How does it compare to 2001: A Space Odyssey?

It's not as good, obviously. It has moments of greatness which are worth watching the film for and I don't want to spoil, some good characters, and it does an interesting job of expanding on the story of the previous film, but there are also some really stupid decisions, like the couple of times the protagonist does echoey voiceovers with cheesy 80s synth music where he's writing cheesy letters to his family. Really damages the atmosphere. There's also some really bad CGI.

I'd give it a B- to 2001s A+.

>>84883414
They used CGI in 1984?

>>84883051

It is interesting in parts but it is nevertheless a vastly inferior film. But let's be fair - idiot contrarians on this board aside, 2001 is a very, very tough act to follow - both as film, and as cultural event.

Like the original cut of Blade Runner, where Harrison Ford intentionally delivered a poorly-acted voice-over dialogue for the film in the hope that it wouldn't make the final (original theatrical) cut, 2010 also suffers most conspicuously from a ludicrous "gee whiz" voice-over track which represents Roy Scheider's communications back to earth. Where 2001 shows, 2010 tells - to the point of numbing minds and insulting the audience's intelligence.

Still, there's a lot to like, including cool spaceship sets, John Lithgow's early turn as an astronaut, and the detailed depiction of the Galilean moons in any film, full stop - made possible in large part due to the recent Voyager flybys. The combative opening scene between Scheider and a Soviet operative is also well-acted, and sets the hook quite nicely.

Something nice to know: despite being the worse of the two films, 2010's book version is the /best/ and longest book in the four-book Space Odyssey series (the later installments 2061 and 3001 have yet to be shown on any screen, big or small, though treatments do exist and are in development hell - Tom Hanks is a big fan and may be theoretically involvedd with backing at least one project). Where 2010's film plays up the Cold War tension angle for an action adventure story, 2010 the book takes its time and really humanizes all of its characters, who get on with each other much better in the book than in the somewhat silly movie. The book also spends a good deal of time with Dave Bowman's inner life, post-Star-Babby transformation.

>>84883641
Checking again it may be rotoscoping one of those 'paint in water' effects for gas they used in Star Trek 2, but whatever technique it is in some of the closeup shots of Jupiter near the start and end of the film look really bad as the resolution of the texture is too low.

File: 2010 crew.jpg (136KB, 1510x1009px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1510x1009px

>>84883659

It is worth spending a bit of time on the Soviet Leonov crew (8), and the actors who portrayed them. Three of them are simply "present", never speaking any English dialogue. Together with the three Americans, this brings ship's crew to 11.

Seventh, middle-right, is Helen Mirren as Tanya Kirbuk, the captain. Lots of dialogue.
Eighth, far-right, is Saveliy Kramarov as Dr. Vladimir Rudenko. A little dialogue, simple doctor-character. This actor replaces the book's character which instead describes (Katerina) Rudenko as a fat, matronly babushka-woman.
Sixth, middle-right is Elya Baskin as Maxim "Max" Brailovsky, who has a good spacewalk scene with Lithgow's character. In both book and film, the two characters develop a bro-ship, with the novel making a faint suggestion (IMO) that something a bit more might be going on. Baskin is one of the more "visible" of these character actors, and often plays a stock Russian/eastern-euro guy for western movies.

Third, front-center is Natasha Shneider as Irina Yakunina, a largely ineffectual chickie who /nevertheless does have an English line/ (this is quite important in the movie business): "No, no English." Hiding behind her..
Fourth, in the light, is Oleg Rudnik as Vasily Orlov, who is really the chief science man on the ship. He plays with the space probes and actually leads sciency stuff, in addition to a good amount of dialogue. In the novel, this character and captain Tanya (Orlova) are spouses.

This leaves the tertiary roles (first, second, fifth) which I'll get into shortly.

Second, back left, is the Czech actor Jan Triska as Alexsandr Kovalev. This character does in fact have a line or two after a probe crashes, but it's easy to miss (meaning my above assertion is off by one). The novel's character by same name is similarly inconsequential.

Fifth, center back, is vladimir skomarovsky as Yuri Svetlanov. He helps Tanya run the bridge and has some Russian exchanges, but never speaks English. This character is a pure invention of the film's, and has no equivalent in the book.

First, far left, then is the young Victor Steinbach as Nikolai Ternovsky. A minor crew hand. In the novel, this character gets a bit more play in that he helps Chandra get HAL running again.

A note on the Irina Yakunina character: a character by this name is initially slated to be part of the Leonov's crew (an early passage is an official communication outlining the expected crew, being the above seven minus the Svetlanov character). However in the book, this character meets with a hang gliding accident before the mission commences, and is therefore replaced for the mission by an understudy, one Zenia Marchenko - who is in fact fucking Max during the trip. The film simply dispenses with this backstory in favor of using the early listed name for "second minor female character". In the next novel, 2061, Heywood Floyd and this Zenia Marchenko are described as being the last two survivors of the Leonov mission. Further, it is revealed that Dr. Chandra died in hibernation during Leonov's return trip to earth, making him the first of the crew to die - a sadness at losing HAL may have played a role here, it is suggested.

It's a solid SF film

>>84884079
>Kirbuk
>Kubrik
Did George Lucas write this?

File: 2010ClarkeCameo2.jpg (37KB, 716x271px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 716x271px

>>84884746

Oh damn I never thought of that. But it makes sense since this magazine is dropped on a counter back on Earth at one point. Further, Clarke portrays a distant extra feeding the birdies in an early Earth scene.

Funnily, Clarke's clean-cut visual image, against Kubrick's dirty swarthy jew-beard, each respectively gives the perfect fictional representation of some future American president and Soviet premier - based upon mid-century cold-war realities and sensibilities.

>>84883892
It's probably a rotoscope.

File: 774156468.png (209KB, 780x780px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 780x780px

>>84883051
>tfw no more good movies
>have to do with reddit scifi and capeshit

>>84883641
>They used CGI in 1984?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEeGERPVxQU
Whoa, space battles look like THAT?

>>84883659
>2001 is a very, very tough act to follow - both as film, and as cultural event.
Oh come on...you can't get any more boring and pretentious than 2001, it was garbage. Sometimes I think people just pretend to like 2001 so they seem smart to other snobs.