MovieChat Forums > 2010 (1984) Discussion > Does anyone prefer 2010 to 2001?

Does anyone prefer 2010 to 2001?

posted 12 years ago by JohnWelles
83 replies | jump to latest

Yesterday, I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey and 2010: The Year We Make Contact. I have heard a lot of praise for 2001, and hence was expecting something to stand up with the likes of Blade Runner, District 9, etcetera. However, I personally found it to be a cold and frankly dull experience, and while I can appreciate the expertise with which every shot was meticulously framed and placed within the film, I found the design aesthetic (important to me, I like good looking sci-fi) to be more in tune with the old style sets and effects of the 40s-50s with the clean lines and uncluttered, sterile nature of the interiors and models on display. In some sense, I believe this film has dated even worse than 2010 as frankly, with such set designs looking totally devoid of the past 40+ years of space exploration, and where we are likely to go with future space development. Perhaps I just do not like films shot in the style of the silent era?
(The less said about the opening Monkey sequence the better.)

2010 on the other hand, I found to be a much human experience with characters I could actually care about, something I found impossible in 2001 (with he exception of Keir Dullea) also, the cold war subplot, the staple of many of the best sci-fi novels of the era (Eon by Greg Bear for example) I found to be greatly enjoyable. I do appreciate that some people have issues with this, but the same plot elements are in 2001 as well… Also I will admit that I am a huge Syd Mead fan, and thought his work on this film was amazing, although I will concede that the interior of the Leonov was more by way of Alien than anything else.

Does any one else feel the same way about 2010?

[–] chefjoseph 8 years ago

Uhhhhh. NO. Obviously you prefer a more conventional Sci-Fi film filled with clumsy exposition and an obvious spoon fed plot to a true visionary, form changing Masterpiece.

[–] Sidewindr 8 years ago

Arthur C Clarke himself was no fan of 2001 ... In face he left the premiere at intermission in tears. I believe he was far more satisfied with 2010 and much more involved as well.

[–] ErgonomicSpliff 8 years ago

Arthur C Clarke himself was no fan of 2001 ... In face he left the premiere at intermission in tears.

A bit of an exaggeration.

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2017/01/close-tears-he-left-intermission-how-stanley-kubrick-upset-arthur-c-clarke

Clarke's initial disappointment over the removal of expository voiceovers was assuaged by the fact that his novel included some explanations that the collaborative screenplay did not. Clarke was ulitmately very happy with the film. He may have very well been more involved with 2010 but that was simply due to the advancement in electronic communication (email) which made it possible for Clarke to remain in Sri Lanka, as travel was difficult for him.

[–] cjpmak 8 years ago

I watched 2010 yesterday, and I have to say that I enjoyed it more THIS time than when I saw it previously back in the early 90's.

I never enjoyed 2001 for the reasons you submit, though as I recall, I thought 2010 was goofy after the first viewing. I suppose as I've aged, I understand the story better and feel the emotions more (in terms of having children and how that angle plays into the film).

[–] rooprect (202) 7 years ago

I think comparing 2001 & 2010 is sorta like comparing Beethoven & the Beatles. Hands down we all know which is more powerful and meaningful as a work of art, but in our hearts we know which one we'd rather hear when we flip on the radio.

So, much like with music, it depends on what mood I'm in. If I'm in a movie watching mode, then I agree 2010 is more engaging as far as a relatable human story goes, just like Abbey Road. But sometimes I want to be challenged, even if I don't understand it (or it has "too many notes"), that's when I'll go for a film like 2001. Or Beethoven's 9th.

[–] modica (4169) 5 years ago

No, because I didn't care for the explanation of what happened in 2001. It all seemed stupid and a total cop out.

[–] pjl69 (2647) 5 years ago

I'm not sure which one I prefer. 2010 is more entertaining and has more wow factor, but I'm just glad both movies got made.

[–] Owlwise (1535) 5 years ago

2010 is a solid, perfectly enjoyable adaptation of the Clarke novel that works within its own terms. But it's best seen as a sequel to Clarke's novelization of 2001, not as a sequel to Kubrick's 2001, which is a sublime masterpiece. 2010 is prose, while 2001 is poetry.

[–] kenburke (2369) 4 years ago

Did I prefer 2010 to 2001? I certainly did!!!