Is 2010 a legitimate sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey?

[Q?]

".According to Arthur C, Clarke, "The book and film were written simultaneously, with feedback in both directions" (from The Lost Worlds of 2001, by Clarke)."
"
.There is no reason to believe that Clarke and Kubrick were in complete agreement on what all of the details and nuances of the story and the ideas were."
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=8408

Alright, this is of course in your opinion, as I understand 2010 is a "official" sequel to 2001.
In my opinion it's like saying S. Darko IS a sequel to Donnie Darko.
Yes 2001 the movie is based on Clarke's work and it was more of a collaborative effort.
But then again so much of Stanley vision and ideas were used for the movie that it ultimately was Stanley's movie.
As I understand it Stanley pretty much had the last say about the movie and what direction it should take.
I do not see 2010 as a real sequel to 2001, as Stanley did not want a sequel made for HIS movie.
"Stanley Kubrick had all models and sets from 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) destroyed to prevent their reuse, thus the model of the spaceship Discovery had to be constructed from pictures." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086837/trivia
That says it all in my opinion.

[khan1670]

You don't have to like it, but it's a sequel.

Lots of sequels make new sets.

[Clark Kent]

It was going to be hard to make a compelling sequel to 2001, because of Kubrick's mastery of the language of cinema. But 2010 turned out about as well as it could, and an entertaining experience in its own right.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by khan1670

You don't have to like it, but it's a sequel.

Lots of sequels make new sets.

You seem to miss my point, 2001: A Space Odyssey is pretty much Stanley's movie.
Only he could have decided wether a sequel should have been made for 2001.
Clarke had the rights to characters and such as I understand it.
But Clarke could of course have made the sequel of his work.
Not Stanleys.

Clark you seem more passive in this subject, what is your opinion?

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Q!

".According to Arthur C, Clarke, "The book and film were written simultaneously, with feedback in both directions" (from The Lost Worlds of 2001, by Clarke)."

It was a #1 NYTimes bestseller at the time*, and bestsellers get obligatory Big Movie Deals after selling X numbers of copies. That was the arrangement under which we accepted 2010 at the time, and it still stands.
William Sylvester was still alive at the time, if we wanted to be anal about considering it a "movie sequel", but we accepted that Roy Scheider was a more believable Heywood Floyd on paper, for the constructive purposes of the story. That they also happened to be able to bring Douglas Rain and Keir Dullea back was only icing on the cake for MGM, as they knew some smartaleck would've asked sooner or later if they hadn't.

----
(* - We were a little more naive back then, you see, and thought Clarke had simply written the book for his own creative-genius reasons--Since we hadn't had Michael Crichton's "Lost World" or Thomas Harris's "Hannibal Rising" yet, and hadn't yet learned to be wary of mercenary movie-deal book sequels.)

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Q!

[B]
...But then again so much of Stanley vision and ideas were used for the movie that it ultimately was Stanley's movie.
As I understand it Stanley pretty much had the last say about the movie and what direction it should take.
I do not see 2010 as a real sequel to 2001, as Stanley did not want a sequel made for HIS movie.
"Stanley Kubrick had all models and sets from 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) destroyed to prevent their reuse, thus the model of the spaceship Discovery had to be constructed from pictures." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086837/trivia
That says it all in my opinion.

I am going to have to agree with you there Q!

For me just thinking about these two movies LINKED together makes me queasy. IMO

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Q!

".According to Arthur C, Clarke, "The book and film were written simultaneously, with feedback in both directions" (from The Lost Worlds of 2001, by Clarke)."
"
.There is no reason to believe that Clarke and Kubrick were in complete agreement on what all of the details and nuances of the story and the ideas were."
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=8408

Alright, this is of course in your opinion, as I understand 2010 is a "official" sequel to 2001.
In my opinion it's like saying S. Darko IS a sequel to Donnie Darko.
Yes 2001 the movie is based on Clarke's work and it was more of a collaborative effort.
But then again so much of Stanley vision and ideas were used for the movie that it ultimately was Stanley's movie.
As I understand it Stanley pretty much had the last say about the movie and what direction it should take.
I do not see 2010 as a real sequel to 2001, as Stanley did not want a sequel made for HIS movie.
"Stanley Kubrick had all models and sets from 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) destroyed to prevent their reuse, thus the model of the spaceship Discovery had to be constructed from pictures." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086837/trivia
That says it all in my opinion.

If Stanley had the last say and controlled everything, then he would've written it himself, and not used Clarke's story The Sentinel as his idea point, and he wouldn't have brought to HELP create it. Who cares if Stanley's visuals are his own? That can be said for EVERY director. But the author is also co-creator, so any sequels are legitimate and therefore valid. If not, the Clarke wouldn't own the rights to even write sequels.

And you can't use Donnie Darko as an example because the same writer didn't write both films.

[Stoudman]

I'm honestly amazed by how many people dislike this film. This is one of my favorite sequels of all time, and honestly? I like it BETTER than 2001.

[Sponge-worthy]

I like 2010.

[GGX]

Originally Posted by Stoudman

I'm honestly amazed by how many people dislike this film. This is one of my favorite sequels of all time, and honestly? I like it BETTER than 2001.

Yikes!

Hope I never read that again.

[Red Hood]

I like it better than 2001.

[P@t_Mtl]

I also like it better then 2001

[khan1670]

I'm not missing your point. I just don't think it's valid

Like it or not, 2010 is a direct follow up to the story of 2001. Same characters, same ship with the same computer, same Alien presence in the form of the Monolith.

I understand you may not like that it is. Peace

Originally Posted by Q!

You seem to miss my point, 2001: A Space Odyssey is pretty much Stanley's movie.
Only he could have decided wether a sequel should have been made for 2001.
Clarke had the rights to characters and such as I understand it.
But Clarke could of course have made the sequel of his work.
Not Stanleys.

Clark you seem more passive in this subject, what is your opinion?

[Sussudio]

IMO, 2010 is the Hollywood version of 2001. While 2001 leaves you to ponder the adventure you just took part in (on several levels), 2010 lays all of its cards out on the table. That doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad movie, as it just has a different set of goals it was trying to fulfill than 2001. As a sequel, the path to achieving those goals was much more straightforward than the route Kubrick chose, which I believe to be substantially more powerful.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

IMO, 2010 is the Hollywood version of 2001. While 2001 leaves you to ponder the adventure you just took part in (on several levels), 2010 lays all of its cards out on the table. That doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad movie, as it just has a different set of goals it was trying to fulfill than 2001. As a sequel, the path to achieving those goals was much more straightforward than the route Kubrick chose, which I believe to be substantially more powerful.

That is a good analysis of the differences between them. 2001 is much more subtle, and really takes repeated viewings to fully comprehend what Kubrick intended.

[swifty7]

I wonder what Kubrik would have done with 2010 if he had all the budget and time needed.

[SpaceDog]

2010 is an adaptation of a book by Clarke, which is a sequel to the 2001 novel written in concert with the 2001 film.
So if it's not a sequel to the 2001 feature film, it's an adaptation of the sequel to the novel

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by EricJ

It was a #1 NYTimes bestseller at the time*, and bestsellers get obligatory Big Movie Deals after selling X numbers of copies. That was the arrangement under which we accepted 2010 at the time, and it still stands.
William Sylvester was still alive at the time, if we wanted to be anal about considering it a "movie sequel", but we accepted that Roy Scheider was a more believable Heywood Floyd on paper, for the constructive purposes of the story. That they also happened to be able to bring Douglas Rain and Keir Dullea back was only icing on the cake for MGM, as they knew some smartaleck would've asked sooner or later if they hadn't.

The book was released about a half year after the movie. The movie was released in April 1968 and the first time I saw the book (which I immediately bought) was in October. The movie was loosely based upon Clarke's novel "The Sentinel", which is a very short story. Although similar, the movie is much more philosophical and intentionally vague than the book. For myself, the sequel 2010 has a totally different "feel" than 2001, and with the exception of a few characters, the spaceship Discovery, and the monoliths, the two movies hardly even seem to be related.

[Elandyll]

2001 is very much Kubrick's vision of Clarke's work imo.
As such it will divide.

2010 is in all aspects (but the same director and his vision) a legitimate sequel. To many, it is also probably a lot closer to the writer's vision than the 2001 re-interpretation by a visionary but controversial filmmaker.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

IMO, 2010 is the Hollywood version of 2001. While 2001 leaves you to ponder the adventure you just took part in (on several levels), 2010 lays all of its cards out on the table. That doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad movie, as it just has a different set of goals it was trying to fulfill than 2001. As a sequel, the path to achieving those goals was much more straightforward than the route Kubrick chose, which I believe to be substantially more powerful.

great summary Sussudio!

i haven't seen 2010. why? from what i've read, it answers may of the questions that 2001 left open-ended for us to subjectively answer, as part of our individual subjective experience, as kubrick intended. hence, 2010 is directly contradictory to kubrick's intent of 2001. yes, some may critcize me for saying that, as i havent' seen 2010, but why would i, considering the ramifications in it on my viewing of 2001? that's why i never have seen 2010, and never plan on seeing 2010, despite the fact that 2001 is my favorite film of all-time. i dont want some hollywood-script to intrude upon my personal perspective of 2001, as kubrick intended.