4 ms·

Wait, there’s a sequel? Is it any good?

MilStdJunkie 4y ago
2001 is a majestic film; 2010 is, on its own, a great yarn. \ A fine space flick in the vein of pensive 1980s SF flicks, a genre I feel is revisited with The Expanse.
jedberg 4y ago
Yes, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, based on the book 2010: Odyssey Two. Staring a young Helen Mirren as a Russian commander! I actually prefer it to 2001, but if you read down thread you will see a strong opinion of which is better. :)
ghaff 4y ago
2010. It's pretty good. It's both more conventional and more accessible than 2001.
dmix 4y ago
People tend to say it's better than it's reputation (which wasn't very good when it was released).
rsstack 4y ago
As others noted, there's a sequel film 2010. Both 2001 and 2010 are also novelized, and there are five additional books: 2061 and 3001 are "far in the future" sequels following some of the same characters (and the monoliths). There are also three other novels under "A Time Odyssey". Separate story but with similarities <spoiler>mysterious outsiders and fascinating human-made AIs</spoiler.
- ghaff 4y ago
  2001 was generally a novelization of the movie script. I'm pretty sure 2010 was originally a novel and Clarke didn't write the screenplay for the film. (He may have consulted; I don't know.)
  - rsstack 4y ago
    On 2001: > Originally, Kubrick and Clarke had planned to develop a 2001 novel first, free of the constraints of film, and then write the screenplay. They planned the writing credits to be "Screenplay by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, based on a novel by Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick" to reflect their preeminence in their respective fields.[31] In practice, the screenplay developed in parallel with the novel, with only some elements being common to both. > In the end, Clarke and Kubrick wrote parts of the novel and screenplay simultaneously, with the film version being released before the book version was published. Clarke opted for clearer explanations of the mysterious monolith and Star Gate in the novel; Kubrick made the film more cryptic by minimising dialogue and explanation. However, 2010 was only a novel and later made in to a film, with the producer consulting with Clarke over email (in 1983).
    - ghaff 4y ago
      I knew it wasn't as straightforward as just a novelization but didn't look up the details though I probably knew them at one point. I also remembered that, absent reading Clarke's book, the film was pretty enigmatic.
    - b1c1jones 4y ago
      Before all of that was Clarke's short story "The Sentinel", which was the actual genesis of the idea.
pndy 4y ago
It feels more like an action oriented movie than a guilty pleasure of cinematography like the 2001 was. The design of the sets makes it a piece of its times - not mention the subplot about two superpower on the edge of nuclear annihilation that affect the combined crew of Leonov. And that perhaps also contributes for 80s movie - the "hidden" message for the audience that we're only the tenants on this planet and maybe we should rethink our actions. 2001 is a great movie but I never liked the LSD driven oil paint visuals at the end instead of a journey through the "Grand Central Station of the galaxy" depict in the Clarke's book There were plans for 2061 movie but seems things stuck in the development hell.

2001 is a majestic film; 2010 is, on its own, a great yarn. \ A fine space flick in the vein of pensive 1980s SF flicks, a genre I feel is revisited with The Expanse.

jedberg 4y ago

Yes, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, based on the book 2010: Odyssey Two. Staring a young Helen Mirren as a Russian commander! I actually prefer it to 2001, but if you read down thread you will see a strong opinion of which is better. :)

ghaff 4y ago

2010. It's pretty good. It's both more conventional and more accessible than 2001.

dmix 4y ago

People tend to say it's better than it's reputation (which wasn't very good when it was released).

rsstack 4y ago

As others noted, there's a sequel film 2010. Both 2001 and 2010 are also novelized, and there are five additional books: 2061 and 3001 are "far in the future" sequels following some of the same characters (and the monoliths). There are also three other novels under "A Time Odyssey". Separate story but with similarities <spoiler>mysterious outsiders and fascinating human-made AIs</spoiler.

ghaff 4y ago
2001 was generally a novelization of the movie script. I'm pretty sure 2010 was originally a novel and Clarke didn't write the screenplay for the film. (He may have consulted; I don't know.)
- rsstack 4y ago
  On 2001: > Originally, Kubrick and Clarke had planned to develop a 2001 novel first, free of the constraints of film, and then write the screenplay. They planned the writing credits to be "Screenplay by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, based on a novel by Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick" to reflect their preeminence in their respective fields.[31] In practice, the screenplay developed in parallel with the novel, with only some elements being common to both. > In the end, Clarke and Kubrick wrote parts of the novel and screenplay simultaneously, with the film version being released before the book version was published. Clarke opted for clearer explanations of the mysterious monolith and Star Gate in the novel; Kubrick made the film more cryptic by minimising dialogue and explanation. However, 2010 was only a novel and later made in to a film, with the producer consulting with Clarke over email (in 1983).
  - ghaff 4y ago
    I knew it wasn't as straightforward as just a novelization but didn't look up the details though I probably knew them at one point. I also remembered that, absent reading Clarke's book, the film was pretty enigmatic.
  - b1c1jones 4y ago
    Before all of that was Clarke's short story "The Sentinel", which was the actual genesis of the idea.

pndy 4y ago

It feels more like an action oriented movie than a guilty pleasure of cinematography like the 2001 was. The design of the sets makes it a piece of its times - not mention the subplot about two superpower on the edge of nuclear annihilation that affect the combined crew of Leonov. And that perhaps also contributes for 80s movie - the "hidden" message for the audience that we're only the tenants on this planet and maybe we should rethink our actions. 2001 is a great movie but I never liked the LSD driven oil paint visuals at the end instead of a journey through the "Grand Central Station of the galaxy" depict in the Clarke's book There were plans for 2061 movie but seems things stuck in the development hell.