This movie was made 16 years later, yet it seems like the special effects aren't as good. Maybe it was because what they are doing here is more ambitious in scale, but I just can't help feeling like the special effects in 2010 feel so cheesy, whereas 2001's still hold up today very well.
BARTYOUWANNASEEMYNEWCHAINSAWANDHOCKEYMASK?!?!
My recollection is from reading SF magazines such as Starlog in the years prior to 2010 there was considerable debate as to whether 2010 should have been done if the budget was not tremendous. Kubrick was as high and mighty as you could get during the 1960's and was not going to be denied in terms of what he needed for 2001. As mentioned elsewhere Kubrick was not going to be involved in the project once it was greenlighted so no doubt that impacted the budget in terms of special effects. Also, I believe the studio decided the project needed names known in terms of actors hence Mirren, Lithgow, and Elcar. Both 2001 and 2010 have their respective strong points. I don't know that an art house type production such as what we got with 2001 would have flown in the decade of action known as the 1980's.
share2001 had star power, but it wasn't via actors. 2001 was heavy into high quality special effects from masters of their art.
2010 had star power, this time it was via actors. Six major actors took up a huge chunk of the budget. The movie cost 3x to make, shows how much Hollywood changed in just 16 years.
Peter Hyams was a good, not great, sci-fi director. I once walked by him at the 2005 DVD Exclusive Awards show, I didn't recognize him but he had a badge hanging from his neck that said P. Hyams. Took me a sec to make the connection, almost stopped and turned around but said screw it.
2001 had the anticipation of the United States Apollo Space Program as a huge marketing force. From the time JFK laid the gauntlet down in terms of putting a man on the moon the world was mesmerized by the prospect of space travel. The icing had yet to be placed on the cake in terms of Neil Armstrong but there certainly was electricity in the air thus MGM's willingness to spend on 2001. 2010 had the feeling of a well needed project to make money for the studio.
shareYes, I agree. I remember reading 2010 exerpts in Playboy magazine in early 1984. It was really good, so I went and read the 2001 novelization and then rented the 2001 movie. I was pleasantly surprised 2010 came out later that year(Dec, 1984) and couldn't wait to see it. Alas, it was kind of a disappointment. Later it played on HBO quite a bit..my friends in the dorm I lived in watched it over and over again because it wasn't as boring as other movies..young guys with nothing much to do, watching halfway decent sci-fi in 85/early 86.
shareThe biggest disappointment for me in 2010 was trying to work a Watergate type angle into the story. HAL covering for a White House directive. I would have preferred something more original than a US-Russia skirmish in the Caribbean being the origins for the mission directives but sufficed. Scheider and Lithgow agonizing over it seemed a little ridiculous and their approach almost hammy. Like there was never a possibility of overt involvement of politicians prior to the mission. Highly placed scientists involved with the US government should be surprised at nothing. But like you said it was highly watchable considering its flaws. My college years were at the same time as yours.
shareI thought some of the effects in 2001 were poorly done.
The dust on the moon swirls around instead of being throw in a ballistic arc; this is impossible in a vacuum.
They don't even try to show 1/6th gravity on the lunar surface while indoors.
The stars appear to drift while Discovery is in motion.
The pen spinning on the shuttle spins incorrectly.
Dave's Pod remains stationary after he blows the hatch.
I guess, if you prefer slow moving 2-dimensional cutout boards (the earth orbiting satellite in 2001). There wasn't computer controlled cameras in 1968, so there were limits in how fast objects could move in the picture, that's why all the space ships are moving so slowly in 2001.
There's no point in talking sense to religious people, like Kubrick worshippers.