# 2010 - The Movie **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 5, 2010, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812 "2010-01-05T23:33:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812/21 "2010-01-06T18:56:49Z")
Agreed. The later books in Clarke’s series all sucked. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812/22 "2010-01-06T18:57:44Z")
> [@caligulathegod](#): > > 2010 just showed me that Clarke just didn’t get it. Kubrick made one of the all time great cinematic experiences and brilliantly understood that the next step in evolution would be ineffable to us. That’s what 2001 ultimately is about, the growth of Man and his transcendence. Clarke helped him understand the idiom of Science Fiction, but the genius is all Kubrick. Clarke, however, took the whole thing literally and missed the whole point. Self-replicating machines? Jupiter transformed into a sun? Man the animal becoming _Man_ by learning to use tools (Moonwatcher and the bone bludgeon), then transcending that (by defeating HAL-the ultimate tool: a thinking machine) to go on to the next level (which is beyond our understanding becomes, “Oh, HAL was crazy. Let’s fix him.” It might have made an interesting SF film on its own, but its association with 2001 makes it one of the most Tone Deaf movies EVER made. Given Childhood’s End, and the influence that had on the 2001 script, I think Clarke got it just fine. The real problem is that there shouldn’t have been a sequel to 2001, because any sequel keeping with the spirit of the book/movie would be too far out there for audiences. Remember the Star Child’s last thoughts in the book echoed Moonwatcher’s when he became a tool user. There was a clear implication that he would lead humanity to the next evolutionary step. Instead, in 2010 he weighs in on the euthanasia debate which was just beginning at the time, and then watches while the monoliths transform Jupiter. Why send him back again? It would be like a sequel to _Childhood’s End_, with the Overmind fighting with the Overmind of another galaxy. Sometimes it is best to just end at the end. ---
**Author:** ![Encinitas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@Encinitas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Encinitas)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812/23 "2010-01-06T21:10:17Z")
“Piece of pie.” ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812/24 "2010-01-06T21:15:18Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The real problem is that there shouldn’t have been a sequel to 2001 Concur. I enjoy _2010_ as a book and as a movie, but I’m sorry to say that when they get sequelized, Clarke’s stories all eventually become crap or worse\*. The problem is that in his prime, he was one of those rare storytellers who understood the adage “leave 'em wanting more.” \*I’m looking at you, _Rama_ sequels. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812/25 "2010-01-06T23:27:39Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > Well, I never bought Roy Schedier as a scientist, and his conception of the charater of Heywood Floyd is so far removed from the Kubrick film that any other effort (of which there are many) to create continuity between the two films is doomed for me. > > Also, I find the ending kinda dumb in its feel-good hokey-hippie literalism. The beauty of _2001_ is that it ends with a sense of hope, but also one of mystery. Transformation, renewal, and a progression of man into something more powerful and wonderous is clearly intended, but the details matter less than the emotional catharsis of the Starchild. > > But in _2010_, we get an alien telegram to all hold hands and be good little citizens of the universe. And would a second sun inspire me to altrusim, or murder because I’d never be able to get any sleep? It’s also so dependant on the cold war politics of the time, which now date quite badly. Would Al Quaida be equally inspired to drop their grudges, or just say it’s all one big American plot to control the sky? > > The fact that I’m thinking of all these things instead of being enraptured by the beauty of the moment means that, for me, the ending is a dud. HAL’s talk with Bob Balaban (and later Keir Dullea) is a nice moment, though. > > Amazingly, _2010_ was nominated for more Oscars than _2001_, including…Best Costumes? 😕 Pretty much ditto. Heavy handed as a lead brick. Yawn. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812/26 "2010-01-06T23:53:07Z")
> [@KneadToKnow](#): > > \*I’m looking at you, _Rama_ sequels. That’s Gentry Lee, a man who should not be allowed near a word processor. If you think the Rama sequels were bad, try “Cradle” which he wrote himself. It includes one of the worst passages I’ve ever read in an sf book, and I’ve read several by Pel Torro. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812/27 "2010-01-07T04:22:40Z")
I found out only last week that [Natasha Shneider](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Shneider), who played the Russian crewmember who ‘cuddled’ briefly with Roy Scheider, died a year and a half ago. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![tanstaafl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ba8739/32.png) [@tanstaafl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tanstaafl)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812/28 "2010-01-07T13:44:25Z")
> [@flodnak](#): > > Also, if anyone tries to film _2061,_ for god’s sake stop them by any means necessary. And for Cthulhu’s sake, pray that no one ever even thinks of filming _3001_. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812/29 "2010-01-07T20:10:26Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > 2.) The film is one of the very few (like **2001** itself) to depict the dynamics of spacecraft properly – for the most part. Things move properly in space, and that’s used to good dramatic effect. They even show zero-G correctly in the ships, and even use it to punctuate a dramatic scene when Floyd talks about joining the ships together. The way they show the Discovery originally turning end over end (and coated with Sulfur) was a very cute touch, and just what I’d expect. > > 3.) They should have cut a lot out of the sound – the film would be immensely helped if they’d simply removed Roy Scheider’s voice-overs. It seems a cheap trick, and the small amounts of useful info you get from them doesn’t make up for the cheesiness of the device. Let the audience work for the insight! Also, space should be either silent (as in the original film), or the sound ought to be that of the astronaut’s breathing (as in both films). It doesn’t help for us to hear the atmospheric braking, or the Discovery’s engines turning on. (Besides, the Discovery was supposed to be an Orion-style nuke bomb-powered ship, at least originally) Just for the shuttle to dock with the space station takes hours. Real spacecraft are boring. (Except for that part that reaches out and grabs satellites; that’s the bomb!) Kubrick had the nerve to film things that were boring and make them stately. I don’t think Hyams had the guts. He gets a lot of the mechanics right, but he has to crank the intensity knob up a little too high. Things are too loud, too extreme, Discovery is spinning way too fast. He made this a little too much of an action movie. It also suffers from Robot Arm’s Law of the Emasculated Sci-Fi Badass. It’s still a good movie. It just should have been great, ya know? Also, look for Zooey and Emily Deschanel’s mom in a small role. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812/30 "2010-01-07T20:54:41Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > …Also, look for Zooey and Emily Deschanel’s mom in a small role. What’s that? ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812/31 "2010-01-07T21:04:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Real spacecraft are boring. (Except for that part that reaches out and grabs satellites; that’s the bomb!) You _would_ think that! ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812/32 "2010-01-07T21:07:16Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > You _would_ think that! Bowman’s wife, [according to IMDb](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0221044/). ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812/33 "2010-01-07T21:09:27Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > Also, look for Zooey and Emily Deschanel’s mom in a small role. > [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > What’s that? It’s one of the scenes where Dave is visiting people he knew on Earth. Mary Jo Deschanel plays his wife. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812/34 "2010-01-07T21:23:20Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > Just for the shuttle to dock with the space station takes hours. Real spacecraft are boring. (Except for that part that reaches out and grabs satellites; that’s the bomb!) Kubrick had the nerve to film things that were boring and make them stately. I don’t think Hyams had the guts. He gets a lot of the mechanics right, but he has to crank the intensity knob up a little too high. Things are too loud, too extreme, Discovery is spinning way too fast. He made this a little too much of an action movie. Kubrick was not afraid to film things that are absurd in the engineering sense because they look good. Having the docking part of the space station rotating also makes no sense - but the station looks just like the classic Ley/von Braun model, and looks great. Having the bit hydraulic platform at Clavius is absurd also - consider the reaction mass spent to bring all that stuff up. But it looks fantastic. Not to mention that the living quarters on Discovery are not exactly cramped, even when all five would be awake. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812/35 "2010-01-07T21:32:52Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Kubrick was not afraid to film things that are absurd in the engineering sense because they look good. Having the docking part of the space station rotating also makes no sense - but the station looks just like the classic Ley/von Braun model, and looks great. Why doesn’t it make sense, exactly? I’m honestly curious. ---
**Author:** ![Icerigger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icerigger/32/432_2.png) [@Icerigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icerigger)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812/36 "2010-01-07T23:33:05Z")
> [@](#): > > And for Cthulhu’s sake, pray that no one ever even thinks of filming 3001. I don’t know about that after all it did work out good for Frank Poole. ---
**Author:** ![tanstaafl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ba8739/32.png) [@tanstaafl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tanstaafl)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2010, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812/37 "2010-01-08T00:38:22Z")
> [@Icerigger](#): > > I don’t know about that after all it did work out good for Frank Poole. Until you run into someone who is part of the Society for Creative 21st century Anachronisms that gets upset at too much accuracy. I just didn’t like the way they handled Dave/HAL and the virus thing. I thought it detracted way too much from the original book/movie. Things went from inspiring/mystical to cliche. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2010, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812/38 "2010-01-08T01:39:16Z")
> [@Red\_Barchetta](#): > > Why doesn’t it make sense, exactly? I’m honestly curious. Think of the hassle of having to spin the shuttle at just the right speed to match up to the station. In the book the shuttle docks at a non-rotating port, I don’t remember how Floyd gets there. There is also the issue of an artificial gravity gradient. In the exact center of rotation it is 0 g, but it increases as you move to the rim. I don’t know what gravity is on the rim; surely not 1 g but probably more than lunar gravity; but gradient is probably fairly steep. I’m pretty sure there is no fancy lift in the book either, and IIRC they go to Tycho on a moon buggy, not a cool flying bus. In space you want to keep things simple and make it easier to recover from failures. If a thruster fails on the shuttle, they are screwed. I’ve seen this criticism in other places, and haven’t ever done the physics to understand the full implications myself. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2010, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812/39 "2010-01-08T01:43:39Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Think of the hassle of having to spin the shuttle at just the right speed to match up to the station. In the book the shuttle docks at a non-rotating port, I don’t remember how Floyd gets there. There is also the issue of an artificial gravity gradient. In the exact center of rotation it is 0 g, but it increases as you move to the rim. I don’t know what gravity is on the rim; surely not 1 g but probably more than lunar gravity; but gradient is probably fairly steep. Right, but–and perhaps I’m just ignorant–how exactly would a non-rotating port work? > [@Voyager](#): > > In space you want to keep things simple and make it easier to recover from failures. If a thruster fails on the shuttle, they are screwed. Agreed–but wouldn’t they be screwed pretty much regardless? ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2010, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812/40 "2010-01-08T01:54:34Z")
Just found an interesting thread on this very topic: > **[Benefits of Centrifuge for AG and Radiation](https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19015.15)** > > Benefits of Centrifuge for AG and Radiation One of the last posters seems to suggest this was actually planned to be used by NASA for Skylab B. Also according to that thread, (in my admittedly layman perspective) it would seem that trying to offer a non-rotating docking bay would only further complicate things (such as having motors to rotate the docking bay in the opposite direction of the station itself–what happens if a motor blew? We’d be back at square 1). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2010-the-movie/523812.md?page=3)