Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-k.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!edsel!bentley!hoxna!houxm!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-k!wrs
From: wrs@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: 2010 evaluation (SPOILER)
Message-ID: <224@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 25-Dec-84 03:39:28 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-k.224
Posted: Tue Dec 25 03:39:28 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Dec-84 03:25:41 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 52

There are clearly two ways to approach this film: either you see it as yet
another "space adventure" story (you'll definitely need the first three
minutes for that one), or you see it expecting a sequel to 2001.

If you go the first route, no problem.  It's not that bad a film, taken in
the Star Wars/Battlestar Galactica/etc. tradition.  I thought the ending
was thrilling, the tough-guy Dr. Floyd (yay, Roy!  Blast them Russkies) was
fun, the villians were villainous, the good guys were virtuous.

On the other hand, if you go expecting a sequel, you're in trouble.
Especially if you expect the kind of quality that came from the
Kubrick/Clarke collaboration.  If you go to see a space thriller, you can
easily ignore such minor details as total ignorance of physical laws.
Anything that advertises itself as a sequel to 2001 had damn well better not
have low rumbling noises in deep space and people simultaneously leaning on
a table and leaving a pen spinning in mid-air!  I won't even attempt to list
the other blatantly ridiculous things that occurred.  It seems that
among all those technical consultants someone would have thought "gee,
should we tell him that even huge balloons inflating don't make loud
crinkling noises in space?".

Here's something even worse than Hyams' lack of high-school physics: the man
had the incredible gall to re-write the whole premise of the story!  2010 is
not about crises in Central America and aliens trying to fix US/USSR
relations, dammit!  The characterizations of the Russians were TOTALLY
WRONG (not to mention Floyd and Chandra).  What is this b.s. about being
ordered to leave USSR territory?  Where did this man get the poetic license
to turn Clarke's novel into a statement on US foreign policy?  Sure, you can
say "well, no movie is exactly like the book," but this is ridiculous.

By the way, I assume Syd Mead, the "Visual Futurist," is responsible for the
random six-inch numerals all over the Leonov and the change in style from
2001 to 2010 (clothes, etc.), if you want someone to flame about.

Conclusions:	1) See the movie, but turn off your physics first.
		2) Write a nasty, nasty letter to Peter Hyams.
		3) Read the book.

What do you suppose are the chances of a remake by someone who knows basic
physics and has seen 2001 and liked it?

[I should apologize for the near-flame four paragraphs above.  I hardly
 ever use exclamation points in real life.]

-- 
      Walter Smith, CS undergraduate, Carnegie-Mellon University
uucp: ...!seismo!cmu-cs-k!wrs
arpa: wrs@cmu-cs-k.ARPA
usps: Box 874; 5115 Margaret Morrison St.; Pittsburgh, PA  15213

Any opinions contained in the above could very well be so different from
those of CMU itself that it would be ludicrous to compare the two.