it's glorious purpose

[@travr1131]

2010 is a great movie. Roger Ebert's review nailed it! I saw this back in the 1980's on HBO as a kid and was fascinated by it. Jupiter looked so huge and menacing to me back then and now, the lines between HAL and his creator is still a wonderful, thought provoking arc.

[@JasonVictorEverett]

I remember it getting bad reviews. I thought Ebert said it was silly to have the aliens sum up their message to the human race all perfectly spelled out on a nice little computer screen at the end.

[@meandmyEV]

As others have said, this was not a “forgotten” film. The novel was the first of many sequels to the original story and one of the best in this 2001 “universe.” I was a sci fi nerd in high school so Arthur C Clarke novels were a big part of developing my love of reading. I’m glad the filmmakers for 2010 made it a more conventional movie. There is nothing worse than a “discount” version of a style where the director is trying to copy another’s look. Anyway, good retrospective. I will have to go back and rewatch.

[@nicboo9191]

that's not what a dutch angle is, and he's not walking like he's in the vacuum of space cause he isn't, you can figure that out by the simple fact that he isn't wearing his helmet.... last thing: maybe the title of your essay should be "shot by shot comparison of 2001 and 2010"

[@Bananapants000]

*superficially similar shot by shot comparison 😔

[@donsample1002]

The main problem with the scene in both movies is that the actors are walking, in what is a zero g section of the ship.

[@hurdygurdyguy1]

@@donsample1002 In 2001 I think that was compensated by the slow careful walking to mimic the velcro on the walkway and shoes (as demonstrated in the Pan-Am Space Clipper and Aries 1-b sequences) ... the 2010 scenes definitely didn't reflect that.

[@donsample1002]

hurdygurdyguy1 Definitely. In 2001, Bowman is also shown keeping one hand on the "ceiling" keeping is feet pressed to the "floor"

[@NozomuYume]

@@donsample1002 The funny thing is that in real life nobody moves around a spacecraft this way. It's way easier and faster just to fly around. Even on Skylab which had a HUGE internal volume (the single Skylab module had more than 1/3 as much space as the combined volume of all the modules of the ISS), nobody tried to "walk" except for that silly run-in-circles stunt. I mean it's kind of predictable. If you were just living normally on Earth but could fly like Superman to get around, would you bother walking everywhere?

[@g.v.3493]

You said “Russians” several times, rather than “Soviets”. The film was made in a time when we ‘knew’ that the USSR would be around forever. Remember “Soviet Studies” degrees? (I think Condoleezza Rice got one.)

[@paulhewes7333]

This annoyed the hell out of me in the video. Russia was part of the Soviet Union, but it wasn’t all of the Soviet state and no one said these were all Russians. Just piss poor historical perspective

[@guaposneeze]

@@paulhewes7333 It's not like nobody called the USSR "Russia" in the 80's. It was extremely common to talk about it that way at the time. And heck, we still often hear coverage about how "Washington" is moving to adopt some policy because we let the city represent the whole country and nobody gets confused.

[@doncarlin9081]

@@guaposneeze But when one refers to the capital city of a country, they generally mean the government of the country rather than the entire country. In the former case, they are using one ethnicity, Russians, as a synonym for the country, USSR, which was incorrect, even if "everybody" did it. Everybody at one point believed the earth was flat and the sun orbited it, didn't mean they were right.

[@sdfried4877]

@@doncarlin9081 The USSR and “the Russians” were basically synonymous since the Russians had established the USSR and were running the entire Union. The funny thing is that, in the book, there was no Cold War story and the astronauts all got along great. All the geopolitical horseshit was added during the scriptwriting process.

[@doncarlin9081]

@@sdfried4877 Yes and no. Russians were a majority in the USSR, yes, but there were many non-Russians and even non-Slavics in high leadership positions in the USSR throughout its history. Indeed during the time of the worst abuses of the USSR, it was a Georgian in charge, with a huge chunk if not a majority of top level positions to include the politburo being held by non Russians. USSR and Russia are not synonymous even though majority of people including myself oftentimes have treated it as such. I remember that in the book. Given the time period the movie came out, I am not a bit surprised that was added in the movie script.

[@MasakoX]

Glad to see this sequel gets coverage! Also I am still a lover of the theory that the monolith is the same screen ratio as a movie theatre meaning we are watching a monolith playing back this movie!

[@ReptilianRichardRamirez]

2010 is an underrated gem

[@cheddar2648]

Your comment gives me a strong feeling of kzbin.info/www/bejne/q6jQlntsh9OdaKc

[@stephencampbell9384]

the monolith is 1:4:9 in our reality.....but continues in higher dimensions....so the third and fourth dimension are 9:16 ;)

[@embossed64]

You should read what Kubrick says......everyone tends to over examine.

[@MattMcIrvin]

One of the things it resembles is a door, which has lots of obvious symbolism. (I'd always thought the dimensions of it were 1:4:9 because Arthur C. Clarke hammers on that so hard in the books, but the movie didn't use those proportions at all because it doesn't look good.)

[@BroadsideBob]

Did you even watch 2010? The monolith at the end was on Europa, not some ambiguous, far off world. That's why the final warning from Hal was to "attempt no landing there," so the emerging civilation on Europa could develop without interference.

[@LifeIsTooShortForQRP]

I saw 2010 (which I believe to be an great film) in a movie theater with an excellent sound system in 1984. The scene where the American/Russian space ship performs the aero braking maneuver in Jupiter's upper atmosphere is absolutely stunning. The fear of the unknown (the maneuver had never been tested before and could go wrong) exhibited by the actors playing the astronauts is palatable. The sound effects of the braking maneuver, swelling in a slow crescendo from a slight vibration to a roaring and deafening thunder is literally breathtaking. It might very well the best, most realistic special effect I have ever experienced in a movie theater, and this was 40 years ago! I have later seen the movie (including this particular scene) on the small screen (well, still 70 inch, not that small) but it doesn't even come close to what I experienced in 1984. One would have to do another theatrical release in a top-notch movie theater to experience this scene the proper way.

[@jonathanross149]

If you had HBO in the mid-80's...then you will not forget this film. They also had a nice behind the scenes documentary. I think my family watched the film almost every time it came on rotation. I always enjoyed the acting and interaction between characters. It gave hope to a future where the US and the USSR would have better relations.

[@charlessomerset9754]

I thought the sequel definitely held its own. The redemption of HAL 9000 was one of my favorite parts. The moment before his sacrifice when he asks Bob Balaban (Chandra) "will I dream?" always brings tears to my eyes. Also, the scene where Bowman's cosmic ghost brushes his dying mother's hair was unforgettable. And the whole "something wonderful" scene. Overall the film was brilliant.

[@robjohnson8522]

I think 2010 is by far the better movie. It tells a cohesive entertaining story that as you noted you become emotionally involved in. You should be emotionally involved if it is true art. There is no scene in 2001 that will hit you emotionally unless of course confusion is an emotion. ;)

[@charlessomerset9754]

@@robjohnson8522 i don't know if I would say 2010 is better. 2001 is an epic film, and it did stir my emotions, especially a sense of wonder. Thanks for your reply.

[@BasementDweller_]

3001 the true forgotten Odyssey

[@BasementDweller_]

And 2061.

[@emilram]

@@BasementDweller_ Not in the least

[@RaikenXion]

YES! This should be Christopher Nolan or Denis Villenuve's next project either one of these talented underrated directors would be perfect to do a adaptation of 3001.

[@Phicxtion]

2020 the most shit year

[@zarkeh3013]

@@Phicxtion I haven't read that... maybe try the Robot City Series?

[@Reticuli]

2010 has actual acting. 2001 is basically an art house flick and for acid trippers. It's really too bad 1984 had Dune and Terminator within months, because the sequel deserved to be seen by more people. There's particularly an amazing vertigo-inducing scene in it when poor Lithgow has to drift over to the Odyssey with Baskin. I'd never felt the floor drop out from under me like I did in the theater in that moment. My biggest hang ups about it are the USSR references that could have been just generic Russia stuff instead, but they couldn't have known it would be gone so soon obviously, and the added "use them together, use them in peace" line. Hey, I was into the original 2001 film long before it was fashionable, but 2010 is certainly a more enjoyable and exciting experience.

[@DJYungHoxha]

2001 also has "actual acting." I love 2010 and think that it's a totally worthy sequel but saying shit like "2001 is basically an art house flick" just makes you seem like a utterly clueless doofus who thinks that all films need to follow one specific formula to count as "good films". The whole point of most of the discourse surrounding both films is to NOT blindly compare both films as though they had to achieve the same goal. This mindset is so annoying

[@Reticuli]

@@DJYungHoxha Kubrick intentionally had the actors produce as little emotion as possible in many of the scenes so that the AI would seem more human... to the point the AI can even lose its mind. If you look at the plot and its structure, actually very little happens in 2001... just spread out over a very long time, which is why most modern audiences would tune out. It is absolutely art house stuff based on a short story & screen play by Kubrick & A.C.C meant for artist types and film aficionados, rather than being a commercial 'movie'. 2010 is a commercial adaptation of a A.C.C. book.

[@lmamakos]

2010 had one of the best lines in any move (even though it wasn't spoken by a human): "Look behind you"

[@kepcar]

O god now I have to rewatch it. _chills_

[@earlgrey3461]

That was a kicker of a scene. So cool to see Bowman again after those years between 1968 and 1984... I’m a geek. Forced my parents to take me to 2001 at the Cinerama Dome in 1968 for my 10th birthday. I really liked 2010, though the book was better. I’ve literally read everything Clarke ever published, as 2001 had such an effect on me.

[@LerhChang]

"It's shrinking ! It's shrinking !" screaming by Dr Curnow when he see the Jupiter shrank. There is the horror in his eyes.

[@edp2260]

The 2 countries on the brink of war are supposed to be the USA and the SOVIET UNION, not 'RUSSIA' (they had no idea in 1984 that the evil empire would be gone in a couple of years). Check out the Time magazine cover at 12:22 : I guess Clark had 2 cameos in the film: as the guy feeding the pigeons in the beginning of the film, and here on the cover as I guess the American president. Looks like Kubrick got a cameo as the 'Soviet leader' on the same Time magazine cover. See the hammer and sickle above him?

[@jasonblalock4429]

8:55 I'm glad to see 2010 get some attention, but you're doing real disservice to its effects, and comparing it to Doctor Who is just unfair. EVERY shot of Jupiter is CGI, so early in CGI history that it rarely even gets credit. It also has extremely advanced wire-work for the zero-G scenes. You cherry-picked the only poor greenscreen shots, while ignoring how several shots in 2001 are blatantly using cardboard cutouts of spaceships rather than even having physical models. I get that you love Kubrick, but you threw 2010 under the bus here without justification.

[@Rick-the-Swift]

I agree that some scenes were cherry picked, but even the ones picked honestly still looked great in 2010. Peter was clearly giving us the proper elements to solidify this as a legit sequel, yet also clearly changing the lighting and even the mood so that it didn't seem like he was just trying to clone Stanley's directing style too much. I think where a lot of people still struggle are with scenes like 12:52 where the lady (forget her name) was leaning forward and glaring at Roy Scheider with the other old boy's silhouette sits silently between the two. This is clearly an attempt to clone not only Kubrick's style, but even further indeed- some view this as Hyam actually attempting to steal some of his very hallmarks which put Kubrick in a league of his own. I think it's this subtle yet distinct liberal "borrowing" on Hyam's part that caused such a clear line to be drawn among so many of Kubrick's fans. To trash the 2010 a little is their way of saying to Peter, "You can try on his pants and try to act like him, but you'll never be Kubrick son". That's my two cents on it anyhow, and personally I'm glad Peter did the film as I think it was clear Kubrick would have never been interested. So if fans of the original movie were going to get a sequel at all- this is about as good as anyone can expect imho. Honestly, now that I think about it, I could even see both the original 2001 and 2010 being remade with justice today if the job fell in the right director's hands- like a Robert Zemeckis in his prime, perhaps.

[@PHXDOG]

I was born in 1970, I have seen 2010 more times than I have seen 2001.

[@xamalion7334]

Because it is the better movie of the both, it tells the story in a way you can understand it.

[@bbbf09]

@@xamalion7334 Oh man - that's next to a blaspemous statement. Looking for the Michael Bay remake of 2001 maybe?

[@xamalion7334]

@@bbbf09 Oh please, everyone pretending 2001 to be a masterpiece is just chiming in on something, that has been cemented for the last 40 years. Sure, the movie is visual appealing, but storywise it is dragging out its content until it gets boring, especially in the third act. You don't need to attack me personally for my opinion. I do not need remakes of anything, I would rather like to see movies for the third and fourth novel in the series.

[@bbbf09]

@@xamalion7334 Well that is subjective opinion. Many cinephiles, auteurs and directors have been dismissive of 2001 on first viewing as a one trick visual / cinematographic experience. But they admitted on subsequent repeat viewing they had begun to appreciate its very complex , subtle and hidden depths - that keep giving. I would agree that it helps to read the book first and have reasonable understanding of science to appreciate it best. Kubrick probbaly was always a little too obtuse for his his own (or our ) good. But go ahead it - call it pretentious if you like. I call it deep . If you watch even just one apparently inconsequnetial short scene of HAL playing chess with astronaut Frank Poole and understand there are about a dozen themes and motifs in just that once scene (e.g. heres one - Kubrick was showing an actual epic famous grandmaster move that was in fact a winnable position - but thought unwinnab;le. HAL declaring it as checkmate was his first way testing out his ability to lie and deceive the crew)...only then do you get to start to dive deep into the complexities of a a movie that keeps giving. But I dont know you. If yourve been bought up on a diet of George Lucas and Michael Bay movies then all that will sound like pretentious shit to you for sure. Can't be helped.

[@xamalion7334]

@@bbbf09 it is pointless to discuss with you, because apparently you cannot keep a conversation going without passive aggressively insulting people you - admittedly - don’t know. I will only say so much: you can watch almost every movie several times and start seeing patterns or things you missed before. This is nothing exclusively to Kubrick or 2001. So in the end, and because this is subjective as everything critics wise, you can call almost every movie a a masterpiece.

[@CoyoteSeven]

I never forgot this movie and you're making me feel old.

[@DaffyAF]

I saw 2010 first. That was my 2001. It was and is one of my most favorite sci-fi films, ever.

[@UD503J]

Similar for me. I read 2001 and 2010 as books and then watched 2010. I didn't watch 2001 until the 90's.

[@DaffyAF]

@@UD503J 2010 is highly underrated. I hope 2061 and 3001 get their own film or miniseries.

[@DelightLovesMovies]

"My God..Its full of stars.."

[@briangonigal3974]

That’s actually a line from Clarke’s original 1968 novel adaptation (sort of) of 2001, but it was never heard in the original film. 2010 however did make cannon that Bowman had said the line when first encountered the stargate, and somehow that line became the most iconic & enduring bit of the whole movie. To whatever extent 2010 has become forgotten (and as much as he exaggerates it here, the fact remains that it is a much less well known film than 2001), that line seems to have stuck in the cultural memory long after the rest of 2010 was largely forgotten, to the point that I suspect many believe it actually is from the original 2001 film.

[@guytech7310]

Easy as Piece of Pie!

[@DelightLovesMovies]

@@guytech7310 haha

[@whiteowl2006]

My dad and I went to see 2001 in the theatres in over quarantine because they were playing old movies and we didn’t understand it so the next day we had to watch 2010 and it made so much sense

[@Rayyman]

I enjoyed 2010. I own the bluray.

[@junusavior65]

"incorporeal," not "corporeal." I was going to let it go after the first use but after two I had to say something.

[@MrZorbatron]

Noncorporeal, actually.

[@andyhowlett2231]

As an old fella who saw 2001 at the cinema in 1968, I say 2010 has been forgotten simply because - although it was pretty good - it wasn't as ground-breaking. Some of the appeal of the original was due to the amazingly convincing effects, which were so clean and free of artefacts that people left the cinema wondering how this movie had been made at all. By 1984 things had moved on, and good effects were easier and cheaper to do and no longer caused wonder. The films are different in concept too. 2001 is mostly an effects movie with a bit of a story. 2010 has a conventional, linear story and uses effects where it has to.

[@no_one_of_that_name_here]

It's definitely worth a watch. Lovely to see it getting proper attention in your video.

[@Hyapatia77]

I saw this in 1984, when I was 15. I loved it. I bought the dvd 17 years ago, and still have it. I favor it.

[@Lucas-mf1tc]

2010 was the first film I ever went to see with my parents. Totally blew my 5 year old mind and probably helped shape me. Didn’t see 2001 until I was 15, and my mind was blown for a second time!

[@robingrogan7937]

my mum took me to see 2001 when i was 6 years old lol I am 57 now and still love both the films.

[@warrengamameilhardin]

Do you realize you are saying "Schneider"? The lead actor's name is Scheider, dude, Roy Scheider. Also, you say twice this film is unknown and forgotten. No it's not! I saw it in the theater for chrissake.

[@benanthony8048]

relax

[@michaelammons4965]

I've seen this movie lots of times and I never noticed that it's Clark and Kubrick on the cover of Time.

[@bojandolinar1535]

Did you notice Clark on a bench in front of the White House? 13:18

[@LordFlaggy]

God I love 2010 so much, not as much as 2001 of course but still; It's close to my heart.

[@robertcolon6719]

Totally agree with you. Also 2010 is to assist with answering questions on what happened

[@jeff111458]

You're pretty sure I've never heard of 2010? Really? That is a pretty sweeping statement to make. If you are a science fiction film fan, you've heard of it. You may not have liked it, but you've heard of it. And his name was Scheider, not Schnider. No "n." Also, Dave Bowman existed in a non-corporeal form, not corporeal.

[@timmayvns]

Get immmm!

[@Nickelsackkgaming]

Well I Never heard of it!!!. I Love sci fi films 🤔

[@TengoChorr0]

Its not 2001 so don't walk into this film with that comparison. It does its own thing and I really like this film. If you read the Clarke books then you'll realize how much it follows the source material.

[@luismarioguerrerosanchez4747]

I generally hate sequels because most of the time they're excuses to milk a popular IP. But in this case, the first movie was an adaptation from a book that itself has three sequels, so making 2010 was just completing the task of adapting that material. That's the reason I was also fine with Doctor Sleep.

[@StuckInnerRut]

No point saying "you've probably never heard of it." You have no idea who will watch it. Never under-estimate your audience.

[@CaptainCaterpillars]

The only people looking up this review are likely people who have seen the movie. I’m assuming this video was made for his audience which likely didn’t know what this movie was.

[@dsdy1205]

@@CaptainCaterpillars Finally a reasonable comment

[@plbenton]

Love the part when Schieder sees the star child for the first time. Such an amazing feeling.

[@rodrigopozariffo9171]

Wow this was awesome. I loved this. Fan of 2001 and the genius of lord Kubrick. All respect to Arthur C Clarke and the amazing sci fi genre. 2010 is still a honourable movie, I loved to watch it when I was younger. You said all that I would say about this exiting movie. Thanks ! Saludos from Chile.

[@yubacore2743]

“Pretty sure you’ve never heard of it.” I’m pretty sure that’s not a Dutch angle

[@bitdragon3915]

Some people don't believe that there are folks who lived back then who are still alive I guess. I watched both 2001 and 2010 when they came out. Loved both of them for different reasons.

[@TheAlanRaptor]

You're right. The angle is not off axis.

[@macgyver110]

Yeah not a dutch angle, and that's not Roy Schneider, it's Roy Scheider.

[@blameyourself4489]

@@macgyver110 ... which unfortunately died last year .... :-(

[@Levy_Wilson]

I think the original novel of 2010 is a much more realistic take on how international conflict would go down today. In the novel, America still do hitch a ride on a Soviet spacecraft, but the antagonist was China. They built a spacecraft that was faster than any other in an attempt to rush to the Discovery, using only enough fuel to get there with plans to refuel with water from Europa to return. But when they landed on Europa to refuel, they were attacked by the lifeforms below the ice. There was no conflict between the US and Russia shoehorned into the film.

[@jamescarrington6504]

yeah they kinda skip over the china mission in the movie, which is a bummer, they probably could not afford the europa creature special effects

[@Michael-cb5nm]

Also you refer to the hominid scene in 2001 as “100s of millions of years ago”, that would be more like a few million as the common ancestor to humans and chimps existed only 6-8 million years ago. “100s of millions” would be well within the age of the dinosaurs!

[@TrevorAvrett]

Thank you for an informative, genuinely respectful and mature perspective! That was refreshing to find in a KZbin film critique. I don't know if I'll ever watch 2010, but now I'm curious and will certainly give it a chance if that day comes

[@trionsundermeier6340]

I will fall on my sword for 2010. My 12 year old self implores you to watch this movie! It's good Science fiction, has a good political message, has some mystery, some great dialogue and is just a cracking great adventure. One of the great 80's classics. Unfortunately, its also a sequel to one of the top 50 movies of all time.

[@deep_amok]

A fair review. Good job. I still love 2010 and watch it every now and then. I find it to be a much darker film than 2001, with a fairy tale ending, which is a strange combination but it works. My favorite scene is when HAL is relaying messages from Bowman to Floyd. Floyd: "Well tell whoever it is that I can't accept that unless I have proof." HAL: "The answer is: 'I understand. Look behind you.'"

[@madisonocarroll6503]

As a young person who is a huge fan of the entire 2001 franchise, this video had me in the first half. 2001 was such a captivating movie that it made me purchase and read all four of the novels in the series (the last two which I would say are a lot more "forgotten" than 2010, novel or film), and after reading 2010 and discovering the film, my love for the series grew even more. While 2001 is a movie I watch time and time again for the visual experience, 2010 is a comfort film of sorts. I grew up fascinated by space and 2001 captures the beauty of it, but 2010 captures the humanity of space travel. Laughing at some of the visual effects in 2010 is a fun pass-time (that one scene where he grabs that pen out of mid-air gets me every time), but to disqualify a film centered around a narrative rather than visual appeal because of some of its visual effects is kind of weird. I think 2010 captures the characters in the novel so well, and as other people have mentioned, the final 20 minutes of the movie have moved me to tears before. It's such a relevant exploration of how a character painted as a villain can quickly turn into one deserving of sympathy, and that as humans we believe that, if we create something that is "perfect", then its failures are not our own fault. Regardless, it makes me happy to see 2001 and 2010 content on my recommended page- I initially watched the film because of a fan-made music video for a song I love. Even though I don't agree with some of your points, cool video :)

[@retroorogeny]

Not sure why you're so convinced no-one in your audience will have heard of this or seen this or read it. It's not exactly the most obscure film or novel ever.

[@darynkatano]

I love this movie with all my heart... In some ways, it really inspired me as a screenwriter. If I ever had the money, which I probably never will, I would buy the rights to and try my best to write a worthy screenplay for 2061 (the first of two more sequel books that weren't made into movies), and ask Christopher Nolan to revise and direct it. 2001 is, and will always be, one of the best movies ever made, but I also LOVE 2010! Please watch this movie, it is so worth it!

[@blueknight5754]

Thanos Skywalker we can’t make a sequel until we find out why we can’t go back to Europa...😉

[@TheKain202]

@@blueknight5754 The sequels were already written decades ago. 2061: Odyssey Three and 3001: The Final Odyssey. They just need to be adapted, hell - 2061 spends half it's length on Europa.

[@aliensoup2420]

You don't need to purchase the rights to write your own version of the screenplay. Just do it, then if someone thinks it is producible, they can purchase the rights. You can write a version of anything you want - you just can't sell it, distribute it, or produce it for profit.

[@kemagolan]

2010 is in my bed time stories list. I fall asleep to it about 2 times a week. Its very calming with really well written character interactions.

[@marckhachfe1238]

Im just going to say this once. 2010 is the best sci fi film ever made. Bar none. Perfect visuals, perfect cast, perfect score, perfect story...just INCREDIBLE film. And the scene at the end when HAL tells Floyd to "look behind you" remains one of the most tension filled cinema scenes ever filmed. Stunning film. STUNNING.

[@doncarlin9081]

First time I saw that, it sent chilled down my spine.

[@jedgould5531]

Have you ever looked up the meanings of ‘hyperbole’ or ‘credibility?’

[@newwavepop]

2001 is an absolute masterpiece and there is no denying it, it is pure art on screen and it looks stunning even more so considering the time period it was made, it is flawless. but i absolutely LOVE 2010, i was 12 when it came out and i have watched it dozens of times. the something wonderful sequence gives me goose bumps and makes my eyes water up every time, its almost like some sort of religious experience or something for me. because i already know whats going to happen, The Monoliths, they fill the sky and move out in every direction to every world everywhere. and it means we are no longer alone, out there in the vastness of space intelligence and life is about to blossom everywhere. all possibilities are going to be open, there are no other words for it its going to be wonderful.

[@KugleeKuglee]

The two film has different tone and message. First focusing on Art and symbols but the second focusing on grounded gritty exploration and a message. I like both in different aspect.

[@theowinters6314]

*chuckles* I just watched both of them a couple of weeks ago. I love both films for totally different reasons.

[@thedavecorp]

There's 2 more books After this.

[@MeMyselfI_69]

I may get beaten for this but I like 2010 better.

[@Thurgosh_OG]

@@MeMyselfI_69 you're not alone. The music of 2001 grated on me with it's repetition. 2010 is a good mood provoking film.

[@arismukti2531]

Yes, its really weird. I totally love both of them

[@MeMyselfI_69]

@@Thurgosh_OG Great to hear I'm not the only one

[@jkorshak]

Good movie. A little flawed even without comparisons to 2001. A little clunky, some awkward dialogue, as well as some clumsy expository dialogue, such as when we hear Floyd speaking in the form of a "letter" to his wife or when his kid is asking questions at the breakfast table to explain the Floyd family backstory to the audience. The effects are spectacular on the big screen - it won an Oscar for it. All in all, I agree with Ebert - it's a very well done space opera and a good movie, just as long as you're not looking for more of Kubrick's 2001. Hyams is a good director and his film before 2010, "Outland" -essentially "High Noon" in a science fiction setting, is excellent.

[@SmokeShow1971]

I personally liked 2010 more than 2001. I enjoyed the characters more in 2010 and the scene of "It is important you believe me. Look behind you" and then we see Dave. It is one of my favorite scenes in movies. Gave me goose bumps.

[@preahko]

okay, anyone who has not seen this movie, please disregard the "spoiler alerts"....bafflingly, the synopsis given here of 2010 does nothing to expose the major spoilers/important events in the film. I mean...WTF? did this guy even watch the entire film? he totally misses the major impact and meaning of the ending...full disclosure: I saw 2010 in a theater upon its first release

[@mok1138]

Did you see A. C. Clarke sitting on the bench on the left in the scene outside the white house? 13:18

[@MobiusBandwidth]

I never knew about that, thanks!

[@yandan7010]

And both Clark and Kubrick @ 12:21

[@bobblum5973]

@@yandan7010 On the cover of Time magazine, no less!

[@winternow2242]

@@bobblum5973 with Kubrick as the model for the leader of the USSR?

[@wkanost]

2010 is an excellent movie. I saw it in a theater twice when it was released. I found it to be a great film and sequel. It furthered the story and kept elements of the original just enough to match up visually. See this movie if you haven’t yet. It’s more than worth a look.

[@michaelammons4965]

Scheider's portrayal of Dr.Floyd is so different it might as well be a new character.

[@generybarczyk6993]

On the other hand, Dr. Floyd had been through some remarkable experiences and was nine years older. 2001's Floyd seemed reserved and with a confidence that had yet to be tested. 2010's seems more relaxed and a bit cynical, certainly less of a stuffed shirt. To me it could be a natural progression for someone who dealt with the ramifications of the first Jupiter mission,

[@jimairey6170]

It’s Roy Scheider, not Schneider. Good grief. If you know so much to comment like this please get the names right. And it was a great movie. It was meant to entertain. And it did that wonderfully.

[@jackispax1633]

The scene where HAL is reactivated gives me goosebumps.

[@winternow2242]

The scene where HAL keeps his cool when Chandra tells him the truth brings me to tears.

[@anthonybrett]

@@winternow2242 Yep me too. Its my favorite part of that film and worth the sequel being made.

[@connornyhan]

Both 2001 and 2010 were pretty big pieces of my childhood. Glad to see 2010 getting some recognition.

[@lynng9618]

I remember it. "Something wonderful!"

[@airspeedmph]

My favorites: "Look behind you" followed by "Hello Doctor Floyd" The whole sequence was so strong.

[@TheBlackDogChronicles]

I saw it at the time it came out and loved it. "My god, it's full of stars!" was a quote that myself and my brother say, still to this day. It is a bit hard to cope when a kid creates a KZbin video claiming something is 'forgotten', speaking for a generation who was around before the narrator was not even a twinkle in the milkman's eye.

[@tonyatmidnight]

"My God! It's full of stars!" and "Dr. Chandra, will I dream?" ... two lines that still haunt me to this day ....

[@tonyf8358]

Your take on this film lacks any understanding of the story. It's obvious you didn't read the novels. The director didn't want to make a photocopy. This movie is in my Top 20 of all time.

[@otherkorean]

"100s of millions of years ago", "Dutch angels", etc... I'm going to watch this my spouse tonight and we'll do shots every time he says something stupid. Also, 3001 would make an epic movie. We finally the VFX tech to do it right.

[@christopherrousseau1173]

Man you won't get past the five minute mark without having to go to the store to buy more.

[@mikecimerian6913]

Lucy is dated at 6 million years. The dinosaurs extinction dates back 60 million years.

[@donotstalkme]

The "vfx" of today is just CGI garbage, practical effects peaked in the 80s and nothing can beat it.

[@macabga5071]

​@@donotstalkme You should watch The Expanse, though. I'd say you're right about practical effects peaking in the late 80s/early 90s... but if you use it right, CGI can boost the alredy peaked practical effects. It's not a matter of one vs. the other: it's a matter of using them in tandem to create the best product ever

[@donotstalkme]

@@macabga5071 Exactly. Look no further than T2 to see how the - sparce - use o CGI can enhance the practical effects. But good luck convincing the producers and directors of today to use even "real" fake blood... it's a mess on the set they say. So screw it, I'll keep skipping any new movie.

[@kayos72]

" Something Wonderful" This was one of my favorite movies

[@alanrogers7090]

At the 3:50 point, there is a quick clip from "2010: The Year We Made Contact", filmed across from the White House. That old man on the left of the screen is a cameo by Arthur C. Clarke. About the soundtrack, It seems to echo the film "Alien" from 1979, a lot more than the original 1968 film.

[@nerdlesintime]

I was just talking about this movie to my roommate. I think 2010 is fantastic! Great review, only wish it were longer!