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?