Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!gam
From: gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: 2010: art? bigoted? chauvinistic? fun anyways?
Message-ID: <758@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 16-Dec-84 20:53:53 EST
Article-I.D.: amdahl.758
Posted: Sun Dec 16 20:53:53 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Dec-84 02:51:37 EST
References: <789@hound.UUCP>
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 47

> = Elaine C. Dimpelfeld 	ihnp4!hound!5123ecd

> I made the mistake of reading the book first.
> Don't if you want to enjoy the movie in an
> unhindered fashion.

I definately agree the book is much better, but having read the book
first it was not a hindrance to my enjoymnet.

> 2010 is an action-packed melodrama, a cowboy western.
> Nonetheless it is an enjoyable action film despite
> any scientific inaccuracies or inaccurate representations
> of the book. The "messages" of this movie however are told in
> too heavy-handed of a manner, too awkwardly.

Yes, I agree.  The book was more philosophical, I thought, and
also presented more real characters, more three-dimensional.

> [ the director was ]
> 2-STRAIGHT-LACED - were they afraid to include any of the homosexuality?

Could you point out where this was in the book?  I forgot ...

> 2aSTRAIGHT-LACED (again) - why did they force the old girlfriend to be a wife?

Really!  And the sexual images referred to in the book are not
shown on the telly.

> 5-MYOPIC - why did they have to interject their concerns about
>     TODAY's problems in South America and east-west relations
>     about a tale which was written about humanities search
>     in the FUTURE for other beings and outer space?

Since the novel was low-key in action, I guess the director felt
it needed some "livening up" in a way we could all relate to
(sigh).  In fact, Hyams seemed entirely afraid to present the
book just as it was (re: he invented Max's death for a bit of
melodrama, the Central America thing, etc) because it was probably
to cerebral otherwise  (sheesh!).

Another thing never adequately explained in the movie is just
what Dave Bowman had become and why he was doing what he did.
Another reason to read the book (before or after, as you wish).
-- 
Gordon A. Moffett		...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam

37 22'50" N / 121 59'12" W	[ This is just me talking. ]