5123ecd@hound.UUCP (E.DIMPELFELD) (12/15/84)
<food for line eater>
I made the mistake of reading the book first.
Don't if you want to enjoy the movie in an
unhindered fashion.
To me there are three kinds of art:
EPIC - A tale larger than life and individual persons,
trying to make some sense of it all.
DRAMA - A tale about life and characters.
MELODRAMA - A tale emphasizing plot and action,
sacrificing characterization.
2001 was a classic, an epic tale. Told beautifully,
slowly, wonderful music. To judge by the volume of
comments flowing in, a tale that touched many.
2010 is an action-packed melodrama, a cowboy western.
Nonetheless it is an enjoyable action film despite
any scientific inaccuracies or inaccurate representations
of the book. The "messages" of this movie however are told in
too heavy-handed of a manner, too awkwardly.
As for inaccuracies, they seem to show that the director was:
1-BIGOTED - were they afraid to show Dr. Chandra as an Indian?
2-STRAIGHT-LACED - were they afraid to include any of the homosexuality?
2aSTRAIGHT-LACED (again) - why did they force the old girlfriend to be a wife?
3-CHAUVINISTIC (nationally speaking) - why did the Russians have to
make a mistake (not in the book) that led to Max's death and
why were they made so grim and uptight?
4-CHAUVINISTIC (male speaking) why did they need to keep the wife
waiting on through three years? ACClarke had the sense to realize
that a three year separation is a hardship.
5-MYOPIC - why did they have to interject their concerns about
TODAY's problems in South America and east-west relations
about a tale which was written about humanities search
in the FUTURE for other beings and outer space?
6-UNFASHION-CONSCIOUS - why did the people 26 years in the
future continue to wear Merona-like sportwear and
Wall-stree business suits when in 2001 the people in
the space-station(the waitresses in particular) wore
clothing that was definitely different than what we wear today?
I seem to recall tights and some kind of tunic.
SPECIAL EFFECTS COMMENTS:
-I was sad that I could see where strings were holding up
the tethers in the space scenes.
-I was sad that the surface of Jupter looked computer generated.
-The monolith in space seemed to have dimensions
of 1:4:50 instead of the 1:4:9 proportions it should have had.
- I loved the last view of Europa. That was artistic. Plus
the monolith there seemed to be 1:4:9.
-Seeing Jupiter's final "big scene" was fun.
Seeing Kerr Dullea again was wonderful. I think he is underrated.
ENJOY THE MOVIE FOR WHAT IT IS.
THEN READto comehomxand.(%244ule eknd.ndarnd. togam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) (12/17/84)
> = Elaine C. Dimpelfeld ihnp4!hound!5123ecd > I made the mistake of reading the book first. > Don't if you want to enjoy the movie in an > unhindered fashion. I definately agree the book is much better, but having read the book first it was not a hindrance to my enjoymnet. > 2010 is an action-packed melodrama, a cowboy western. > Nonetheless it is an enjoyable action film despite > any scientific inaccuracies or inaccurate representations > of the book. The "messages" of this movie however are told in > too heavy-handed of a manner, too awkwardly. Yes, I agree. The book was more philosophical, I thought, and also presented more real characters, more three-dimensional. > [ the director was ] > 2-STRAIGHT-LACED - were they afraid to include any of the homosexuality? Could you point out where this was in the book? I forgot ... > 2aSTRAIGHT-LACED (again) - why did they force the old girlfriend to be a wife? Really! And the sexual images referred to in the book are not shown on the telly. > 5-MYOPIC - why did they have to interject their concerns about > TODAY's problems in South America and east-west relations > about a tale which was written about humanities search > in the FUTURE for other beings and outer space? Since the novel was low-key in action, I guess the director felt it needed some "livening up" in a way we could all relate to (sigh). In fact, Hyams seemed entirely afraid to present the book just as it was (re: he invented Max's death for a bit of melodrama, the Central America thing, etc) because it was probably to cerebral otherwise (sheesh!). Another thing never adequately explained in the movie is just what Dave Bowman had become and why he was doing what he did. Another reason to read the book (before or after, as you wish). -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam 37 22'50" N / 121 59'12" W [ This is just me talking. ]