Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uiucdcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mccaugh
From: mccaugh@uiucdcs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: 2010 evaluation (SPOILER)
Message-ID: <10700089@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 29-Dec-84 03:04:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.10700089
Posted: Sat Dec 29 03:04:00 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Dec-84 01:39:38 EST
References: <224@cmu-cs-k.UUCP>
Lines: 21
Nf-ID: #R:cmu-cs-k:-22400:uiucdcs:10700089:000:1288
Nf-From: uiucdcs!mccaugh    Dec 29 02:04:00 1984


 The consensus of opinion I have (thus far) received, both from readers of the
 book: 2010: Odyssey Two, and the movie: 2010 (The Year We Make Contact) has
 been decidedly negative in comparison with 2001: book and movie. The weight
 of opinion re: the book is to the effect that Mr. Clarke has entered that
 pathetic pale of senility from which no mind returns...As for the movie, I
 understand that Hyams--altogether unlike Kubrick--is a real bastard to wrok
 with, especially if you are into special-effects in a big way.
   Actually, Arthur C. Clarke pronounced the positive verdict on his own sen-
 ility when he consented to an "interview" of sorts with OMNI magazine (Dec.
 issue) in which he blithely declared that "The Songs of Distant Earth" was
 the foutainhead for the Odyssey-mania, when in fact, "The Sentinel" was the
 seed for the story, as he himself admitted in interviews with the New Yorker
 in early Spring, 1968 and subsequently. 
   It would be (to say the least!) interesting to learn why Stanley Kubrick
 (who was enthusiastically offerred the directorship but turned it down on the
  grounds that: "I never make sequels") actually did turn it down...After all,
  he didn't have a book to abide by when he made 2001---was 2010 a book he could
  not abide by?