wrs@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Walter Smith) (12/25/84)
There are clearly two ways to approach this film: either you see it as yet
another "space adventure" story (you'll definitely need the first three
minutes for that one), or you see it expecting a sequel to 2001.
If you go the first route, no problem. It's not that bad a film, taken in
the Star Wars/Battlestar Galactica/etc. tradition. I thought the ending
was thrilling, the tough-guy Dr. Floyd (yay, Roy! Blast them Russkies) was
fun, the villians were villainous, the good guys were virtuous.
On the other hand, if you go expecting a sequel, you're in trouble.
Especially if you expect the kind of quality that came from the
Kubrick/Clarke collaboration. If you go to see a space thriller, you can
easily ignore such minor details as total ignorance of physical laws.
Anything that advertises itself as a sequel to 2001 had damn well better not
have low rumbling noises in deep space and people simultaneously leaning on
a table and leaving a pen spinning in mid-air! I won't even attempt to list
the other blatantly ridiculous things that occurred. It seems that
among all those technical consultants someone would have thought "gee,
should we tell him that even huge balloons inflating don't make loud
crinkling noises in space?".
Here's something even worse than Hyams' lack of high-school physics: the man
had the incredible gall to re-write the whole premise of the story! 2010 is
not about crises in Central America and aliens trying to fix US/USSR
relations, dammit! The characterizations of the Russians were TOTALLY
WRONG (not to mention Floyd and Chandra). What is this b.s. about being
ordered to leave USSR territory? Where did this man get the poetic license
to turn Clarke's novel into a statement on US foreign policy? Sure, you can
say "well, no movie is exactly like the book," but this is ridiculous.
By the way, I assume Syd Mead, the "Visual Futurist," is responsible for the
random six-inch numerals all over the Leonov and the change in style from
2001 to 2010 (clothes, etc.), if you want someone to flame about.
Conclusions: 1) See the movie, but turn off your physics first.
2) Write a nasty, nasty letter to Peter Hyams.
3) Read the book.
What do you suppose are the chances of a remake by someone who knows basic
physics and has seen 2001 and liked it?
[I should apologize for the near-flame four paragraphs above. I hardly
ever use exclamation points in real life.]
--
Walter Smith, CS undergraduate, Carnegie-Mellon University
uucp: ...!seismo!cmu-cs-k!wrs
arpa: wrs@cmu-cs-k.ARPA
usps: Box 874; 5115 Margaret Morrison St.; Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Any opinions contained in the above could very well be so different from
those of CMU itself that it would be ludicrous to compare the two.mccaugh@uiucdcs.UUCP (12/29/84)
The consensus of opinion I have (thus far) received, both from readers of the book: 2010: Odyssey Two, and the movie: 2010 (The Year We Make Contact) has been decidedly negative in comparison with 2001: book and movie. The weight of opinion re: the book is to the effect that Mr. Clarke has entered that pathetic pale of senility from which no mind returns...As for the movie, I understand that Hyams--altogether unlike Kubrick--is a real bastard to wrok with, especially if you are into special-effects in a big way. Actually, Arthur C. Clarke pronounced the positive verdict on his own sen- ility when he consented to an "interview" of sorts with OMNI magazine (Dec. issue) in which he blithely declared that "The Songs of Distant Earth" was the foutainhead for the Odyssey-mania, when in fact, "The Sentinel" was the seed for the story, as he himself admitted in interviews with the New Yorker in early Spring, 1968 and subsequently. It would be (to say the least!) interesting to learn why Stanley Kubrick (who was enthusiastically offerred the directorship but turned it down on the grounds that: "I never make sequels") actually did turn it down...After all, he didn't have a book to abide by when he made 2001---was 2010 a book he could not abide by?
barry@ames.UUCP (01/02/85)
[] From uiucdcs!mccaugh: > ...As for the movie, I > understand that Hyams--altogether unlike Kubrick--is a real bastard to wrok > with, especially if you are into special-effects in a big way. Don't know about Hyams, but I think you're too generous to Kubrick in suggesting he's easy to work with. He is one of the movie industry's biggest perfectionists, and probably holds the record for average number of takes required per finished scene. His insistance on getting an exact transcription of his personal vision on the screen is probably what has allowed him to make great films with some mediocre actors (Keir Dullea, Ryan O'Neil, Marissa Berensen [sp?]), but it has also given him a reputation for being dictatorial. He tends to treat actors as automatons to be programmed. - 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