Message-ID: <1193@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 10-Dec-84 01:30:39 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncca.1193
Posted: Mon Dec 10 01:30:39 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Dec-84 02:37:40 EST
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 31
Xref: watmath net.movies:5162 net.sf-lovers:5350

2001 was one of the few movies which was richer in allusion and subtlety
than the book.  Unfortunately, 2010, the movie, continues this seemingly
inexorable progress towards literal-mindedness.  It begins with a "computer
printout" summary of what "happened" in 2001 (just the facts, ma'am) worthy
of the 3 minute synopses which begin the episodes of made-for-TV
mini-series extravaganzas, and proceeds with some horrendous expository
dialogue for the next 40 minutes or so.  The characters here don't talk to
each other, they explain the background of the plot to the audience.  This
is static stuff, anti-cinematic really, and the director (what's his name,
who cares?) does nothing to help.

In fact, this movie really is TV quality: the characters are thinly
drawn--non-dimensional, perhaps.  The Soviets (you've all seen the plot
summaries, right?) are cold war zombies, and our hero Roy Scheider knows it
all, in the best US tradition.  As tensions increase on earth, with a war
brewing between the superpowers, things begin to "heat up" on Jupiter.
"Something wonderful is about to happen!" claims a resurrected Dave Bowman,
late of 2001, to Scheider.  Indeed!  If you gagged on "Close Encounters",
you'll choke on 2010.

There are a very few good scenes, especially those involving the
HAL 9000 computer and Chandra, HAL's programmer, but they do not
a movie make.

Many people have argued that 2010 should not be judged against 2001, one
of the most influential movies of all time.  Perhaps it IS an unfair
comparison, for 2010 is inferior in almost every respect.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA

Message-ID: <1194@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 10-Dec-84 02:01:11 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncca.1194
Posted: Mon Dec 10 02:01:11 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Dec-84 02:38:35 EST
References: <1193@bbncca.ARPA>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 30
Xref: watmath net.movies:5163 net.sf-lovers:5351

My editor hiccupped, and the 2010 review was ejected from its pod
prematurely.  Let me continue...

Many people have argued that 2010 should not be judged against 2001, one of
the most influential movies of all time.  Perhaps it IS an unfair
comparison, for 2010 is inferior in almost every respect.  But, let's face
the nature of sequels: their lot is to be compared against the original.
Simply because so few sequels are equal or better is no reason to accept
mediocrity.  And, what's more, a sequel, by trading on the success of the
original, bears a heavy responsibility to its audience.

2010's special effects are nothing special, mostly being of the Star Trek
throw-yourself-across-the-room variety.  Compare this with 2001, whose
effects set a new standard (and raised own own standards.)

2010's use of music is minimal, and certainly suffers compared with
Kubrick's.  It dusts off the Ligeti "Kyrie" from 2001 occasionaly when
the monolith appears, but more often contents itself with pedestrian
workaday movie music.

But most earthbound is the vision of 2010.  Compared with Kubrick's sardonic
view of a soulless consumer culture of the 1960s projected into the 21st
century and its salvation despite itself, and filled with inchoate, resonant
symbols, 2010 contents itself with a connect-the-dots sledge-hammer
message of peace and brotherhood, completely lacking in subtlety, guaranteed
to incense anyone who thought highly of the first movie.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA

Message-ID: <264@umd5.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Dec-84 11:12:58 EST
Article-I.D.: umd5.264
Posted: Mon Dec 10 11:12:58 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Dec-84 04:16:53 EST
References: <1193@bbncca.ARPA>
Reply-To: louie@umd5.UUCP (Louis Mamakos)
Organization: U of Md, CSC, College Park, Md
Lines: 21
Xref: watmath net.movies:5177 net.sf-lovers:5359
Summary: 

In article <1193@bbncca.ARPA> sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) writes:
>Many people have argued that 2010 should not be judged against 2001, one
>of the most influential movies of all time.  Perhaps it IS an unfair
>comparison, for 2010 is inferior in almost every respect.

Perhaps it IS unfair, but when a film is obviously a sequal to a classic,
people will expect more (a lot more!) than they would out of the run of the
mill film.  Peter Hyams should have been aware of this.  It was a little too
'blinky-light' for my taste.  Just contrast the instrumentation of the Leonov
with the Discovery.  I agree with Steve, the opening sequence was just a
too easy of a way out of explaining what happened.

Despite these criticisms, I'll see 2010 one or two more times.  It's not a
bad movie; it just doesn't stack up to what I expected from 2001.

Louis A. Mamakos
Computer Science Center - Systems Programming
University of Maryland, College Park

Internet: louie@umd5.arpa
UUCP: ..!seismo!cvl!umd5!louie

Message-ID: <782@milo.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Dec-84 08:36:55 EST
Article-I.D.: milo.782
Posted: Tue Dec 11 08:36:55 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Dec-84 02:15:43 EST
References: <1193@bbncca.ARPA> <264@umd5.UUCP>
Organization: JHU/Applied Physics Lab, Laurel, MD
Lines: 11
Xref: watmath net.movies:5191 net.sf-lovers:5369

>Many people have argued that 2010 should not be judged against 2001, one
>of the most influential movies of all time.  Perhaps it IS an unfair
>comparison, for 2010 is inferior in almost every respect.

	Actually, I don't think it is unfair at all. They are obviously
reaping marketing benefits by being a sequel, they should also be prepared
to take their lumps in comparison.

-- 
					eric
					...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!milo!eric