In this sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey, a joint American- Soviet expedition is sent to Jupiter to discover what went wrong with the U.S.S. Discovery against a backdrop of growing global tensions. Among the mysteries the expedition must explain are the appearance of a huge black monolith in Jupiter's orbit and the fate of H.A.L., the Discovery's sentient computer. Based on a novel written by Arthur C. Clarke.Written by
Keith Loh <firstname.lastname@example.org>
As soon as the astronauts step on the ball-shaped front of the rotating Discovery, Dr. Floyd says they are "under gravity", meaning they could walk on it without safety rope. But the gravity force due to the Discovery being a solid mass is pretty small compared to the centrifugal force created by its circular movement. So upon letting go the safety rope, they should be floating away instead of continuing to walk. (Forces performed by Jupiter and Io could be neglected as in the beginning of the movie, the Discovery is said to be floating at the Lagrange point between Jupiter and Io.) See more »
The reactions to this film sum up a problem of perception that many film buffs seem to have. To such people, Kubrick was a genius. Kubrick made 2001. 2001 is a *Kubrick* story. Therefore 2010 is by definition a presumptuous attempt to explain what Kubrick deliberately left unsaid. etc. etc.
Sorry, 2001 is an *Arthur C Clarke* story. He wrote a sequel to his own story, called it "2010" and *he* explained what Kubrick left unsaid. I'd say he had a right. Then someone buys the film rights and produces a fine movie from it.
And it *is* a fine movie. Intelligence far in excess of the usual Hollywood SciFi garbage (Independence Day or Starship Troopers anyone?).
The scenes with Keir Dullea were far more chilling than anything in the original.
Arteur theory is still alive and well, I see.
113 of 162 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this