Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxi.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihuxi!okie From: okie@ihuxi.UUCP (B.K. Cobb) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: 2010 letdown (semi-SPOILER) Message-ID: <1139@ihuxi.UUCP> Date: Tue, 11-Dec-84 09:47:51 EST Article-I.D.: ihuxi.1139 Posted: Tue Dec 11 09:47:51 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 12-Dec-84 05:24:55 EST References: <4212@tekecs.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 58 Okay, we're all wonderful experts on the technical problems in "2010." We take the flaws we think we see and we bow (excuse me, that's "blow") them up to show how truly lousy a movie it is. Sorry, I'm not buying it. I'll state right out that I liked 2010, and I disagree that it's "cheap kiddie thrills" or "Battlestar Galactica" quality. And it's not as technically inaccurate as some people have been saying. For example, the big beef seems to be that Hyams doesn't understand gravity -- or, more to the point, zero-gravity. Well, he manages to make a couple of mistake, it's true -- for example, when Chandra cries in HAL's "brain chamber," his tears shouldn't slide down his face since he's in zero-g -- they should just hang there, making it hard for him to see. But why is everyone complaining about the walking around aboard the Leonov and the Discovery? Most of the walking takes place in the grav sections of the Leonov (I'm sure you noticed the spinning portion of the ship, right?) When it occurs in the pod bay, you might harken back to the film you keep comparing it too; "2001" had lots of walking around in their zero-g pod bay, and on the zero-g control deck. You can safely assume that the shoes and floor surfaces use an attractive surfacing of some sort -- I did, and had not trouble with it the rest of the movie. If you complain about attention to detail, you might think about that point for awhile. And you might take another good look at the scenes where the two astronauts first enter Discovery -- they're standing upright on one of the *walls* of the pod bay, because of the tidal force from Discovery's spin. I think that shows a fairly good understanding of what's going on. And for me, the aerobraking sequence was quite good. Since the Jovian atmosphere is full of radical chemical compounds, there's no reason why the effect shouldn't look like it did -- I mean, how many of you have seen an aerobraking procedure? If you have, enlighten us -- if not, then one opinion on the "look" of it is as good as another. Other complaints... I agree that the roaring and whooshing in space detracted from the feel of the film; but that's the current state of treatment of such actions in American films. I don't like it, but most directors feel that the audience gets bored if there is not sound. Of course, I still think Kubrick got around this nicely by taking us inside the astronauts suit with sound, and it would still work today, but... I don't normally get in on these discussions -- I just like to sit and watch the flames flicker, so to speak. But I think too many people are busy enlarging small technical "problems" and missing the larger view. As a sequel, "2010" obviously doesn't measure up to "2001," and I don't believe Hyams ever intended it to. But on its own, "2010" is a good movie, an enjoyable and involving "people" story, and worth seeing. B.K.Cobb ihnp4!ihuxi!okie "My God, it's full of critics!"