Ricardo C
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2002
- Messages
- 5,068
- Real Name
- Ricardo C
I finally saw this tonight. I've been warned away from Arthur C. Clarke's book sequels to 2001, but I thought I'd at least take a look at the film version of 2010, especially since I last watched 2001 not so long ago.
Overall, I liked the film. A little too sappy, but it was enjoyable. However, I wish it wouldn't have been presented as a continuation of 2001. If only they'd made it into an original, unrelated story, and refrained from using the monolith as a plot device, it would have been much better liked, I believe.
Allow me to explain:
- 2010's pacifist message (which despite its rather corny delivery, I enjoyed) doesn't mesh very well with 2001's mood. The beings that left the monoliths for us to find didn't seem particularly concerned with the morals of our species. They didn't care about whether we were a peaceful people or not. They seemed to be only interested in our level of technological advancement. They planted the Tycho monolith four million years prior, not knowing what kind of a civilization we would be by the time we uncovered it. What they DID know is that we would need a certain level of technological achievement in order to locate the monoliths, and reach them. That, to me, was their chief requisite. However, 2010 presents our "landlords" as beings concerned with the well-being of the human race, rather than whether or not we're intelectually ready for the "next leap".
- The use of the Star Child (as well as Dave's other incarnations) as a literal character, rather than a symbolic representation of Dave's evolutionary leap. Now, I'm a 2001 neophyte who doesn't actually consider the film to be a masterpiece, so maybe my interpretation of it will seem careless, but I've always thought that the Star Child was a metaphor for the new, evolutionarily elevated state attained by Dave. Seeing him hovering near Earth represents, to me, that he will in some way try to show mankind how to achieve what he achieved, just like the apes learned to use tools/weapons from Moonwatcher. I didn't think it was an actual floating fetus
Those are my two chief problems with the film, storywise. My other pet peeves have to do with how dated the film seems (2001 feels futuristic even now. 2010 feels like... Well, 1984), and how Roy Scheider doesn't exactly make a good Heywood Floyd.
Do any 2010 fans care to offer a different point of view? Do any 2001 fans wish to burn me at the stake for watching the sequel?
ps-- As cheesy as it was, I DID smile when Dave told HAL that he would live on.
pps-- The very last shot was pure 2001, and ended the film on a very high note for me.
Overall, I liked the film. A little too sappy, but it was enjoyable. However, I wish it wouldn't have been presented as a continuation of 2001. If only they'd made it into an original, unrelated story, and refrained from using the monolith as a plot device, it would have been much better liked, I believe.
Allow me to explain:
- 2010's pacifist message (which despite its rather corny delivery, I enjoyed) doesn't mesh very well with 2001's mood. The beings that left the monoliths for us to find didn't seem particularly concerned with the morals of our species. They didn't care about whether we were a peaceful people or not. They seemed to be only interested in our level of technological advancement. They planted the Tycho monolith four million years prior, not knowing what kind of a civilization we would be by the time we uncovered it. What they DID know is that we would need a certain level of technological achievement in order to locate the monoliths, and reach them. That, to me, was their chief requisite. However, 2010 presents our "landlords" as beings concerned with the well-being of the human race, rather than whether or not we're intelectually ready for the "next leap".
- The use of the Star Child (as well as Dave's other incarnations) as a literal character, rather than a symbolic representation of Dave's evolutionary leap. Now, I'm a 2001 neophyte who doesn't actually consider the film to be a masterpiece, so maybe my interpretation of it will seem careless, but I've always thought that the Star Child was a metaphor for the new, evolutionarily elevated state attained by Dave. Seeing him hovering near Earth represents, to me, that he will in some way try to show mankind how to achieve what he achieved, just like the apes learned to use tools/weapons from Moonwatcher. I didn't think it was an actual floating fetus
Those are my two chief problems with the film, storywise. My other pet peeves have to do with how dated the film seems (2001 feels futuristic even now. 2010 feels like... Well, 1984), and how Roy Scheider doesn't exactly make a good Heywood Floyd.
Do any 2010 fans care to offer a different point of view? Do any 2001 fans wish to burn me at the stake for watching the sequel?
ps-- As cheesy as it was, I DID smile when Dave told HAL that he would live on.
pps-- The very last shot was pure 2001, and ended the film on a very high note for me.
