brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (12/08/84)
I came into 2010 not expecting a lot. After all, 2001 had been directed by God in His Incarnation As Stanley Kubrick, but still it is a major SF movie based on a book by one of the biggest authors in the field. Anyway, it turns out that I was very pleasantly surprised. This film sticks well to the novel and captures much of its flavour. Clarke must have approved. Watch him feeding the birds in front of the White House in an early scene in the movie. There is an extra "world tension" subplot which isn't all that necessary, I guess it's to make the film more topical, but it doesn't detract a lot. All in all one of the better SF movies in a while. (Of course the last film I saw before this was Android. If Mary Schelly got a royalty for each time her story was retold, she'd make a fortune! Couldn't do a lot with it now, mind you, being dead and all, but it would be a fortune.) Anyway, the tradition of 2001 must have rubbed off on Hyams. A good (although not perfect like S. K.) attempt at depiction of realistic spaceflight. Reasonable use of music (not as good as 2001) and sfx. Balaban as HAL's creator was kinda week in my opinion. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
boyajian@akov68.DEC (Jerry Boyajian) (12/10/84)
There're two ways of looking at 2010: as its own movie and as
a companion to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. The latter first.
They say comparisons are odious, but here it's inevitable. Quite
frankly, as a sequel to 2001, 2010 just doesn't cut the mustard.
First of all, as primitive as 2001's effects look these days, they
look much better than the ones in the sequel. Many of the models,
as well as the Jupiter/Io/Europa mattes, did not look very convincing.
The biggest consequence of this for me was that I didn't have the
feeling of really being in space that I got with the first film.
Secondly, I found the direction too ordinary. Kubrick was
very much a stylist, and though 2001's characters (and through the
characters, the implied sociology of our future) seemed dull, that
dullness was for a stylistic reason, to indicate a dehumanization
process. Mankind reaching a plateau in evolution that the events in
the film would help to overcome. In contrast, 2010's characters (and
implied sociology) seemed too much like our present-day. Maybe it's
more reasonable to suggest that life in 2010 would be pretty much
just like it is now, but it still doesn't give the sense of alieness
that was a part of the heart of 2001.
However, as its own film, I found 2010 to be very enjoyable. Peter
Hyams, while not a *bad* writer/director, didn't inspire much
confidence for me. And I certainly found many scenes in 2010 to be
handled very awkwardly (much of this being Dr. Floyd's "diary"
voice-overs), just as I'd expected. Where Hyams really brought this
off, however, was in the characters. The characterization and dialogue
were, for the most part, delightful, aided immeasureably by the talents
of a top-notch cast. Roy Scheider is an actor I admire, and he didn't
let me down. And John Lithgow --- words fail me. He isn't always
superb, and to be honest, his work in 2010 isn't among his best, but
I'm impressed by the *range* of his talent. I have yet to see him play
the same character twice! Contrast this with someone like Peter O'Toole,
who always plays the same brash, self-indulgent character. The real
treat here, though, was Helen Mirren. I wasn't all that taken with her
performance as Morgana in EXCALIBUR, but here she managed to convincingly
pull off the role as the Soviet mission commander.
2010 wasn't the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it was *far*
better than I had expected it to be, and I highly recommend it. On a
scale of 1-10, I would give this a 7.
--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, Maynard, MA)
UUCP: {decvax|ihnp4|allegra|ucbvax|...}
!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-akov68!boyajian
ARPA: boyajian%akov68.DEC@DECWRL.ARPAmoriarty@fluke.UUCP (The Napoleon of Crime) (12/11/84)
<Non-spoiler section>
Summary: A movie I went into which I had some great hopes for, though not
with comparisons to 2001 (I assumed that it was inimitable). Still, after
reading the book, I had hoped that we would see a movie depicting what space
travel would REALLY be like, and something which would try to exploit the
feeling of wonder associated with space and with an alien encounter.
Unfortunately, Peter Hyams (who, being director, screenwriter, and director
of photography, must take the full blame) sacrificed all of this for quick
laughs, cheap thrills and political intrigue, all of which appears pretty
inconsequential when examined in context of the enormity of the monolith et.
al. This is not a terrible movie; it is beautifully shot, and is
entertaining. But it could have been, given the plot and situation Clarke
(and Kubric before them) provided, much, much more moving and exciting with
relatively little effort or inventiveness on the part of Hyams. Instead, he
seems almost intent on squashing out the visionary aspects of the book, and
literally takes the low road. Basically a slow-moving hour-and-a-half with
a fairly taut last-half hour. The ending itself is ludicrous and seems
pretty out-of-character for creatures advanced enough to have provided the
stimulus for the advancement of man, besides emphasizing a message Clarke
never placed into it in the first place (though the very last scene is
nice). You will probably not be bored by this movie, but you won't be moved
by it much, either.
SPOILERS FOLLOW
Well, I'll try to add to what I have stated before:
ATMOSPHERE:
Looks to me as if Hyams so loved the cloudy, dark, ALIEN-rip-off lighting of
OUTLAND he decided to use it here (apparently Intravision was used, also);
for a movie which has for a subject the first (well, almost) encounter with
an alien race, it tends to look more like a horror/suspense movie than
anything. Where are the beautiful, stark vistas shown in 2001? Lord, it
can't be THAT tough to do these days. It always looks like the giant mutant
iguana lizard of planet X is going to jump out any minute. Only in the
scenes which deal with Bowman/Starchild is there any flavor, any light (more
on this later). It seems to show a place where space travel is a trudge, a
chore rather like commuting in New York via the subway.
SPECIAL EFFECTS:
Well, next to Trumbell (who is the best... I've looked at scenes 15 times in
BLADERUNNER without figuring out how the Hell he did it), Richard Edlund is
probably the best in the business these days; and no one can deny that they
are spectacular in this movie. But here we come across an interesting
phenomena: a film where there is no flaw in the special effects except for
their appropriateness. The LEONOV is shot from such a bewildering variety
of shots, and in such poor contrast, that she might as well be the Death
Star. Also, LEONOV's rotating section appears to create gravity in a
satisfactory manner (however, I assumed there was normal gravity on the
decks of the ship, as everyone was walking casually -- until Mirren and
Schieder pull the pen/pencil stunt in middair to explain the escape method.
Wha' happen?); but the ship falls into the non-smooth, bumpy-grimey style of
every ship since Star Wars. The DISCOVERY, even after floating around for 9
years, and covered with sulfur, looks better. I would place the blame more
on Hyams and the designer than Edlund... it still has some striking effects
(especially the metamorphosis of Jupiter).
THE SCRIPT:
Well, here's my MAJOR GRIPE. I could go on forever about how Hyams trys to
turn this into a audience-manipulation-emotion movie, like INDIANA JONES AND
THE TEMPLE OF WHOOPEE, with the energy jumping out of the hole in Europa
(Jaws music should have been inserted), and the funny things everyone says,
as if Hyams is saying, "This is probably too much for you to comprehend...
I'll lower it all to your level." Huh. It's not that it isn't
entertaining; it's just that I AM SICK AND TIRED OF "ENTERTAINING" SCIENCE
FICTION! How about something with some vision and wonder? Cripes, if I see
another band of hostilities.
Some specific points:
1) The Russian & American subplot. Obviously, Hyams throws this in so that
at the end he can pull a Michael Rennie and have aliens so advanced that
we can't comprehend them say "Live in Peace and Love, baby!" My God,
you think anything that advanced cares about diplomatic relations
between two petty world powers? And the Russians in the film completely
blow any feeling of comraderie in the book (which I enjoyed); is there
something in Hollywood that says all Russians must be represented as
sullen, hostile, and most of all, DUMB (why was Alexi killed? he wasn't
in the book! I guess just to show Americans are smart, and Russians are
dumb). And so much for being scientists... Really the worst thing
about the movie.
2) John Lithgows walk in space ("Pant Pant!"). Come on, you think anyone
responsible for Discovery's design and construction hasn't been
spacewalking around the Earth or Moon for most of his time? Really
stupid.
Well, I'm running out of time. A few good things (and there are some):
GOOD THINGS
1) HAL 9000. Very well done subplot, and the final discussion between he
and Chandra had me misting up quite a bit. I'd like to think that my
Fat Mac will like me that much. But this is brought from the book, as
is most good stuff in the movie.
2) Roy Schieder's meeting with Bowman/Starchild. Very nice verbal
interplay between Schieder and HAL.
3) Destruction of Jupiter... really made you feel the power it would take
to do this.
4) The very last scene with the monolith on Europa... this is much more
circular (with 2001) than Clarke's ending. It also shows the idea of a
movie, which is to represent thousand's of words with appropriate
images. Hyams did here; it is a shame he had to wait 2 hours before
coming out with a great scene.
"Texxon... Do what we say, and nobody gets hurt."
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
UUCP:
{cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \
{allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty
ARPA:
fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPAwaltt@tekecs.UUCP (Walt Tucker) (12/11/84)
------------------ Mark R. Leeper writes: > sorry to see the part of Heywood Floyd go to Roy Schneider instead of > William Sylvester... William Sylvester was not available for filming, as he died a few years ago. BTW, probably why 2001 and other Clarke works are scientifically accurate is that the man has a PhD. in Math and Physics. Helps a bunch. -- Walt
kevin@voder.UUCP (The Last Bugfighter) (12/14/84)
> 2) John Lithgows walk in space ("Pant Pant!"). Come on, you think anyone > responsible for Discovery's design and construction hasn't been > spacewalking around the Earth or Moon for most of his time? Really > stupid. I don't think that that's all that valid. How many of the designers of the Lunar Lander or the Space Shuttle have ever flown in them? He probaly did everything with computer simulations safe and sound in his office in Mountain View. I thought his panic was a nice touch, I loved it when he looks "down" at his feet and he seems to be just hanging there umpteen miles above Jupiter. Incidently, when he finally reaches the Discovery, wasn't the section of hull were he touched labeled "airlock"? > 3) Destruction of Jupiter... really made you feel the power it would take > to do this. I was disappointed that when we see the monoliths on Jupiter that the movie doesn't actually show them reproducing (doubleing in thickness then splitting in half). It just doesn't show what's actually going on, didn't give me the feeling of how the planet is just being totally inundated with these things. -- Kevin Thompson {ucbvax,ihnp4!nsc}!voder!kevin "It's sort of a threat, you see. I've never been very good at them myself but I'm told they can be very effective."
hess@fortune.UUCP (Marty Hess) (12/18/84)
> I came into 2010 not expecting a lot. After all, 2001 had been > directed by God in His Incarnation As Stanley Kubrick, but still it > is a major SF movie based on a book by one of the biggest authors in the > field. This reminds me of something I remember seeing last time I read 2001/2010: Somewhere in there Clarke stated that the book (2001) and the movie were done (more or less) in parallel. He also stated that doing this generated a much better product for both media, both technically as well as flow/plot development. Did I really read this, or am I dreaming? Anyone know of any other (name) authors that have produced a work in parallel with an alternate media version? What was the outcome? -- Marty Hess Software Engineering - Graphics UUCP: {sri-unix, amd, hpda, harpo, ihnp4, allegra}!fortune!hess DDD: Co.: (415) 595-8444 Me direct: (415) 594-2565 USPS: Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphin Pkwy, Redwood City, CA 94065