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!"