patcl@tekecs.UUCP (Pat Clancy) (12/11/84)
All true SF lovers and tech-nerds in general should be
very disappointed in 2010. Where 2001 was one of the first
(or *the* first?) truly intelligent attempts to convincingly depict
a not-to-distant future technology, and show a voyage through
deep space with stunning and painstaking realism, 2010 is just
Battlestar Galactica level cheap thrills for the kiddies.
It's OK for spaceships in a vacuum to noisily roar by
in Star Wars, because that's "fantasy". Its not OK in 2010;
in fact, it's practically blasphemous. Perhaps the general
"sci-fi" audience of the 1980's is simply unaware of the difference
between Hollywood-style pseudo-science and physics.
Besides sound travelling through space, other failings in
the effects/realism department included:
(1) "Air-braking" (passing through Jupitor atmosphere) sequence that
resembled a burning marshmellow being held in front of a fan;
(2) entire circumnavigation of Jupitor appearing to take about
10 minutes, yielding effective velocity very close to c;
(3) people walking around normally in 0 g;
(4) sloppy paint job evident on close-ups of space pod and
instrument panels in Discovery;
(5) "blat-blat-blat" sound (radar?) coming from probe monitor on
board ship as probe nears moon, which purely for dramatic effect
increases in frequency and loudness as probe nears area where
chlorophyll is present, as if all their instruments were designed
by Mattel.
Pat Clancy
{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4,allegra,uw-beaver,hplabs}!tektronix!tekecs!patclokie@ihuxi.UUCP (B.K. Cobb) (12/11/84)
Okay, we're all wonderful experts on the technical problems in "2010." We take the flaws we think we see and we bow (excuse me, that's "blow") them up to show how truly lousy a movie it is. Sorry, I'm not buying it. I'll state right out that I liked 2010, and I disagree that it's "cheap kiddie thrills" or "Battlestar Galactica" quality. And it's not as technically inaccurate as some people have been saying. For example, the big beef seems to be that Hyams doesn't understand gravity -- or, more to the point, zero-gravity. Well, he manages to make a couple of mistake, it's true -- for example, when Chandra cries in HAL's "brain chamber," his tears shouldn't slide down his face since he's in zero-g -- they should just hang there, making it hard for him to see. But why is everyone complaining about the walking around aboard the Leonov and the Discovery? Most of the walking takes place in the grav sections of the Leonov (I'm sure you noticed the spinning portion of the ship, right?) When it occurs in the pod bay, you might harken back to the film you keep comparing it too; "2001" had lots of walking around in their zero-g pod bay, and on the zero-g control deck. You can safely assume that the shoes and floor surfaces use an attractive surfacing of some sort -- I did, and had not trouble with it the rest of the movie. If you complain about attention to detail, you might think about that point for awhile. And you might take another good look at the scenes where the two astronauts first enter Discovery -- they're standing upright on one of the *walls* of the pod bay, because of the tidal force from Discovery's spin. I think that shows a fairly good understanding of what's going on. And for me, the aerobraking sequence was quite good. Since the Jovian atmosphere is full of radical chemical compounds, there's no reason why the effect shouldn't look like it did -- I mean, how many of you have seen an aerobraking procedure? If you have, enlighten us -- if not, then one opinion on the "look" of it is as good as another. Other complaints... I agree that the roaring and whooshing in space detracted from the feel of the film; but that's the current state of treatment of such actions in American films. I don't like it, but most directors feel that the audience gets bored if there is not sound. Of course, I still think Kubrick got around this nicely by taking us inside the astronauts suit with sound, and it would still work today, but... I don't normally get in on these discussions -- I just like to sit and watch the flames flicker, so to speak. But I think too many people are busy enlarging small technical "problems" and missing the larger view. As a sequel, "2010" obviously doesn't measure up to "2001," and I don't believe Hyams ever intended it to. But on its own, "2010" is a good movie, an enjoyable and involving "people" story, and worth seeing. B.K.Cobb ihnp4!ihuxi!okie "My God, it's full of critics!"
patcl@tekecs.UUCP (Pat Clancy) (12/16/84)
>Whats wrong with Air Braking!!! The "marshmellow" was the metalized >balloon that was deployed before the maneuver and ejected after they had >slowed down. The effect looked exactly as I would have expected it to look. The marshmellow analogy should perhaps have included an explanation. The thing that ruined it for me was the trail of smoke left by the Leonov's passage through Jupitor atmosphere. Smoke is particulate matter which results from a chemical combustion process; ie., something's burning up. The only thing that could have been burning in this case was the balloon, but it seemed to (and had to) survive intact. Certainly the heating of the hydrogen/helium atmosphere would not have produced smoke. The space shuttle doesn't produce a smoke trail when it reenters, even in an oxygen atmosphere. Therefore, the reason the smoke trail is there is that someone in the special effects dept. thought it would look more dramatic that way, and to hell with reality. This is the same line of reasoning that gives us blasting noises from rockets igniting in space. To me it looked like a burning marshmellow, rather than a superheating spaceship. One or two people have stated that velcro on the shoes would explain why the actors appeared to be moving around normally in 0 g. Certainly we've all seen enough TV from the shuttle to know that people do not move and appear the same in 0 g as they do in 1 g, no matter how well their feet are anchored. This was one of the more inexcusable screw-ups by Mr. Hyames, part of the overall sloppiness and TV-series quality which pervade the film. Pat Clancy, Tektronix {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4,allegra,uw-beaver,hplabs}!tektronix!tekecs!patcl
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (12/17/84)
> One or two people have stated that velcro on the shoes would explain > why the actors appeared to be moving around normally in 0 g. Certainly > we've all seen enough TV from the shuttle to know that people > do not move and appear the same in 0 g as they do in 1 g, no matter > how well their feet are anchored. This was one of the more inexcusable > screw-ups by Mr. Hyames, part of the overall sloppiness and > TV-series quality which pervade the film. I'm sure they had a big budget for this movie, but it would probably have to be a lot bigger in order to make it look as though people were moving in zero g. But if they had enough money, they could have moved the whold production into space to avoid this inexcusable sloppiness. They could also try shooting very short sequences in some kind of free-fall elevator (like at some amusement parks). These are the only ways offhand I can think of to make it look as though people are moving in zero g. Both of them sound ridiculously expensive. Maybe we'll just have to live with things like that for awhile longer until some special effects genius invents artificial gravity. Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "I've got it! We'll build the set under a 500' diameter sphere of neutronium! Let's see ... Neutronium $5000/ounce .... forget it."
patcl@tekecs.UUCP (12/19/84)
>I'm sure they had a big budget for this movie, but it would probably have >to be a lot bigger in order to make it look as though people were moving >in zero g... >Maybe we'll just have to live with things like that for awhile longer >until some special effects genius invents artificial gravity. Actually, it was done quite well in 2001 (shuttle to space station) within a presumably reasonable budget. Pat Clancy, Tektronix {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4,allegra,uw-beaver,hplabs}!tektronix!tekecs!patcl
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (12/19/84)
[] >I'm sure they had a big budget for this movie, but it would probably have >to be a lot bigger in order to make it look as though people were moving >in zero g. But if they had enough money, they could have moved the whold >production into space to avoid this inexcusable sloppiness. They could >also try shooting very short sequences in some kind of free-fall elevator >(like at some amusement parks). > These are the only ways offhand I can think of to make it look as though >people are moving in zero g. Both of them sound ridiculously expensive. > Maybe we'll just have to live with things like that for awhile longer >until some special effects genius invents artificial gravity. Disagree. If you look at the free-fall scenes in 2001, you will see that, while the simulation isn't *perfect*, it is done far better than in 2010. In 2001, when the people are supposed to be walking in free-fall on velcro, they move *slowly* (keeping momentum down), and use handholds at every opportunity. In 2010, however, walking in free fall with sticky soles is made to look exactly like walking in a 1-G environment. Hyams could have and should have done better. Incidentally, I liked 2010. It was not a classic, and had more technical errors than I can completely excuse, but I thought it a good, straight SF story that was treated with respect. I'd expected less, and was surprised by the quality. 2010 is not in the same league as 2001, but that's true of the books, as well. 2010 is among the weakest of Clarke's recent novels, in my opinion. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry SOURCE: ST7891
bsa@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (12/23/84)
[ Ding, dong, the glitch is dead... ] > Article <4227@tekecs.UUCP>, from patcl@tekecs.UUCP (Pat Clancy) +---------------- | The marshmellow analogy should perhaps have included an explanation. | The thing that ruined it for me was the trail of smoke left by the | Leonov's passage through Jupitor atmosphere. Smoke is particulate | matter which results from a chemical combustion process; ie., | something's burning up. The only thing that could have been burning | in this case was the balloon, but it seemed to (and had to) survive | intact. Certainly the heating of the hydrogen/helium atmosphere would | not have produced smoke. The space shuttle doesn't produce | a smoke trail when it reenters, even in an oxygen atmosphere. Ah, but who knows (Dave Bowman or his masters, and who else?) what's in the Jovian atmosphere? Perhaps there's free oxygen enough, or more likely something that reacted due to the heat to produce particulate matter, without combustion; a coagulation process? Don't reply unless you've a detailed analysis of the upper Jovian atmosphere to back up your views. --bsa -- Brandon Allbery @ decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!bsa (..ncoast!tdi1!bsa business) 6504 Chestnut Road, Independence, Ohio 44131 (216) 524-1416 <<<<<< An equal opportunity employer: I both create and destroy bugs :-) >>>>>>