MovieChat Forums > 2010 (1984) Discussion > Recent Movies have Reinforced my Opinion...

Recent Movies have Reinforced my Opinion: Excellent

posted 8 years ago by farfolomew
11 replies | jump to latest

If the last three major Hollywood "hard science" Sci-fi films have taught me anything (Gravity, Interstellar, and The Martian), it's this: Both 2001 and 2010 are downright TERRIFIC realistic sci-fi movies and are the clear-cut bars to which every other "hardcore" sci-fi movie should be compared to.

And in actuality, 2001 and 2010 shouldn't be compared to one another because really neither should exist on its own; they're meant to be viewed together as one story. 2010 completes the story arc where 2001 left off. Really, the only differences between the two are philosophical and cinematic approaches to film-making.

God, I would love a remake of both of these as ONE movie :). That's what this current generation of kids need for a proper hardcore sci-fi movie!

[–] fenderg 8 years ago

Not a remake but an original Hard Sci Fi film is what we need. Plus todays youth only care about Marvel,DC and Starwars. Whilst fun films to watch, it is not going to teach the youngsters about proper science. I wonder how many watched The Martian compared with Starwars?

[–] lukekywalkrawakenz 8 years ago

Of course, because MASS-MARKET Genre films are meant to appeal to ignorant spectacle craving neophytes who don't know the difference between a light-year and a parsec. I would HATE a Remake of either of these two great films, but I'd love a continuation of films regarding the last two books of this grand story-tale of Incomprehensibly Advanced Sentient Life in the Universe and it world-seeding the galaxy.

Wake up, Time to DIE.

[–] 1shado1 8 years ago

Of course, because MASS-MARKET Genre films are meant to appeal to ignorant spectacle craving neophytes who don't know the difference between a light-year and a parsec.

Wouldn't "... who don't know the difference between an hour and a light-year" be more fitting? :)

Now if that bastard so much as twitches, I'm gonna blow him right to Mars.

[–] lukekywalkrawakenz 8 years ago

Yeah, I'll give you that, but as I was saying-they wouldn't have known the difference in any case.;)

Wake up, Time to DIE.

[–] daisyridleys 8 years ago

Hey, guess what? Liking ~mainstream~ comic book films and the classics are not mutually exclusive. I'm one of those darned millennials you all complain about and I appreciate both Marvel films and cinematic masterpieces like 2001.

[–] BLAlley 8 years ago

I'm also a fan of 'realism', and 2001 and 2010 are two of my favorite science fiction movies, in spite of several lapses in the depiction of Newtonian mechanics to create simulated gravity. I suspect those were artistic choices rather than technical errors (like the storm depicted in The Martian).

Otherwise, writers (including myself) need to do their homework to portray the 'real' portions of their stories as accurately as possible.

http://writerblalley.wix.com/home

[–] martinkwangju 8 years ago

Why a remake? Why not just make, "3001?" That book should lend itself to today's CGI and also offer a continuation of the story.

[–] amdew717 8 years ago

Thank you OP, your thread really spoke to me. I watched Gravity and thought it was longest 90 minute film I'd ever seen. I watched The Martian very recently and couldn't understand all the praise. Immediately after that, I watched 2010 and found it so much more satisfying and interesting.

And I'm in complete agreement that neither 2001 nor 2010 can exist on it's own. One definitely needs the other. Now I've watched 2001 a number of times over the years. I even saw it during it's initial theatre run in Cinerama. Each time I've watched it, I tried to pay close attention so that I could fully understand it. At some point, I would usually get "lost." However I never blamed the film for that, for I knew there was something deep and profound there even if I didn't quite "get" it. The most recent viewing a couple months ago is probably the closest I've come to that and watching 2010 fairly soon after, certainly helped clarify things in the original. Plus I just found it to be an interesting film, certainly much different that the first, with character development and interaction that actually made you care about them. Overall, a very satisfying film. It WOULD be nice to see a film version of 3001.

[–] farfolomew 8 years ago

Well, I say "remake" in a good way, if such a notion exists!

I get the feeling a lot of people don't even give 2001 a proper chance because A.) It's an old movie, or B.) they feel it's too artsy/slow; and that 2010 goes mostely unseen because the only people who've seen it tend to have liked 2001

A modern retelling of the story, with a little more "substance" in the 2001-portion (at the cost of sacrificing the original's more esoteric qualities), and an update to visual effects and political setting for the 2010-portion would go a long way in introducing this to a lot more younger generation.

Let's be clear: remakes are usually a bad thing, but I don't think they always have to be. Take The Fly for example, or John Carpenter's The Thing.

--- MY RATINGS ---
2001,F.Gump,S.Shank,A.Beauty:10 | TDK:6 | Avengers:4

[–] sage2112 8 years ago

I agree, except that I don't put Interstellar in with those other 2. It's another "hard science" one that I really like, as I do 2010.

[–] Farfolomew (13) 5 months ago

I recently rewatched The Martian, and while I don't love some of the Matt Damon quippy dialogue, objectively I do have to acknowledge it as a pretty hardcore Sci-Fi film, especially when compared to almost everything else out there.

I still love 2001 and 2010 better, but The Martian is good (and visually stunning) if you need a dose of *sane* modern Sci-Fi! :-)