Tuesday, February 12th, 2008

Why 2010 is better than 2001


Blasphemy? Perhaps. Obviously Stanley Kubrick is a far better director than hack-for-hire Peter Hyams, and the original film’s imagery and effects are visionary (if tinged by the 60’s and not anywhere near where we actually ended up in 2001). But check out io9‘s list, inspired by the passing of Roy “Heywood Floyd” Scheider, of why 2010 is actually more enjoyable and comprehensible than 2001. Clarke has since gone on to write a bunch of crappy novels focused on the 2001 universe, so if you’re going to level criticism, be sure to spread it around to the creotr of the whole shebang.

Warren Frey is a journalist, freelance writer, podcaster, video producer, and all-around media consultant currently based in Vancouver, Canada. His written work has appeared in such publications as Metro Vancouver, the Westender, Mac | Life and the Japan Times.

5 Responses to “ Why 2010 is better than 2001 ”

Steven says:

umm no. While it does have decent qualities to it 2010 is not even in the same field as 2001. I did like the Leonov ship design with it’s “real” world solution for gravity in space.

R.I.P. Roy Scheider

craig says:

Of course 2010 is better! Why?… The olympics!
Go Canada!

(It occurs to me that sarcasm doesn’t always work in the written form, so if you could read this aloud in a sarcastic tone, I think my intent will come across.)

Warren says:

Let me be clear, I personally don’t think 2010 is a BETTER movie than 2001…one film is art and fine tuned by one of the masters of the form, and the other is an entertaining bit of well-acted sci-fi. But 2010 IS easier to watch.

I Am Steven says:

2001 is the art; 2010 is the class to learn about the art.

jabberwocky says:

I always though that 2001 is what happens if you do acid while filming a SciFi movie. and 2010 is the movie you make after you get out of rehab.

Post a Comment