odyssey 2010

I just finished rewatching 2010: The Second Odyssey on DVD, after quite a few years away from it.

Here is what I am actually grappling with: I want to know how you all view the fact that the original film wasn't even meant to have a sequel, yet this follow-up manages to stay true to the book while operating under a completely different concept.

So, we have this contradiction: the movie isn't really a continuation of the Odyssey, but then again, it isn't bad either. So, where does that leave us? This question has been weighing on my mind for a while now.

(Just please, spare me the immediate conclusion that the film is absolute garbage on its own merits...🙂)

(Just please, don't start with that tired conclusion that the movie is garbage just for existing...)

The first one wasn't great, sure, but the second one (odyssey 2010) might actually be the biggest pile of trash I’ve ever laid eyes on. It’s a total dumpster fire. A horrific excuse for a film...

First off, the very concept of filming a sequel to something like Odyssey is insane for several reasons. Does the movie even NEED a sequel? No. And without Kubrick at the helm? That just proves my point—even Clarke's work won't be presented the way it was in the original film (it's already quite a departure from the book, isn't it?)...

Secondly, the actual premise of this film is... ugh.

........

Jacob Flores76 said:The first one isn't bad, obviously, but the second one (2010) might be the biggest pile of garbage I've ever laid eyes on. Just a total dump. A horrific movie...

First off, the very concept of filming a sequel to something like Odyssey is madness for several reasons. The film simply DOES NOT NEED a sequel. Plus, there's no Kubrick, which brings up that point again—that even Clarke's work won't be presented in the same way it was in the original film (let's just say it's quite different from the book...)

Secondly, the actual idea behind this movie is... ugh.

........

For starters, the core premise of the film actually stays true to the book.

Second, why is the movie itself bad? I mean, setting aside the fact that its mere existence feels like an insult to the original...

Some people might call this movie a total disaster, and honestly, I won't argue with them. But if we’re going to be fair to Clarke, we really need to get the timeline straight, right? As far as I can tell, the order goes like this:

2001 book and film released together
2010 book, and only then the film
after that, just books

P. S. Taking a page out of the music section's "now playing" playbook, I'm starting a "watched today" tag here on the film board. I'll be throwing in my own rating from 1 to 5 as well. So, here it is:

watched today - Unforgiven 5

driftingeagle27 said:Some folks—if you'll excuse my bluntness—might find this movie utterly unwatchable. I won't argue with them. However, to be fair to Clarke, we really ought to sort out the chronology here, shouldn't we? As far as I can tell, the order went something like this:

2001 book and film released concurrently
2010 book, and only then the film
afterward, just the books

To follow up on that: the subsequent books are 2061 and 3001. I haven't touched the second or third. Does anyone happen to know what those are?

Personally, I find 2001 to be an excellent film. I love revisiting it; it possesses such a superb atmosphere and a sophisticated, serious sense of SF that seems to have vanished from modern cinema. Nowadays, everything feels like pure naivety, and frankly, it’s exhausting.

Oh, when will we finally see a proper new space opera again?!!

BTW, would anyone agree that 2001 is the greatest film ever made?

Odyssey 2061 and 3010 are actually pretty decent.

I don't really buy the hype that 2001 is the greatest movie ever made.

By the way, am I the only one who thinks lost world 2001 is the greatest movie ever made?

Of course

Sure, the concept follows the book, but if you ask me, it’s nothing more than naive American propaganda.

driftingeagle27 said:Odyssey 2061 and 3010 are decent enough.

I don't personally subscribe to the idea that 2001 is the greatest cinematic achievement ever made.

I actually read 3001 (not 3010!), and frankly, it’s nothing special. It feels forced, overly stretched out, and the most disappointing part is how it strips away the charm and mystery surrounding the monoliths. They turn out to be nothing more than mere computers following programmed commands. The whole point of the first Odyssey was that sense of mystery—much like the mystery of life itself—but here, everything is laid bare, and the impact is completely lost.

In my view, the Odyssey represents one of those rare instances where the film actually surpasses the book, primarily due to its audiovisual superiority.

That central mystery, which serves as the very soul of the Odyssey, is incredibly difficult to convey through prose alone; it turns out that imagery and sound are far more effective mediums for such things.

3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001 3001

Correction accepted...😁

Richard Howard2 said:I picked up 3001 (not 3010!), and honestly, it’s meh. It feels forced and stretched too thin. The saddest part is how it kills the mystery of the monoliths. They turn out to be just computers following orders. The whole point of the first Odyssey was that sense of mystery—like the mystery of life itself—but here everything is laid bare, and the impact just vanishes.

Personally, I think Odyssey is one of those rare times where the movie actually beats the book, mostly because of the audiovisual experience.

It's hard to capture that core Odyssey mystery through text; apparently, sight and sound are much better tools for the job.

Haven't read 3001 yet, but even while reading 2001, I figured the monoliths were basically just gadgets serving some higher powers. I'll have to dive into 3001 when I get a chance.

As for books vs. movies, sorry, but I'm sticking to my guns: books are a far superior medium for building atmosphere and storytelling, provided you actually have an imagination. Like I said before, pictures and sound hit your senses directly, which kind of limits them.

Sure, sometimes a movie is easier because you can just sit back and let your brain go on autopilot. But that lasts maybe two hours, whereas a good book keeps you going for days.

Richard Howard2 said:Next up: the sequels are 2061 and 3001. I haven't read the second or third ones. Does anyone know what they're actually about?

I've read them all. While I try to maintain a certain level of respect for Clarke, it feels to me as though they were primarily written just to squeeze out a few extra bucks. I wasn't particularly impressed.
BTW, I'd recommend checking out "lost world 2001," the book where Clarke details how the original film and script came to be, running parallel to his writing process. It's interesting to see the movie from Clarke's perspective, and you might even get a laugh out of it.

I find odyssey 2010 to be an excellent film; I love watching it. It carries such a great atmosphere and a sense of serious SF that seems to be missing from modern cinema. Today's movies feel like pure naivety, which is honestly quite depressing.

Personally, I think the movie is alright, though I tend to agree with a comment I saw somewhere else: "odyssey 2010" would have been a much stronger film if it hadn't been a sequel to "odyssey 2001." Perhaps the same could be said for film sequels as well as remakes. 😉

God, when will we finally see a proper new space opera again?!!

BTW, do you guys agree that 2001 is the best film ever made? [/B]

In my view, "Odyssey..." is a classic. Much like those literary classics that everyone claims to have read, yet nobody actually wants to sit down and finish. Intellectually, I am fully aware that the film is incredibly smart, deep, and meditative, and all that. But... it's BORING, damn it! It’s too long, there’s hardly any dialogue, and I actually fell asleep the first time I watched it. That psychedelic sequence through... whatever at the end of the film was tedious for me (though I hear it was a massive hit with the hippies who practically rushed the theaters for that specific scene). I don't know, the book resonated with me much more, perhaps because so many things left unexplained in the film are clarified there.

Richard Howard2 said:By the way, are we all in agreement that lost world 2001 is the greatest film ever made?

Don't be a heretic!
If we don't make it to 2100, it won't be worth experiencing even one single:
"quite experience to live in fear?" 😉 We're all on the same page here, right?

It’s true, there is a midsection that drags quite heavily, but the opening—that whole space opera vibe and the moon sequence—along with the finale, are genuinely captivating.

I’ve heard rumors that back in the seventies, hippies would go see the film just when they couldn't get their hands on any LSD, seeking out a similar sort of trip.

Try this: kill all the lights, find total silence in an empty room, put on some headphones, and pop in the Odyssey DVD—then attempt to watch those travel sequences. You know what happens? Something wonderful!🙂

The core of the first Odyssey was always about the mystery.

But honestly, just reading 2001, I figured out pretty early on that those monoliths are basically tools left behind by some other beings.

The essence odyssey 2001 is really just that monolith being sent out by intelligent life from deep space. The whole idea is that humanity will finally make contact with this other civilization once our tech and our consciousness hit a specific milestone. The rest of the movie is just a slow meditation on how—and if—we ever actually get there. To me, the ending doesn't really give you a straight answer.

Johnny said:Same here. I don't think movies stifle the imagination compared to books—well, maybe just slightly for stories where the setting is everything. For most other stuff, a movie is actually a much better way to set the mood and hit those emotional notes, especially with the score.

I get where you're coming from, but I still argue that film always limits the imagination to some degree. Sure, in lost world 2001 they kept that to an absolute minimum, but once you see and hear something with your own eyes, that's how it becomes "real" to you. With a book, if you let your mind wander, the mental images and sounds you conjure up almost always beat whatever a camera or a computer can render. Not to mention the personal vibe, which hits every reader differently. Even if you hate how an author describes a character or a scene, you can just ignore it and picture it your way. You can't do that with a movie.

Bryan Fisher7 :
I respect where you're coming from, but I still maintain that film inherently places boundaries on the imagination. Sure, in the case of lost world 2001, those limits are pushed to the absolute edge, but once we see and hear something through a lens, we accept it as an objective reality. When reading a book, however, if you let your mind wander, the internal imagery and soundscapes can—and almost always do—surpass whatever a camera or a computer can render. Not to mention the subjective experience, which varies wildly from reader to reader. Even if you find an author's description of a setting or a character unappealing, you have the freedom to simply ignore it and visualize it your own way. With film, that luxury doesn't exist.

Let me reiterate my stance from our previous discussions:

What you're saying is absolutely valid, EXCEPT in the specific instance of Odyssey!

If you ask me, that applies at least when we're talking about the first Odyssey.

Bryan Fisher7 :
In my humble opinion, that applies at least when discussing the original Odyssey.

Well, I suppose that’s one way to look at it...

Anyway, the truth of the matter is that odyssey 2010 would have been a perfectly fine, solid piece of SF if it weren't a sequel to Odyssey.

However, the SF universe it's built upon must be tethered to Odyssey. It is better to view it as a standalone SF film set within Clarke's world of monoliths—much like how Kevin Smith's films work; certain characters or elements might recur, but the movie itself is an entirely different concept. This would just be a more extreme version of that.

You know what I actually appreciate most about 2010? The restraint. At no point is there any of that naive exaggeration we inevitably see in modern SF. There simply aren't movies anymore that "realistically" depict space, space travel, and exploration. Those scenes in decompression chambers, the cockpits, all those technical procedures—it feels remarkably similar to how a real situation might actually unfold. In today's films, everything goes far too smoothly, often appearing foolishly simplistic and naive. That is precisely what modern SF lacks.

What is the actual essence of SF? I believe the core lies in something happening that is utterly unimaginable to us, yet we describe it through our senses as something entirely real.

Garbage like Mission to Mars is the total opposite: when some poorly rendered creature sheds a tear at the end—honestly, it isn't even worth commenting on—that is SF that doesn't just depict the impossible, but simultaneously lets us know that it *is* impossible, because we can't take it seriously at all. We take the underwater aliens in The Abyss much more seriously...

Just watched it for the first time. 😢

My first thought after the credits rolled? "What kind of idiot actually thought making a sequel to Odyssey was a good idea?" 😢

Look, the movie is fine. The atmosphere works and all that, but man... that "profound message" at the end about Americans and Russians reconciling... I was honestly just waiting for Steven Seagal to show up, slice that monolith with a knife, and have the Russian astronaut fall into Dr. Floyd's arms in a hibernation pod 🙄
Odyssey 2010 is just... beyond human. It’s too much pressure trying to make something that carries the "Odyssey" name. If it's similar, it fails. If it's different, it fails. But on its own merits? It's alright. The mistake is trying to answer the questions. In the end, HAL wasn't even the bad guy; the monoliths create another sun 🙂, not to mention everything else.

Anyway, I'm with Yang regarding the visuals. No matter how imaginative you get, watching that travel sequence is an experience 😵 you just can't replicate with a book because of the medium's limitations. 👋