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?!?!
Thoroughly disagree. The sfx in 2010 are great and there's plenty of scenes that would not have been possible in 1968 - Jupiter close-ups for one. You might prefer the cleaner, more stoic style of 2001 but personally I think both movies are equally good from a technical standpoint.
shareI think 2001 has better SFX as well. Perhaps it's down to budget and the different level of control the directors had? You have to assume that Kubrick had total control and the bloody-minded obsession to make the film he wanted.
shareOne of Clarke's motivations for writing 2010 was the Voyager probes encountering Jupiter in 1979 and showing that its moons were totally different from what had been believed when 2001 was written. Things like Europe having a sub-surface ocean is more central to the novel's plot and Io's volcanos provide a backdrop to much of the story. Jupiter and the moons hardly feature in 2001, they're very well realised in 2010. Arguably the Discovery set is more functional looking than the Leonov but as you say that's down to budgets and I think it looks fine.
share2001 clearly had better special effects than 2010. One easy comparison is look at the 2001 Hal Hologram Memory Board when he's being deactivated and compare it to 2010 version of Hal's Hologram Memory Board when he's be turn back on and 2001 clearly has the better looking Panel. Not even close!
shareThey may appear better because there are far fewer effects shots, and many were done two-dimensionally. Rather than shoot models with a moving camera, they took stills of the models and moved the still across the background one frame at a time. That process eliminates a lot of the optical compositing needed for motion-control model shots against blue screen. Watch again as you'll see the perspective remain static in spite of the ships 'moving'. I thought 2010 had spectacular visual effects, particular the first crossing to Discovery.
If you watch on video most composite shots break down, even with Star Wars.
http://writerblalley.wix.com/home
There was probably a much larger percentage of the film's budget available for special effects for 2001 because there were few actors in 2001 to pay, that mostly were relatively unknowns. Just a guess, though.
Now if that bastard so much as twitches, I'm gonna blow him right to Mars.
on the blu ray I noticed the panelling around the hal 90000 was made out of painted cardboard
shareIn a way, the effects in 2010 were inferior to 2001 -- in 2010, you can see the matt outlines around the Leonov. You don't have that with the ships in 2001.
shareAbsolutely. Those outlines sucked in the theatrical print and are still visible in some other versions. I'm surprised they didn't edit them out of the theatrical release. 2001's effects reign supreme.
shareBecause 2001 was directed by Kubrick, one of the greatest Geniuses in cinema history and the other was made by Hyams, the director of Sudden Death and End of Days.
shareI was watching this movie again (well, all but the last twenty minutes) last night and again I found myself marveling at how good the SFX were in this film as I do every time I watch it. I suppose most would qualify that by adding that it was 1968 but the effects were amazing by any metric IMO.
Having watched it again recently, I found the effects in 2010 were amazing, but the matting squares from the blue screen effects at the time was quite noticeable. As others have pointed out, there was a lot less going on in the 2001 space scenes compared to 2010 which had big moving things, flashing lights, explosions, engine thrust, rotating planets, etc.
share2001 was way more difficult to pull off and has aged very well.
2010 used green composites that at the time were still fairly new and look very dated.
I like both films but 2001 is a masterpiece.
The Visual Effects in "2010" are among the best ever made. And, to me, unsurpassed when it comes to conjuring the feeling of being in space ever since.
The effects are simply different. "2001"s are all about hard realism. "2010"s are colorful and artistic. But, both are great.
Get yer eyes checked.
shareTroll alert! :-) You know that Trumbull's team of model builders, matte painters and cameramen worked with Edlund on "2010." So, plenty of great visual effects artists on both movies.
shareTrumbull did NOT work on the movie, his company did. Read the wiki page.
shareRead the post. Are you that desperate to troll that you'll bite at things that aren't there? Yes, yes you would. :-P
shareTrumbull had no connection with 2010 in any capacity. The VFX were done by Boss Film Studio, which was headed by Richard Edlund. Boss bought the assets of Trumbull’s company, Entertainment Effects Group, but neither Trumbull nor his employees worked on 2010.
share