Sunday, 18 December 2011

2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984)

I really like 2010.  It's a good film and in some ways its a better, more accessible story than the original but then Kubrick's film was experimental and was and remains one of the finest examples of the cinematic art.  They're two different kinds of beast I guess and I can respect and appreciate each for what it is.
My only real problem with 2010 though is that from a design point of view it doesn't feel like its set in the same version of the future as the original and the space suits drive that failing home more profoundly than anything else.
They're good suits and they would be fine in any other film but they lack a cinematic evolution
Here we have the Russian suit with the lights on the sides of the helmets and then we have the American suit with the single light at the top.
I suppose we should just enjoy them for what they are and try not to imagine what they might have been but they did miss an opportunity didn't they.



  1. I just rewatched 2010 and I liked it more than I remembered.

    There's a lot which didn't ... age well. After a couple of decades of co-operative space missions between Russia and the United States it's very hard to take some scenes seriously. They had four months and not only did they fail to give Curnow a PanAm ticket to orbit to practice spacewalks, but the American and Soviet crews never even met. And, of course, Dr. Chandra should have been played by an Indian.

    But yes, the spacesuits were a very bad choice. I can appreciate wanting to make your own film and the risks of trying to "Out-Kubrick Kubrick" (good luck with that) but the spacesuits just add more fuel to the "Did Hyams even see 2001?" reaction that's kind of inevitable, no matter how well the film turns out.

    1. I find it very watchable despite its bad choices. Its an entertaining, reasonably intelligent movie. good cast as well.

    2. I agree - Roy Scheider was one of my favorite actors. It's not a bad film at all, but I can understand why it's not a favorite.

      Accessible is good, but "Accessible follow-on to Kubrick's 2001?"

  2. I think your comment "They're two different kinds of beast I guess and I can respect and appreciate each for what it is" Sums it up. Stanley's film is cinematic,blown out budget, near perfect where as Peter Hyams's film is a much lower budget film that has a different direction style. I'm kind of happy that he didn't try to copy Stanley's film style.

    1. Yes. I would always recommend people give 2010 another chance