2010: The Year We Make Contact - The Best Sequel You Never Saw

Crafting a sequel to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY sounds like a fool’s errand. Being that it’s one of the most acclaimed films ever made, in order to be judged any kind of success the sequel would have to be some kind of masterpiece. 2010: THE YEAR WE MAKE CONTACT isn't a masterpiece, but it's pretty darn good. In 1984, director Peter Hyams, coming off the success of CAPRICORN ONE and some mid-level studio programmers (THE STAR CHAMBER, OUTLAND) decided to give it a go. He based it on author Arthur C. Clarke’s well-received sequel to the book the original 2001 was based on, and MGM, celebrating their “diamond jubilee” (60th anniversary) gave him a healthy $28 million budget. With star Roy Scheider coming off BLUE THUNDER, and co-star John Lithgow having recently had back-to-back Oscar nominations (for THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP and TERMS OF ENDEARMENT), it looked for a while like 2010 was going to be a solid hit, with Kubrick himself giving the film his (reserved) blessings.
For more MOVIE NEWS, visit: www.joblo.com
SUBSCRIBE for more of all the LATEST JoBlo Videos here: goo.gl/R9U81J
#TheBestMovieYouNeverSaw #2010

[@lbberkeley]

I really loved this movie as a kid (and continue to enjoy it). "All these worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landing there. Use them together. Use them in peace."

[@bjgandalf69]

That message gives me chills every time I hear it.

[@lbberkeley]

​@@bjgandalf69 same here. The score and imagery immediately following drive that feeling home for me as well.

[@noneed4me2n7]

I was happy HAL wasn’t the antagonist. Even got a redemptive arc.

[@bjgandalf69]

@@lbberkeley Another time I get chills is when David talks to his wife thru her TV and brushes his mother's hair before she dies.

[@lbberkeley]

@@bjgandalf69 it's definitely a scene that catches me. How he fades in and out on the TV. Definitely a little eerie

[@joneggelton]

Dr Chandra trying to convince HAL to sacrifice himself is a masterful suspense scene, and in the end, unexpectedly moving.

[@ikr9358]

The thing is, he didn't really have to 'convince' HAL to do anything. Chandra just had to explain the probably outcomes and logic (now that HAL has his original programming) would dictate the outcome.

[@jonathanross149]

I understand now, Dr. Chandra. Thank you for telling me the truth.

[@mbaxter22]

I remember I had tears in my eyes in that scene, which I totally didn’t see coming.

[@fodormotor]

Will I dream?

[@adamkuch9377]

@@fodormotor I don't know.

[@cognitivedissidents4642]

When 2001 debuted some critics dismissed it as an art-house science fiction film, but when Hyams very grounded film came out, some critics then dismissed it for not being an art-house science fiction film. Go figure.

[@IllusionSector]

The critics failed to see it for what it was - something wonderful. 😁

[@TheDastard]

Dr. Chandra's explanation of why HAL went rogue is probably the best pure dialogue scene in the entire movie. It explores both the advantages & the limits of AI.

[@jasontoddman7265]

The explanation was actually given in the novel 2001 when it was published back in 1968, but this development didn't come out in the movie version. So it wasn't until the movie 2010 came out that most people learned how HAL was messed up, but that plot development was sixteen years old by then.

[@Argumemnon]

A real AI, assuming such a thing is possible, would, like a human, be able to work through the contradiction.

[@bensneb360]

I got to say, for a sequel to such a beloved film, I actually do a pretty good job of honoring the original, while also feeling like their own thing

[@JayaMadhavadas]

2010 is a Film Based by Arthur C Clarkes - Sequel Novel. Of the same name,,,,2010: Odyssey Two by ---- > Arthur C. Clarke.

[@dixonhill1108]

I thought it was horrible, the idea that Russia and America would risk going to war with eachother was painfully cliched, unrealistic, and didn't sync up with the times(mids 2000s). Then last year hit, me and my brother literally watched it together directly after the Russian invasion. At the time there were even rumors the Russians would try to de-orbit the ISS. It was just surreal, that bizarro land cold war cliches were made into a movie about science, then all of a sudden it almost become prophetic.

[@dixonhill1108]

I'm aware that's the point. Reread what i typed.@diomedes7971

[@paulrugg]

@@dixonhill1108 "and didn't sync up with the times(mids 2000s)." How is a movie made over 30 years ago going to predict events that don't happen until the mid 00's?

[@car103d]

@@dixonhill1108 Dr. Heywood Floyd: “Listen, just because our governments are behaving like asses doesn't mean we have to. We're supposed to be scientists, not politicians” Unfortunately we see history repeating

[@jasonblalock4429]

This is one of my all-time favorites. Totally underrated, and a genuinely good sci-fi film on its own merits. Also, it had a lot of early CGI for 1984. Its particle-simulation Jupiter is so good most people don't even realize it was CGI, and its rendered Monoliths look pretty decent too. Not to mention being a rare sci-fi (especially for the time) to have reasonably hard science going on.

[@XyrxesTube]

I absolutely agree with you. A great movie❗️👍

[@MyMarsham]

The aero braking scene always gives me chills, seeing that tiny dot trailing flames against Jupiter’s clouds.

[@shainewhite2781]

I remember Stanley Kubrick had ordered all the props, the sketches and the blueprints the spaceships destroyed, because he didn't want to make a sequel to the movie, but the only thing that survived were the photos. The effects team had to painstakingly put the model ships together by looking at the photos.

[@EJK2099]

Was he legally allowed to do that? Wouldn't the props and sets be the property of the film production company like Fox or Universal?

[@keithgordon3823]

Kubrick didn't f*CK around! LOL! I remember hearing that, too! I was gonna' post that! You beat me to it! ✌️

[@KravKernow]

There's quite a sad photo floating around of the space station from 2001 just dumped in a field next to the studio.

[@hagerty1952]

That's not quite true. He had all the props and drawings under his control destroyed, but Fred Ordway (the science advisor on the film) kept his own copy of all the drawings. He donated them to the US Space and Rocket Center museum in Huntsville, Alabama where they are currently in storage. He told me this when we were working on the "2001" chapter of "Spaceship Handbook."

[@radwolf76]

Kubric had seen Robby the Robot from Forbidden Planet get recycled into any number of productions, and felt that those appearances cheapened the impact of the original film, and didn't want the same thing happening to his stuff. Because 2010 recreated everything and he wasn't in charge to have it destroyed again, some of the distinctive space suit designs from 2001 did end up with a wardrobe rental company where they ended up getting used in a pivotal two part episode of the TV series Babylon 5. Interestingly enough, Babylon 5's design language for many of its ships took strong cues from the design of 2010's Leonov.

[@AlexandreSilva-kc6kc]

It's a beautiful movie that doesn't pretend to be like 2001, but does make sense as a sequel to the story. Very elegant visually,

[@tripbreaker]

Showing my age here, but there was one summer in the 80’s when 2010 was on HBO all summer long so I pretty much memorized it. After all these years I can finally say: that was Helen Mirren? Holy shit that woman is a chameleon.

[@SkorpioMusic]

I also remember watching this over and over on HBO. One of my favorite all-time movies!

[@holgerschulz4104]

Yeah, finally! Thanks for bringing "2010" up! Having seen it on the big screen back then, it shall always stay in my heart for its impressive visuals and a great cast.

[@Oscuros]

I notice that for a sequel that we all allegedly never saw, a lot of us went to the cinema to see it, in fact, from the comments.

[@PHDiaz-vv7yo]

“HAL, tell him how do I know if that’s really Commander Bowman talking to me” “Dr Floyd, Commander Bowman says “I thought you might say that. Look behind you”” Apologies as I’m quoting that from memory but damn what an incredible moment from an incredible film

[@markbarthel9835]

I have been turning people onto this film for years. It's an utter gem of a science fiction film and in many ways even outdoes it's legendary predecessor. The scene where Dr. Chandra says goodbye to HAL is utterly heartbreaking. HAL-9000: "Will I dream"? Dr. Chandra: "I don't know".

[@RHampton]

Dr. Chandra - honest to the very end.

[@crunchers9]

I'm not so sure. Why did it differ so much from his supposedly straight answer to the SAL computer, earlier in the film?

[@muhanadtayfour7992]

@@crunchers9 I think he realized in that moment that he is not sure anymore ,, who knows if AI can dream ..

[@davidnicholson6680]

I'm old enough that I saw it in the theater. I loved it and I was shocked for thirty years that no one talked about it. 2010 started to get more press in the last decade as people have started to realize it's damned good. It's much more of a popcorn movie than 2001 but it's very entertaining and tight.

[@tmorganriley]

At the same time, it is also far-less-popcorn than most of the post-Star-Wars space-fantasy of its era, and IMHO, "2010" stands alongside "Blade Runner" as the (relatively) hard sci-fi cinematic masterworks of the 1980s.

[@BishopWalters12]

Great movie, 2001 was groundbreaking especially with its special effects but 2010 has far more interesting characters and is way more rewatchable. I still love both movies.

[@Cyril29a]

You find 2010 more rewatchable that 2001? That is interesting. I have rewatched 2001 1000 times, it is more of an art installation than a movie while 2010 is a fun movie. I find 2001 far more rewatchable but after the fourth or fifth time it stops being a movie and is instead on experience where you kind of let it wash over you.

[@tellemstevedave5559]

​@@Cyril29a Hear, hear.

[@arphod]

Respectfully, no. The importance of 2001 to film far transcends its FX. On all levels it's a masterpiece. 2011 is merely a good, underrated sci-fi film. "Re-watchable" is an awfully subjective criterion on which to judge a movie.

[@Cyril29a]

@@arphod Man inflation is so out of control it made the sequel to 2001 become 2011. Thanks Obama! ;-)

[@BishopWalters12]

@@Cyril29a Yes I do

[@tommyhatcher3399]

For me, 2010 is a better movie, while 2001 is a better work of art to be admired.

[@mikebasil4832]

2010 was certainly best suited for sci-fi of the 80s in ways that 2001 was in the 60s.

[@Broadswordannyboy]

Agreed

[@motodork]

I really want to say you're wrong but I don't seem to be able to.

[@lukasjuszczak1664]

Oh, this.

[@Logan_Irrelevant]

2010 is the more enjoyable film but 2001 was art.

[@countgeekula9143]

Saw it at the cinema in 1984 and loved it ever since. Great movie.

[@DelightLovesMovies]

I agree with you. This is a very good film. "My god, its full of stars" One of the most haunting and foreboding pieces of dialogue ever.

[@chrisbullard5901]

There’s a reason TBS and TNT used to run this movie every few weeks on the weekends. It holds up incredibly well, the acting is superb (especially Discount Morgan Freeman at the White House scene). If you watch “Outland”, it’s quite obvious he was the perfect person to do “2010”. Hyams doesn’t get enough credit for being the “medium budget thriller” director. “The Presidio” is another great example of his cinematography style.

[@omega311888]

i saw them in reverse order. i absolutely LOVED 2010. 2001 confused me until i read the book. eventually i read them all. i think everyone should read the set.

[@marcgini1443]

Theres more than two books

[@darthdevious]

I love 2001, and 2010. They have such a different feel, but still tell great stories in the same timeline. I read both of the novels and really enjoyed them as well, along with 2063 and 3001. Wish those could be filmed one day.

[@planetdisco4821]

Forget about 2063, even the author Arthur C Clarke was embarrassed by that one. But yeah, 3001 was a solid read and with a resurrected Frank Poole would actually be awesome…

[@brigidsingleton1596]

Edit: 2001, 2010 2061, 3001.

[@darthdevious]

@@brigidsingleton1596 thanks, it's been years since I read them. I don't know why my brain made it 2063

[@brigidsingleton1596]

@@darthdevious My own error (in a comment I made elsewhere) was saying the last book was 3000...oops !! Instead it's "3001" ... I just haven't been able to read for the last five years due to cataracts, (which, thankfully were removed this June and this Sept) ..so I can now (when I get another / better _new_ pair of reading glasses) read, type, write and thus re-read any book I choose. ( ...if I can find them !!) ❤️☺️🖖

[@Wolfnrun]

​@@planetdisco4821He was!?! I find that shocking. I liked that book! Although I do admit some parts I did have trouble understanding...

[@Captain-Cosmo]

It may be worth noting that David Shire's "electronic" score changes to a full (London Symphony) orchestral score for the finale, signaling the change from "war" to "peace". It's a wonderful score that is woefully underrated, full of Shire's trademark harmonic twists and turns, and a pinnacle for electronic scoring.

[@markelijio6012]

Actually he did an amazing job after Tony Banks who was fired three times from the film.

[@cubdukat]

That was the LSO? The album never gave credit to which orchestra it was. I was always very impressed with the soundtrack. I've owned several vinyl copies over the years.

[@sirslam9438]

I didn't enjoy 2001, found it incredibly slow, so I passed on 2010 for a while until rentals. Finally gave it a chance and absolutely loved it. I loved how it avoided clichés, gave life to all the characters, which enhanced the bonds that formed between them. The pacing was perfect. Great film!

[@petermulder7480]

Watching 2010 makes me appreciate 2001 even more... What a masterclass of film making.

[@esotericmissionary]

Fun Fact: Most of the footage of Jupiter is real NASA footage from the Voyager 1 space probe, which was truly state-of-the-art film making for the time and totally underplayed. One thinks it would've made for great marketing, especially back then.

[@nostrebornod]

I had a copy of this on VHS, I cannot count how many times I watched it, and surprised how so many people did not know it exists.

[@hardryv3719]

2010 is, was, and will always be one of me favorite movies / sequels. Excellent everything... script, acting, sfx, storyline, evolution of story arc. For many of the performers in it, this movie is far and away my favorite production with them. Quoting the narrator, this movie was a masterpiece.

[@cyrusmorris9599]

I remember seeing this movie in my teens , it was good. Blows most sequels out of the water with originality and tact.

[@artboymoy]

I love this movie. I like it better than 2001 which feels like an art film to me. You could condense it down to a half hour if you just wanted the story. The cast of 2010 was amazing, the story and visual effects are great and the concepting by Syd Mead helped to inspire me to make drawing environments more believable. I liked how they redeemed HAL and had more weirdness of the Monoliths doing stuff. Highly underrated indeed.

[@Paul_1971]

Totally agree

[@Valkyrie77]

Yeah, 2001 really feels like a boring art film to me. I like 2010 far more.

[@OEMishGarage]

Agreed. 2001 was a snooze fest.

[@paulmasuicca5304]

Agree 100%.

[@GrimK77]

2001 was not an art film for me... more like an extremely boring musical.

[@Aussie1276]

Love the Keir Dullea cameo and waited many years to see it as the Original is still my all-time favourite movie

[@Aussie1276]

Saw the model of the Discovery One at MoPop in Seattle when I was there last year

[@amarishea8109]

I saw this on the big screen when I was young and returned to the cinema to watch it more times that summer. Great underrated sequel

[@ForceMaximus84]

As a teen, it took me watching 2010 several times for me to go back and appreciate 2001. I like both to this day.

[@mikebasil4832]

Although I now prefer the open-endedness of 2001, 2010 was a fitting resolution in certain areas and especially for HAL.

[@RandomBitzzz]

Great video. I watched 2001 and 2010 when I was around 14. I thought 2010 was the better of the two movies because it had way more levels to it. You could get deep into it or you could enjoy it for the story it presented on the surface. Now that I'm MUCH older I've been wanting to rewatch these movies, and your video helped remind me of this.

[@StarShipGray]

“Will I dream?” “I don’t know.” I actually cried for a computer. 😭

[@markelijio6012]

Peter Hyams' 2010 was an amazing sci fi film when it released in theaters on Friday, December 14, 1984 for Warner Bros. Pictures, a Warner Communications Company. In fact, he's wearing four hats as a director, producer, writer and cinematographer. It was one of the most acclaimed films ever made, 2010 has received five Oscar nominations: art direction, costumes, make-up, sound and visual effects in 1985.

[@cubdukat]

Actually, Warner owns it now, but only because they own a good chunk of MGM's catalog from the 80's. This was released by MGM/UA Entertainment originally.

[@markelijio6012]

I knew it then...I knew it now!

[@stevef]

Two easter eggs you might have missed - the TIME cover - yes, Kubrick on the right but Clarke was the US president on the left. Arthur C Clarke was also on a park bench feeding pigeons in front of the white house.

[@davidpumpkinsjr.5108]

I've aways liked this movie. I think it's better than 2001; it has tighter pacing, an overall more interesting story, a very exciting finale, it answers many of the ambiguities left unanswered by the first movie and you have to appreciate the star power of Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, Bob Balaban and Helen Freakin' Mirren. I also like HAL's redemption arc. The scene between him and Chandra right before the climax really gets to me.

[@jonathanramos8414]

I love the cold war setting of 2010 even though it's set in the future and the cold war never ended

[@keiththorpe9571]

I was 12 when "2010" released in theaters. I had seen "2001: A Space Odyssey", but being as young as I was, I didn't fully appreciate all that I have come to value about the original film, not least the absolutely groundbreaking visual effects that were pioneered by Kubrick and Co. in 1968. When I first saw "2001: ASO", I didn't get just how extraordinary it all truly was, what they accomplished with in-camera effects, models, matte paintings, lighting, and miniatures. Also, I found the story of "2001" to be a bit elliptical (especially at the end), seeming as if it either didn't want to answer my questions, or perhaps not knowing how. When I saw "2010", I enjoyed it because it did answer some of those lingering questions. I felt it completed the story begun in "2001".

[@iKvetch558]

I have always enjoyed and appreciated 2010, ever since I saw it when it first came out. I am not sure I agree that it is a better movie than 2001, as some have said, but I believe it is a much more watchable and approachable movie....definitely much underrated.

[@dixonhill1108]

Ironically I thought 2010 was 2001 for years. I caught it on tv TCM(back when there was no digital tv guide), I watched the whole movie loved it, thought it was so good for a movie made in the 1960s. It was literally like a decade later that I watched the real 2001. I saw a movie that had HAL in it, just assumed it was 2001.

[@J0MBi]

Just watched again this on a projector a couple of months ago, still looks great and you can feel the 80s hard sci fi vibes better than ever these days. Nice epilogue to 2001, very different feeling to both movies.

[@walksinthedarkness]

Shout out to Outland. Cracking bit of sci-fi Sean Connery!

[@caronstout354]

A true misunderstood and underrated movie...

[@PaoloGiovanni]

Thanks for covering this feature film on your series; it truly is one the best made films out there; the special effects and minimalist approach to then future clothing styles still stand up today. While it is a sequel, it has a sense of being a standalone film due to its uniqueness, as you laid out in your video essay. It would be nice to see the follow-up books 2061 and 3001 made into films. One tiny thing I noticed in your delivery: back in 1984, the 2000s still seemed “futuristic” and “Sci-Fi”, so most of us wouldn’t have called it “twenty-ten”, rather we said “two-thousand-and-ten” (the dropping of the “and” is also a more modern linguistic adoption).

[@ecleveland1]

I like both 2001 & 2010, I think each movie stands on its own and could be watched without having seen the other. And Helen Mirren is gorgeous even in military coveralls. She was and has remained one of the most beautiful actresses ever.

[@brianchristian7293]

Loved this movie when I saw it in the theater, and I'm also a fan of Capricorn One. Hyams had a gift for snappy dialogue that pre-dates Sorkin, frankly.

[@chrisperry7963]

A great review! 2001 is my favorite movie, but I agree with your assessment that 2010 takes its own path, and as such can be quite entertaining. And Hyams is underrated, well deserving of more attention.

[@dondevice8182]

Chris, I must say I find this is the best produced thought out and presented piece I’ve seen you do yet! Nice job keep it up!

[@shainewhite2781]

I liked this movie! There was even behind the scenes showing Peter Hyams th director and Sci Fi novelist Arthur C. Clarke showing each notes for the script VIA computer emails which was very rare back in the 1980's.

[@goodheartmedia]

I saw this in the theater when it came out and loved it. It's one of my "must watch once a year" films. Answers some questions left open from the original, but asks new ones. I highly recommend the book to as a companion. There's some additional content in the novel (as there usually) is, but follows the main story pretty closely.

[@saftpackerl]

I was born in 82, so this movie popped up on afternoon television a lot in my country. I watched like 3 times as a child before I watched 2001 as an adolescent. At first I wasnt hyped by 2001 and considered 2010 the better movie. Of course over the years I learned to appreciate Kubrik, and "001 as well. But i still have a soft spot for 2010. I know it worked for me as a standalone movie, because I hadnt seen its predecessor. And as you said, it works as a sequel too.

[@weepingscorpion8739]

I actually saw 2010 first and it immediately sucked me in. I really really like this movie, and it definitely stands well on its own. It's also interesting that for the Russian cosmonauts they hired actual Russian actors who speak actual Russian. Yes, I know, I know, Helen Mirren is British but she is actually of Russian origin, her grandfather being a diplomat to the UK for the Russian tsar, IIRC. I also think this is Elya Bashkin's first American movie and he ended up in a lot of things after this, so that's cool. The visual FXs hold up really well. I take a bit of issue with you calling the soundtrack "dated" as a synth music lover but hey, opinions be opinions, eh. But yeah, thanks for talking about this movie which is a favourite of mine.

[@kraigbailey3321]

Saw it in the theater when it was originally released and had already read the novel. Really enjoyed it. The vfx were so good it looked as if they had shot it on location in space. Watched the blu ray recently and it holds up vey well.

[@emilywilhite5807]

Thank you for covering this movie. I love it. I can’t say it’s better than 2001 but for me it is more rewatchable and I actually enjoy it more.

[@JoBloOriginals]

I must admit I've watched 2010 more of the two

[@dycebastion]

No mention that that’s clearly Arthur c Clarke next to Kubrick on that magazine cover

[@SteveShahbazian]

Glad that someone noticed!

[@hagerty1952]

And he did a cameo on the park bench at 7:42 (far left).

[@reesebn38]

I think Peter Hyams is underrated. He made 4 of my favorite movies, "Hanover Street", "Capricorn One", "2010", and "Running Scared".

[@amightysailingman]

Don't forget he also directed "Stay Tuned" (the Three's Company spoof cracks me up every time) and produced "The Monster Squad."

[@TheNameisPlissken1981]

I remember when Richard Franklin did a sequel to Psycho. The same things were being said about that, but actually he ended up making a really neat thriller. Peter Hyams is an inspired choice to do 2010. He is a great writer / director & cinematographer. One of my favorite genre filmmakers. Like Richard Franklin, I wish he was still making films today. Their talent is sorely missed in Hollywood.

[@markelijio6012]

Richard Franklin who came to the US in 1980 as a producer/director. I'm so sorry, Jason, but he did his best and after 15 years for arriving to the US, Richard Franklin has decided to come back to Australia for good. And that's where he wanted to be as a filmmaker until 2003. Sadly, he died of prostate cancer in 2007 and survived by his family members, including sound effects editor Richard C. Franklin of Todd-AO Studios and actress/vocal coach Cherie Franklin.

[@tekkenback]

One of my all time favs and as a sequel to one of the greatest movies ever, it definitely stands on its own and that’s what I love about it. Thanks for the upload and the mention of the “cameo” Easter egg from Kubrick I didn’t notice before!

[@adambazso9207]

The last shot of the monolith with the setting-rising sun behind it and the organ music kicking in...just marvellous.

[@Primus54]

2001 was a masterpiece, but not one of those movies you feel inspired to watch over and over. Nice to see some love for 2010 which indeed is very underrated. I was always a fan of Roy Scheider, who died too soon.

[@tma-1704]

I've watched it about 15 times already! I also have seen 2010 about 6 times. I like both movies.

[@jorriffhdhtrsegg]

I repeat 2001 loads but 2010 only seen onc, read book once, not really any need to repeat since it explains everything in literal detail

[@wholderby]

The best parts of 2010 are the scenes with HAL and Chandra and when Bowman returns is chilling to me…: I got to visit the “Very Large Array” in New Mexico a few months after they filmed there….

[@BigBubbaloola]

So very glad you covered this. Awesome film.

[@katskillz]

I was about 9 years old and it was Christmas time when my dad took me to see this in a theater somewhere around downtown Los Angeles. I don't know the specific theater but it was a night showing and at the time a very high end theater sound system, we were in the back and the rear speakers just shook you to the core with the low frequency sound effects (rumbling ships, etc). Very immersive just from the audio experience alone. As far as the film itself, I was only ambiently aware of 2001: Space Odyssey, having seen bits and pieces of its various TV airings. And not quite getting it, but getting the basic vibe that space travel was not fun but dangerous, serious business. 2010 was straightforward enough in the circumstantial setup, so even though I didn't totally get how its ending picked up where 2001 left off, it was still quite spooky and fascinating for this kid. Of course the director over-explained almost everything (I get it, the mid 80s was not an era for auteurs who avoided straightforward narrative films), but he still kept to a solid format of scifi-technical realism bleeding into the mystical atmosphere dealing with contact with the unknown. Thanks for jogging my childhood memory. After becoming obsessed with all things Kubrick in my young adult years, I had no interest in ever revisiting 2010. But after watching this I'll give it a fresh viewing.

[@KGBeast.]

This brilliant movie deserves more love. Hollywood its time make 2061 and 3001 happen

[@brigidsingleton1596]

Apparently, Tom Hanks was trying to make "2061" & "3001" but talks with MGM seen to have fallen through, so no update (yet ?) on these two being made, sadly.

[@KGBeast.]

​@@brigidsingleton1596Honestly good because Hanks is NOT the man for the job

[@Amershaf]

I loved this movie as a kid. Later I loved it for the explanation of what happened to HAL and for the dialog amongst the different characters. This one is in my personal rotation of nostalgic sci fi movies

[@Nautilus1972]

Nothing happened to HAL. He was a computer … following his program.

[@Nautilus1972]

Why did they make a sequel? Because there are 4 odyssey books: 2001 ; 2010 ; 2061 ; 3001.

[@supastar25]

I thought I was the only person to enjoy this film. All the people I know and recommend this to have never even heard of it. I loved how they moved the story forward and stood on it's own feet.

[@bradleyleonard]

Not only is that Stanley on the magazine cover, but so is Clark.

[@brandonm8385]

Loved 2010 as a kid. I had one of those movie on vinyl record of it. I watched 2010 as an adult and loved it even more.

[@danielmankowski922]

In addition to the great cast already mentioned, would like to mention Madolyn Smith who plays Caroline. She was in 2010, Urban Cowboy,and Funny Farm before dropping off the big screen. Shame bc she was on the rise...

[@markelijio6012]

I have to tell you she retired in 2011 and currently married to Mark Osborne with their two children. They live in Los Angeles, California.

[@grapeshot]

I forgotten all about this movie until this video popped up. I do remember there was a giant fiery comet flying through space. I do remember that scene from his movie.

[@ronaldh8446]

$40m Domestic gross in 1984. While not a blockbuster this movie did really well in its release. Terrific movie.

[@Cyril29a]

2010 is a fantastic film while 2001 is a work of art. The world has room for both.

[@mikebasil4832]

Roy Scheider's Dr. Heywood Floyd was remarkably different from William Sylvester's. But both are memorable.

[@Cyril29a]

@@mikebasil4832 There really was no need to make Scheider's character Heywood Floyd, it was unnecessary and I see them as two different people.

[@lawrencedoliveiro9104]

Remember that Floyd in _2001_ was there to convey the orders of the “Council” to maintain absolute secrecy of the discovery of the alien artifact. He wasn’t there to be a nice guy.

[@garyv2498]

I saw this movie as a teen on cable before I ever had a chance to see 2001. And I always like this movie. The spacewalk to the Odyssey was one of my favorite scenes. There's a lot of tension as Lithgow's character starts to panic, and some character building with him and the Russian. We end up liking the Russian by the end of the scene. It's the kind of scene I look for in a good Sci-Fi movie set in space.

[@mikebasil4832]

Max's death is my least favorite scene in 2010. I never felt it was necessary. But the friendship between Max and Curnow is still timeless.

[@teddykgb9971]

I've always liked it, too. 2001 was Arthur C. Clarke's well before Kubrick basically took ownership of it - and Clarke deserved the chance to see his story continue on the big screen. 2010 serves the story without trying to extend Kubrick's legacy.

[@2HitWonder]

Saw 2010 in theater as a teen and it became my favorite space movie, and still is to this day. I know it’s artsy to admire 2001, but the movie never did much for me.

[@rankojankovic2490]

You guys should do Richochet as the best movie you never saw. Directed by Russell Mulkehy, produced by Joel Silver, starring Denzel Washington, John Lithgow, Ice-T, Kevin Pollack.

[@WilliamTheMovieFan]

A worthy sequel. Very good follow up to 2001 A Space Odyssey.

[@pumancat]

I was a projectionist when this movie came out. Played it 5 times a day ,, lol. Loved this movie, and have the DVD. Was a great movie in itself as stand alone, as much a sequel.

[@esioanniannaho5939]

As a Scifi fan and loved the thought and details of 2001 I thank you for this info. Never heard of it before ! Now have ordered the dvd.

[@kaylow225]

Incredibly underrated movie. Cinematography alone makes it worth watching.

[@markelijio6012]

Like we said, Peter Hyams' cinematography alone makes it worth watching.

[@fuzzywzhe]

I haven't seen this film in like 20 years, and I don't think I have any desire to ever see it again.

[@Driveby-Viktum]

I actually liked this better than 2001 , seeing both when i was a kid, and this one in the theater.. When i was a kid , 2001 was too slow. 2010 was just fast enough in pacing to keep me interested.

[@Cyril29a]

yes 2010 is a great movie, 2001 is a work of art. They are very different things.

[@paulm749]

I love this movie. It's nothing like 2001, but it definitely has its own strengths. One of the stand-out scenes is when they perform the flaming aero-braking maneuver in the sky above Jupiter - there's just something mythic about the bold audacity of these fragile mortals daring to risk their lives tens of millions of miles from Earth, and right on the edge of fiery destruction in order to achieve the most efficient method of inserting their space craft into orbit at their destination, fully trusting in their judgement and careful calculations to preserve their lives. I think Homer would have understood this grand gesture in the story and fully approved of it - it's a deeply poetic expression of the courage and intelligence required of the human adventure!

[@73challenger5031]

Saw it in the theater and loved it. Own it on DVD and watch it a couple times a year. Interesting note, that pretty Cosmonaut is Natasha Shneider who was the vocalist and keyboard player in her own band Eleven, contributed and performed with Chris Cornell in 1999 and contributed and performed with Queens of the Stone Age in 2005. She died of cancer in 2008.

[@seereadnhear]

Last year I did my own review on my channel. It is a lost gem thoroughly enjoyed this film even more so than the original. That's saying a lot and the score to this film was absolutely amazing.

[@RNemy509]

I loved this movie, as a kid it blew me away. I was always a huge fan. It had a fantastic cast, many at the time were A-listers

[@donaldpriola1807]

The key is what Kubrick said: Do your own thing. Hyams did that, and made more of a mainstream science fiction/adventure film, which was well acted, suspenseful, and entertaining. The weirdest thing for me was that the effects actually took a step back from the original, but that didn't matter too much. The rather didactic (and more basic) ending was more due to Clarke than Hyams.

[@TrekMTBikeRider]

I noticed a lot of KZbin channels say this is the movie “you never saw”. But this movie was always on cable TV in the mid- to late-80s!

[@Sebadee80]

Outland was a really good movie, High Noon in space and Sean Connery was perfect as the grizzled tough nut head of security. I think even the actor who played Lester Freeman in 'The Wire' was in it too. This was a good sequel but I think Saturn would have been better suited, since the ancients named it the 1st Sun during a Golden Age and it would have fit better with the story and history. Maybe the book did? Good film but a little over-rated here considering it was The Cold War days and to see Russians and Americans work together was unique to me since I was still young when I watched it, but it was no masterpiece. Plus not enough answers, just black obelisk's increasing the planets mass, without even the subliminal hints given by Kubrick. A good movie but over-rated here.

[@PierreIsmail]

Please turn down the background music. It's way too loud and distracting.

[@ogami1972]

I'm surprised you didn't touch on the way the movie attempts to explain the previous movie, which I enjoyed, though I can see how others might think it dumbed down. Good job

[@briangreene7085]

LOved this movie when finally watched in my 20's, always heard bad things, but am a huge sci fi fan, and was blown away by it 20+ years after it was released

[@cornerofthemoon]

I thought 2010 was meh when I first saw it in the theaters, but I've really grown to appreciate it in recent years. In many ways I think it surpasses 2001 especially in entertainment value.

[@bruceedwards539]

And much like 2001, Hyams stuck closer to the book than most of these adaptations tend to. Which I think resulted in the story that works both as sequel and standalone. I had read the book first, and in those pre-internet days I was not aware of any outrage that may have existed because the studio made a 2001 sequel. I really did enjoy it and thought it was a great looking movie.

[@cindyscott54]

I agree with you about 2010; it IS much better than you'd expect for a sequel made about 15 years after the original. Kubrick demanded all the props, models, and costumes from 2001 be destroyed immediately after the film wrapped. Thus, Hyams & his team had to recreate, from secretly sequestered blueprints, all of Discovery's sets (gimble driven crew space excepted). New suits were made, and a non-functioning Pod was created too. The two places where I felt let down by the film was the space exterior blue screen work. Regardless of projection, or VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray, or 4k it feels like blue screen and can pull you out of the film. And, finally, had I been Hyams, I would have shot the film, models, & efx in Super Panavision 70.... so they'd match 2001's ascetic. The collapse of the hole on Jupiter is SO well done, it would have been magnificent in Super Panavision 70. Oh well. It's still a good, classic, 80's film.

[@fuzzblightyear145]

it's probably been mentioned already, but yeah, having Kubrick and Arthur C Clarke's portraits on that Time magazine cover was a nice subtle touch

[@moogyboy6]

An even MORE subtle in-joke I just realized: yes, we have US president Clarke and Soviet premier Kubrick on the Time magazine cover... but earlier in the film we see Clarke make a cameo sitting on a park bench outside the White House while Floyd and Milson discuss selling the President on a joint American-Soviet Jupiter mission . Could this really be the President sitting out in public within earshot of the two space agency guys and they don't even notice him? It couldn't be a coincidence, it's literally the same guy pictured on the Time cover.

[@jeremyclegg3588]

Oh hell yeah. I love 2010. One thing this film does great is give me more than just one goosebump moment. Those are those moments where, while watching a film, you just go "Oh geeze!" Examples being the "I was David Bowman." moment. Or "It's shrinking!!" And even today the visuals are top-notch. Displaying that it is not just the technology, but how you use it.

[@brettgarsed]

I loved this movie, own it on DVD and still watch it regularly. Rather than compare it to 2001 I enjoy it for what it is, a piece of extremely well crafted sci fi with a superb cast and special effects.

[@dorgfanger]

4 months late, but my thoughts : 2001 is the apotheosis of Kubrick as a filmmaker - it’s a work of art, requiring you to focus on the message beyond the surface. 20min without dialogue with “characters” we won’t ever see again showcases the mentality. Kubrick had a message he wanted to deliver if the audience is willing to forgo a traditional movie and see art play out onscreen. 2010 is the human response to that, to the elevation beyond our consciousness and into something greater than all we know. It’s the gritty, worn, and real side to our species trying to work together for a common goal when everything seems to try to be keeping us apart. David ascending is the one coming to understand existence. The crews on the Leonov experiencing the birth of a star and the message of peace are humanity coming to understand how fragile and miraculous we are and that our differences will only impede our growth into that ascended being that David showcases. 2001 goes minutes without words to let us immerse ourselves on the Discovery and in the world we’ll be transcending with David. 2010 had talking constantly - not for info dumps but to humanize the characters even moreso than their well-established archetypes already do. We have moments of silence and they do help to give us that break from the tension of the mission, but it lives on the words spoken. It’s meant to be the world as it was in the 80’s realizing how futile these conflicts are; how there are far more greater obstacles to overcome, puzzles to solve, and discoveries to share. 2001 will always be a work of art, always be point of comparison when discussing films like it. No one can “outdo” it no more so than they can claim to “outdo” or “outmake” the Sistine Chapel. Art is not a competition, it’s a means to communicate the complexities of our thoughts and feelings. 2010 is the classic sci-fi experience of seeing our current fears and concerns played out to be trivial, that we will overcome them and persevere into a greater paradigm. We can’t lose sight of our future lest it be taken away from us by those shortsighted enough to try. Both are films that deserve their praise. Both are different perspectives in a world well realized. And both will stand as important for the complete message of the Monolith story - humanity can become so much more, but first we must unlearn that drive to fight and make peace with our nature, our differences, and find a new path forward to welcome a new neighbor in our little cosmic space.

[@robertdaniels2005]

Underrated, YES. 2010 is my go to film whenever I need a lift and I would consider it one of my favourite films. I LOVE this film. My cousin and I watched it 15 times in a row one weekend in the era when you rented the VCR as well as the movie. By the end of that weekend we were quoting it word for word. "My God, It's Full Of Stars!" is permanently burned in my brain. 2010 has, in my opinion, one of the best scenes put to film. Heywood and Curnow facing an uncertain end talk about of all things...hotdogs. Heywood Floyd: I'd love a hot dog. Walter Curnow: Astrodome. Good hot dogs there. Heywood Floyd: Astrodome? You can't grow a good hot dog indoors. Yankee Stadium. September. The hot dogs have been boiling since opening day in April. Now that's a hot dog. Walter Curnow: The yellow mustard or the darker kind? Heywood Floyd: The darker kind. Walter Curnow: Very important. When HAL asks Chandra "Will I Dream?" and Chandra voice cracks when he says "I Don't Know" always brings a lump to my throat. Fun Fact: The voice of the SAL-9000 was an uncredited Candice Bergen. Also author Arthur C. Clarke had a cameo as a man on a bench near the White House and he was the image of the American president on the Time magazine cover. Kubrick was the Russian leader as you mentioned. David Shire replaced Tony Banks of Genesis fame to score the film. The score also utilized the instrument of the Blaster Beam made famous by Jerry Goldsmith in Star Trek: TMP (V'GER) and John Barry for The Black Hole. If you haven't seen this film, see it when you get the opportunity you will not be disappointed. In fact, I think I'm going to watch it right now.

[@Loony69]

Nothing to add to what most people already written below. ' There are so many small things in '2010' which I like: the more or less 'realistic' presentation of computers, the analysis why HAL was malfunctioning. For me on the top is the house on the pacific beach. His kids swimming together with Dolphins in an open pool which leads into the house. Next to the pool sits Dr. Floyd doing some calculations on a computer. So tremendously futuristic and peaceful. That was Sci-Fi at its best for me. And this scene isn't even important for the movie.

[@brianarbenz1329]

The gentle intimacy of the scene where Scheider and the Soviet cosmonaut cuddle impressed me as a rebellion against the movie industry's automatic sexualizing of every encounter. I was in my mid-20s when I saw the film and the scene persuaded me that this sort of vulnerable embrace is its own form of platonic personal intimacy that the entertainment industry needs to explore much more frequently.

[@failuretocommunicate]

Two cameos by Arthur C. Clarke -- he's Kubrick's opposite number on the Time Magazine cover, and also appears in front of the White House on the bench at the far left during the NSC briefing for Floyd.

[@tonyclemens4213]

The other person on the cover of the magazine with Stanley Kubrick is the writer Arthur C. Clarke. Still holding out hope for 2061 and 3001 to be made into movies/TV series.