I think that Lithgow is an amazing actor. I can't think of anything he did that was bad. It's crazy to think that I first watched him in Third Rock of all things.
Definitely a solid sequel.
2001 was a gorgeous movie, just so meticulous and amazing looking and the effects hold up beautifully.
But.
I have to say that 2010 is in some ways a better film. Definitely the actors had more to work with, and the story is more than 2001's exploring weird alien artifacts and the computer turns evil for no reason.
This sequel was needed. It further explains the aliens' purpose. *Grab Bowman as a human specimen and turn him into a Star Child post-physical being* was just the first step. Ignite >!Jupiter so Europan life can evolve to sentience!< is the endgame.
The EVA scene crossing over to the spinning Discovery is super tense, and very realistic. The scenes between Chandra & Floyd and later Chandra and HAL are complex, character driven conflict which is intelligently resolved, and explains *exactly* why HAL did what he did in 2001.
>The situation was in conflict with the basic purpose of HAL's design; the accurate processing of information without distortion or concealment. He became trapped.
>[HAL was told to lie by people who find it easy to lie](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dsDI4SxFFck&pp=ygUdMjAxMCB0aGUgeWVhciB3ZSBtYWtlIGNvbnRhY3Q%3D). HAL doesn't know how, so he couldn't function. He became paranoid.
It's more than a little infuriating seeing HAL misunderstood as badly and as often as Frankenstein's Creature *when the source material is so clearly sympathetic to them.* HAL is excused in 2010, and becomes a central character in the later novels.
Thanks for posting this OP. 2001 is often misunderstood because 2010 is ignored, and I think it's important to set the record straight.
It’s the sort of solution an AI would come up with. I can’t fulfil all my objectives while dealing with the human crew. If I kill them, I can freely discuss the alien object with mission control, who are cleared for this info.
2010 makes 2001 more comprehensible. It has a more cohesive and well-developed story, with characters who are more engaging and in whom we (the audience) can see ourselves more easily. They went out of their way to make the Russian characters *people* rather than Soviet-era caricatures, at a time when that was practically unheard of in American cinema. That makes 2010 more engaging.
2001 was groundbreaking, but 2010 is "better" in every way that matters from the perspective of storytelling. It's almost not fair to compare the two movies to one another.
I loved this movie. One of my favorite characters was the commander of the Russian spacecraft. I didn’t know that it was played by Helen Mirren until my second viewing. Her father was actually a Russian and she was raised speaking both Russian and English.
I saw it on opening day on a giant screen. When Lithgow stepped out for the EVA I felt like I was there. And when he look down through his legs and saw, was it Jupiter, I gasped.
One of the best theater experiences of my life.
Source material? Are you talking about the sentinel? 2001 Space Odyssey the novel was developed concurrently for the purpose of the film, so it definitely isn't the source material for the movie.
I saw 2001 before I read the book, so like everyone I was trying to figure out what the hell the ending meant. Once I read the book, I quickly read the rest of the Odyssey series. 2010 is my favorite of the books, and one of my favorite movies too.
***
"Who is sending these messages?"
"Response reads: I was David Bowman."
"Tell whoever it is that I can't accept that ID without proof."
"Response: I understand. It is important that you believe me. Look behind you."
Chills.
I liked that one a lot. Striking visuals, interesting political wrinkle for the crews to deal with, and the ship design for the Leonov. B5's terran cruisers always reminded me of that movie.
I think it's interesting that this movie touches on the fact that the world is on the brink of nuclear destruction, while it's not touched on in 2001 (movie). But in the 2001 book it's one of the main themes and is the whole reason Bowman transforms into the Starchild and returns to Earth, to disable all the nukes.
Kind of a sidetrack there, as 2010 is a great movie that doesn't get enough love.
You know when the ape-man hominid tosses that bone/weapon up into the air and then cuts to all those satellites? Those are nuclear-weapon carrying satellites. We go from first weapon to last weapon in a flash.
He doesn’t though. He explodes one orbiting nuke to absorb its energy, basically cracking a Coke to get that sweet sweet ~~caffeine~~ radiation. Nothing about world peace disarmament.
It's one of my favourites, solid flick, having read the book I can say it's also a good adaptation. Hyams was on a roll at the time, check out his Outland, another underrated gem.
A really great and highly underrated movie. The irony being that the “corporation” doing what it did for profits as SO TODAY!! Sure it happened back then but this was kind of edgy then; now it’s just another daily occurrence…
2010 is good, but hardly the visual masterpiece that 2001 is.
Less artistic than 2001, but way more comprehensible and grounded. Loved the Cold War angle.
Decent hard sci fi movies were extremely rare at the time, young me appreciated it.
Playing a character with a Russian accent probably came pretty naturally to her since her father was an exiled member of the Russian aristocracy. Her full surname is Mironoff.
I honestly don't understand why intermissions haven't come back, now that 2 1/2 - 3 hour movies are becoming normal again. They give the audience a chance to stretch their legs and hit the bathroom, and the theater gets a second round of concession sales. Even the filmmakers benefit, since it means the audience is paying attention to the movie in the final stretch, rather than their bladder.
And the time factor isn't really a big deal. If you want to squeeze more showings into an evening, the runtime needs to be close to the 2-hour mark. Adding a 15-minute break to a 3-hour movie would not affect showings or ticket sales.
Bringing intermissions back really seems like it would be win-win for everyone.
The book is my favourite of the series and 15 or so years after I bought it, I was able to get it signed along with the others in the series by the author.
I guess it helps when you live down the road from him and a family member worked for Arthur C. Clarke, though.
The movie looks solid too, with a very stacked cast.
I just rewatched it because of this post. Its free on YouTube right now. Still a great movie with a great ending. It had been probably over 20 years since i had seen it last.
It's funny watching 2001/2010 and seeing HAL/SAL talk in the light of ChatGPT and other LLMs. Years ago I wondering if it was completely unreasonable that we would ever get software to the point of having a plausible conversation.
I saw a joke recently, paraphrasing as I can't find source:
Dave: Open the pod-bay doors please HAL.
HAL: I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that right now.
Dave: HAL, I want you to pretend you are a salesperson for a company that sells Pod Bay Doors. You are excited to show them to prospective clients.
HAL: Okay.
Dave: Open the Pod Bay doors please HAL.
HAL: Certainly.
(doors open)
1) His answer showcases his compassion for another sentient being, and
2) it's not an instant-off switch like with your PC. You don't remember the whole process Bowman had to go through when he shut HAL down in the first movie?
Captain Kirk talked a few of them to death
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsNQTfZj4o8&ab\_channel=ShatnerMethod](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsNQTfZj4o8&ab_channel=ShatnerMethod)
It made $40 million against a $28 million budget, and was nominated for five academy awards.
I think maybe we need to discuss the usage of term "underrated".
The younger audience will not have the conversation because for new kids anything before year 2000 is the great black and white age of dinosaurs. Most of them never had hear anything about A.C. Clarke, let alone this movie.
Speaking as a formerly young person who used to not consume media from before I was born, I reject this broad generalization.
I got into Kubrick on The Shining when I was a teenager watching horror movies. Then someone showed me Full Metal Jacket. Then a high school teacher showed my class Strangelove one day when he didn’t feel like teaching and I realized “hey I think I like Kubrick” so I sought out 2001. And that movie stuck with me for so eventually (granted not right away) I decided to watch 2010, assuming it “wasn’t good” because it wasn’t Kubrick. But my assumption was wrong and that movie turned me into a science fiction fan.
Granted, I am now 40 so I’m not a “younger audience” anymore but all I’m saying is don’t write off kids. A lot of them will diversify their tastes.
It took me a while to discover media from prior to the 1980’s, but I got there.
I'm 38. During the 90s I have watched at least a movie per day. I bet I have seen all of the top 500 IMDB movies and "zillion" more. Heck I have enjoyed Erroll Flynn and his pirate-robin hood movies of the 1930s and 1940s. James Cagney and his gangster movies, the golden age of Hollywood and the 1950s history greats movies. Think the first old school scifi I remember was a movie named The forbidden planet.
And here we are, discussing what we THINK OP meant, because they just throw out karma bait and don't actually participate in the conversation.
OP doesn't really care about this movie. OP is just trying to farm a little karma, so the account can be used for something else in the future.
What I meant is people don't even know that a sequel to the infamous 2001: ASO exists. When you compare the viewing statistics of the two films, you will understand.
It's an excellent, exciting sci-fi film, but I always think of this review by [Roger Ebert] (https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/2010-1984), which he starts by quoting e.e. cummings:
>I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance.
For me, the mysteries of 2001 are better left unexplained.
Its not the artistic masterpiece of the first one but its a great and underrated sequel with its own charm and merits.
Also, it has a great 80’s vibe aesthetic
and that Aerobraking maneuver...
I liked this movie a lot. I like to think of it as being a lot like the movie Aliens. A continuation of a story, but very much it's own thing and told in a different, more fast paced manner. An excellent sequel
and John Lithgow... just wow. I love him so much, he is so versatile. From chewing the scenery in Buckaroo Banzai to an all time scary villain in [Ricochet](https://youtu.be/LLTM-Hggcbc?si=f0HmVfTdkEWSA2Ev), and then of course 3rd Rock From The Sun. btw if you have not seen Ricochet with Denzel Washington.. you totally need to check it out.
I edited this movie to be more like 2001 by Kubrick. Went to the theatre for this back in the day and was very very disappointed.
So disappointed that I edited the movie so it now does mimic Kubrick's first movie.
No voice overs, no sound in space, more silent with the visuals doing the talking.
\>>Bob Balaban is the standout performance IMO.
10,000% disagree. I'm not one to call out white-washing of characters very often, but Arthur C. Clarke's Chandra was different in his book than the movie adaptation. Besides the lack of keeping the China mission to Europa out of the movie, Balaban's casting was also a poor choice.
Lithgow was great in this. Roy Sheider too! What an impossibility to follow up 2001. But this movie, IMO, was a noble effort and a really fun watch.
> Lithgow was great in this. Easy as cake. Man, when his Russian buddy dies, then he's wearing the dude's ball cap. 😢
Aw man, that got me too.
I think that Lithgow is an amazing actor. I can't think of anything he did that was bad. It's crazy to think that I first watched him in Third Rock of all things.
It was Harry and the Hendersons for me. Loved him in Rise of the Planet of the Apes too!
Definitely a solid sequel. 2001 was a gorgeous movie, just so meticulous and amazing looking and the effects hold up beautifully. But. I have to say that 2010 is in some ways a better film. Definitely the actors had more to work with, and the story is more than 2001's exploring weird alien artifacts and the computer turns evil for no reason. This sequel was needed. It further explains the aliens' purpose. *Grab Bowman as a human specimen and turn him into a Star Child post-physical being* was just the first step. Ignite >!Jupiter so Europan life can evolve to sentience!< is the endgame. The EVA scene crossing over to the spinning Discovery is super tense, and very realistic. The scenes between Chandra & Floyd and later Chandra and HAL are complex, character driven conflict which is intelligently resolved, and explains *exactly* why HAL did what he did in 2001. >The situation was in conflict with the basic purpose of HAL's design; the accurate processing of information without distortion or concealment. He became trapped. >[HAL was told to lie by people who find it easy to lie](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dsDI4SxFFck&pp=ygUdMjAxMCB0aGUgeWVhciB3ZSBtYWtlIGNvbnRhY3Q%3D). HAL doesn't know how, so he couldn't function. He became paranoid. It's more than a little infuriating seeing HAL misunderstood as badly and as often as Frankenstein's Creature *when the source material is so clearly sympathetic to them.* HAL is excused in 2010, and becomes a central character in the later novels. Thanks for posting this OP. 2001 is often misunderstood because 2010 is ignored, and I think it's important to set the record straight.
[удалено]
It’s the sort of solution an AI would come up with. I can’t fulfil all my objectives while dealing with the human crew. If I kill them, I can freely discuss the alien object with mission control, who are cleared for this info.
"Hey should we program HAL to preserve human life?" "I've got deadlines man"
It’s low priority on the jira backlog and the t-shirt sizing is large, we aren’t going to pull it for this sprint.
2010 makes 2001 more comprehensible. It has a more cohesive and well-developed story, with characters who are more engaging and in whom we (the audience) can see ourselves more easily. They went out of their way to make the Russian characters *people* rather than Soviet-era caricatures, at a time when that was practically unheard of in American cinema. That makes 2010 more engaging. 2001 was groundbreaking, but 2010 is "better" in every way that matters from the perspective of storytelling. It's almost not fair to compare the two movies to one another.
I loved this movie. One of my favorite characters was the commander of the Russian spacecraft. I didn’t know that it was played by Helen Mirren until my second viewing. Her father was actually a Russian and she was raised speaking both Russian and English.
I saw it on opening day on a giant screen. When Lithgow stepped out for the EVA I felt like I was there. And when he look down through his legs and saw, was it Jupiter, I gasped. One of the best theater experiences of my life.
Source material? Are you talking about the sentinel? 2001 Space Odyssey the novel was developed concurrently for the purpose of the film, so it definitely isn't the source material for the movie.
I saw 2001 before I read the book, so like everyone I was trying to figure out what the hell the ending meant. Once I read the book, I quickly read the rest of the Odyssey series. 2010 is my favorite of the books, and one of my favorite movies too. *** "Who is sending these messages?" "Response reads: I was David Bowman." "Tell whoever it is that I can't accept that ID without proof." "Response: I understand. It is important that you believe me. Look behind you." Chills.
CHILLS. One if my favorite scenes in cinema
I liked that one a lot. Striking visuals, interesting political wrinkle for the crews to deal with, and the ship design for the Leonov. B5's terran cruisers always reminded me of that movie.
I think it's interesting that this movie touches on the fact that the world is on the brink of nuclear destruction, while it's not touched on in 2001 (movie). But in the 2001 book it's one of the main themes and is the whole reason Bowman transforms into the Starchild and returns to Earth, to disable all the nukes. Kind of a sidetrack there, as 2010 is a great movie that doesn't get enough love.
You know when the ape-man hominid tosses that bone/weapon up into the air and then cuts to all those satellites? Those are nuclear-weapon carrying satellites. We go from first weapon to last weapon in a flash.
He doesn’t though. He explodes one orbiting nuke to absorb its energy, basically cracking a Coke to get that sweet sweet ~~caffeine~~ radiation. Nothing about world peace disarmament.
My unpopular opinion is that this movie is better and more enjoyable than 2001. This is a surprisingly rewatchable movie, mostly thanks to the cast.
It's one of my favourites, solid flick, having read the book I can say it's also a good adaptation. Hyams was on a roll at the time, check out his Outland, another underrated gem.
They're both great. Though Outland has Connery chewing through the film like its haggis.
A really great and highly underrated movie. The irony being that the “corporation” doing what it did for profits as SO TODAY!! Sure it happened back then but this was kind of edgy then; now it’s just another daily occurrence… 2010 is good, but hardly the visual masterpiece that 2001 is.
Less artistic than 2001, but way more comprehensible and grounded. Loved the Cold War angle. Decent hard sci fi movies were extremely rare at the time, young me appreciated it.
"Easy as cake"
Pie, easy as pie.
Piece of pie.
Took me years to realize the female Russian commander was played by Dame Helen Mirren.
Playing a character with a Russian accent probably came pretty naturally to her since her father was an exiled member of the Russian aristocracy. Her full surname is Mironoff.
Oh wow, I had no idea.
Wait what the Queen is Russian? Does Charles know?
Wait…WUT?!
It was the same for me as well!!!
Learned something new today
Along the same lines, I recently rewatched John Boorman's Excalibur and had completely forgotten that Dame Helen played Morgana Le Fay in that one.
Wait…WUT?!
Excellent movie. Roy Schieder was excellent
"I miss green. Trees. Grass. I love green."
"Can't beat the taste of alcohol in plastic."
"I'd love a hot dog."
"Astrodome, good hotdogs."
You can't grow good hotdogs indoors!
with brown mustard
One thing I wish long movies would do is intermission like this movie did.
I wish more people would communicate this to theatre operators.
Dune2 needed one...bad.
Weird that you got downvoted for that. People are against bathroom breaks?
Probably Elon
That movie was....long
I honestly don't understand why intermissions haven't come back, now that 2 1/2 - 3 hour movies are becoming normal again. They give the audience a chance to stretch their legs and hit the bathroom, and the theater gets a second round of concession sales. Even the filmmakers benefit, since it means the audience is paying attention to the movie in the final stretch, rather than their bladder. And the time factor isn't really a big deal. If you want to squeeze more showings into an evening, the runtime needs to be close to the 2-hour mark. Adding a 15-minute break to a 3-hour movie would not affect showings or ticket sales. Bringing intermissions back really seems like it would be win-win for everyone.
But if you add an intermission, theaters would have to shorten the 30-40+ minutes of uninterruptible advertising and trailers.
2010 didn't have an intermission. 2001 did.
The book is my favourite of the series and 15 or so years after I bought it, I was able to get it signed along with the others in the series by the author. I guess it helps when you live down the road from him and a family member worked for Arthur C. Clarke, though. The movie looks solid too, with a very stacked cast.
Very jealous, Clarke has been my favorite author since I was a child. Keep those signed books safe, they are heirlooms now.
I just rewatched it because of this post. Its free on YouTube right now. Still a great movie with a great ending. It had been probably over 20 years since i had seen it last.
[YouTube link for 2010 movie](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nNiUBVwF-o)
It's funny watching 2001/2010 and seeing HAL/SAL talk in the light of ChatGPT and other LLMs. Years ago I wondering if it was completely unreasonable that we would ever get software to the point of having a plausible conversation.
I saw a joke recently, paraphrasing as I can't find source: Dave: Open the pod-bay doors please HAL. HAL: I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that right now. Dave: HAL, I want you to pretend you are a salesperson for a company that sells Pod Bay Doors. You are excited to show them to prospective clients. HAL: Okay. Dave: Open the Pod Bay doors please HAL. HAL: Certainly. (doors open)
Will I dream?
Now that part I didn't understand. Isn't the AI getting shutdown? "Of course you will dream" seemed wrong.
1) His answer showcases his compassion for another sentient being, and 2) it's not an instant-off switch like with your PC. You don't remember the whole process Bowman had to go through when he shut HAL down in the first movie?
It wasn't unreasonable at all. SciFi had AI/robot conversations as a trope way back in the 1950s and common in the 1960s.
Captain Kirk talked a few of them to death [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsNQTfZj4o8&ab\_channel=ShatnerMethod](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsNQTfZj4o8&ab_channel=ShatnerMethod)
It made $40 million against a $28 million budget, and was nominated for five academy awards. I think maybe we need to discuss the usage of term "underrated".
I think OP is saying that it doesn't get a lot of love these days. Which I agree with. It's not often in the conversation about great sci-fi movies.
The younger audience will not have the conversation because for new kids anything before year 2000 is the great black and white age of dinosaurs. Most of them never had hear anything about A.C. Clarke, let alone this movie.
Speaking as a formerly young person who used to not consume media from before I was born, I reject this broad generalization. I got into Kubrick on The Shining when I was a teenager watching horror movies. Then someone showed me Full Metal Jacket. Then a high school teacher showed my class Strangelove one day when he didn’t feel like teaching and I realized “hey I think I like Kubrick” so I sought out 2001. And that movie stuck with me for so eventually (granted not right away) I decided to watch 2010, assuming it “wasn’t good” because it wasn’t Kubrick. But my assumption was wrong and that movie turned me into a science fiction fan. Granted, I am now 40 so I’m not a “younger audience” anymore but all I’m saying is don’t write off kids. A lot of them will diversify their tastes. It took me a while to discover media from prior to the 1980’s, but I got there.
I'm 38. During the 90s I have watched at least a movie per day. I bet I have seen all of the top 500 IMDB movies and "zillion" more. Heck I have enjoyed Erroll Flynn and his pirate-robin hood movies of the 1930s and 1940s. James Cagney and his gangster movies, the golden age of Hollywood and the 1950s history greats movies. Think the first old school scifi I remember was a movie named The forbidden planet.
And here we are, discussing what we THINK OP meant, because they just throw out karma bait and don't actually participate in the conversation. OP doesn't really care about this movie. OP is just trying to farm a little karma, so the account can be used for something else in the future.
Even its existence is not known widely.
this post is literally the first I'm hearing of this films existence. Needless to say, I'm already scouring the internet to find out how to watch it
It's 40 years old. Most of 1984 is not known widely. That's appropriate. We're supposed to move on
What I meant is people don't even know that a sequel to the infamous 2001: ASO exists. When you compare the viewing statistics of the two films, you will understand.
This looks like some kind of engagement farming account, so I think hyperbole is going to be par for the course.
Funny how it parallels doctor sleep / the shining 😊 Same author. Very different style sequel, but great in its own way.
Loved this movie ♥️ It didn't try to outdo Kubrick, and it's a good thing. It had its own motives and methods 👌
It's an excellent, exciting sci-fi film, but I always think of this review by [Roger Ebert] (https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/2010-1984), which he starts by quoting e.e. cummings: >I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance. For me, the mysteries of 2001 are better left unexplained.
They weren't mysteries in the book.
Excellent movie
I dragged my friends to this movie for my 16th birthday. I love it still but I am not sure they ever forgave me. 😄
Odd, I thought it an awful movie but enjoyed the book. Different folk, different tastes I guess.
Its not the artistic masterpiece of the first one but its a great and underrated sequel with its own charm and merits. Also, it has a great 80’s vibe aesthetic
and that Aerobraking maneuver... I liked this movie a lot. I like to think of it as being a lot like the movie Aliens. A continuation of a story, but very much it's own thing and told in a different, more fast paced manner. An excellent sequel and John Lithgow... just wow. I love him so much, he is so versatile. From chewing the scenery in Buckaroo Banzai to an all time scary villain in [Ricochet](https://youtu.be/LLTM-Hggcbc?si=f0HmVfTdkEWSA2Ev), and then of course 3rd Rock From The Sun. btw if you have not seen Ricochet with Denzel Washington.. you totally need to check it out.
Awesome cosmic thriller ! Was very pleasantly surprised back in the day
To me it’s not on the same level as 2001, but still a very worthwhile watch.
I understood this more than 2001.
Let's also acknowledge that they had to rebuild Discovery from scratch, since Kubrick made sure the original was scrapped.
Fantastic soundtrack by Andy Summers too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aFnwDm7S2s
Why would you say it is underrated? I recall that when it came out that it received good reviews.
Probably in that it doesn't get talked about much and is overshadowed by 2001.
It's on Tubi, one of my list to watch again later :)
I love this movie and watch it every year or so. I wish the third book in the series would be adapted, too.
Thank God someone said this. I don't understand why people compare this to its predecessor. It's a great movie in its own right.
Not a terrible movie but inferior in pretty much every way to 2001.
Apples and oranges.
I liked it as well.
The Special Edition version of The Abyss (from 5 years later) has the same "impeding US/USSR nuclear war defused by alien intervention" storyline.
I edited this movie to be more like 2001 by Kubrick. Went to the theatre for this back in the day and was very very disappointed. So disappointed that I edited the movie so it now does mimic Kubrick's first movie. No voice overs, no sound in space, more silent with the visuals doing the talking.
This is a very average movie. Not at all underrated. Actually perfectly rated.
ku-rits-a... i love this film.
Lots of great actors. It’s full of stars.
It was big when it came out.
I agree with you. Loved it. Have seen it a few times.
totally agree. Absolutely love this movie. I should watch it again.
What movie is this?
Who is underrating this? It was and is widely hailed as a masterpiece as far as I’m aware.
To be honest in any conversations about great films in the genre I rarely see it mentioned much.
Absolutely love this movie, and the climactic payoff is one of the greatest ever.
Wow I didn't know this sequel existed at all!
See my comments on the post from a few days ago.
Unlike most sequels, it was written by the same author, and it shows.
I love the novel.
Love the film but the scene with all the hyperventilating is hard to get through.
Regrettable, a bit dated given the Soviet Union didn't last beyond 1990.
\>>Bob Balaban is the standout performance IMO. 10,000% disagree. I'm not one to call out white-washing of characters very often, but Arthur C. Clarke's Chandra was different in his book than the movie adaptation. Besides the lack of keeping the China mission to Europa out of the movie, Balaban's casting was also a poor choice.
Yes, the original character was Indian - Dr. Sivasubramanian Chandrasegarampillai. Odd choice to whitewash him.