How do you follow up a masterpiece? Many might simply answer “you don’t,” but director Peter Hyams was determined to try when he made his sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey. One of the most underrated movies of 1984, according to Den of Geek, 2010 (also known as 2010: The Year We Make Contact) is the result of Hyams’ efforts to follow up the classic. Maligned by many for its mere existence, 2010 is not a particularly popular movie among science fiction fans.
For most of its lifetime, the film has been written off as an unworthy and unnecessary sequel to Stanley Kubrick’s magnum opus, and perhaps not entirely unfairly. To put it bluntly, 2001: A Space Odyssey is a one-of-a-kind cerebral sci-fi freakout that can never be topped. That said, just because the original is so venerable doesn’t mean its sequel is totally without merit. 2010, when taken as a separate entity from its distinguished counterpart, is a great science fiction movie. Here’s why this forgotten and underrated sequel is ripe for rediscovery.
A Stellar Cast
MGM/UA Entertainment Co.
One of the best features of 2010 is the fantastic cast. Unlike 2001’s cast of relative unknowns, 2010 ups the star power with the likes of Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, and Bob Balaban. The film contains one of Roy Scheider’s best performances, and also features the amazingly talented Helen Mirren in a small role. Douglas Rain returns as the voice of HAL 9000, imbuing the film with the same cold and creepy digital stoicism that helped to make the first film so haunting. Another highlight of the cast is Keir Dullea, who returns as Dave Bowman, the protagonist of the first film. Small cameos from Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke round out the cast.
One of the Best Arthur C. Clarke Adaptations
Arthur C. Clarke was a British novelist famed for such classics of science fiction as Childhood’s End, The Fountains of Paradise, Rendezvous with Rama, and, of course, 2001: A Space Odyssey. Known by the moniker “the Prophet of the Space Age,” Clarke wrote many of the most pioneering and thought-provoking tales of space exploration ever imagined, and his work has inspired filmmakers for generations. Direct adaptations of his books are rarer than projects loosely inspired by them, however, most likely because of the colossal scope of his stories that makes them difficult to faithfully translate to film.
While 2001 may be the best adaptation of his work, 2010 no doubt sits right up there with it as another triumph of book-to-screen science fiction conversion. The author’s 2001 sequel novels continue to inspire adaptations, with one purportedly in development by Ridley Scott. Though it is once again doubtful that a sequel can ever outshine the Kubrick original, one must hope that another addition to the series will drum up renewed interest in Hyams’ misunderstood 2010.
A Bold New Approach
An interesting aspect of 2010 is the way it goes to great lengths to distinguish itself from its predecessor. The film does share much in common with the original, but it also takes a new approach in lots of ways. Stylistically-speaking, Hyams clearly had a totally different vision than Kubrick. Whereas Kubrick’s film is brightly lit and composed of mostly wide shots, giving it a cold, unattached atmosphere, Hyams relies heavily on shadow and close-up shots. Hyams’ approach gives the film a claustrophobic quality, which adds greatly to the overall tension. While Kubrick prefers to pose questions without providing direct answers, Hyams opts for a more pragmatic direction, creating a realistic and grounded sci-fi flick with a lot more character drama and a lot less mystique. This approach understandably polarized audiences and critics alike, but the new direction works and makes for a satisfying, if different, movie.
Indeed, the new approach seen in 2010 reflects what the author of the stories wrote in his introduction to his book 2061, in which he clarifies that all sequels to 2001 should be seen as new takes on the same idea that don’t necessarily occur in the same exact universe. Similarly, critic Roger Ebert noted in his review of 2010 that, while he laments the lack of mystery, “the truth must be told: This is a good movie. Once we’ve drawn our lines, once we’ve made it absolutely clear that 2001 continues to stand absolutely alone as one of the greatest movies ever made; once we have freed 2010 of the comparisons with Kubrick’s masterpiece, what we are left with is a good-looking, sharp-edged, entertaining, exciting space opera."
A cosmic odyssey that rivals the original
While Kubrick’s original 2001: A Space Odyssey is inarguably one of the best science fiction films ever made, Hyams’ 2010 is nearly as great, though very different. Unfortunately, the sequel will always be subject to inevitable and mostly unsavory comparisons to its predecessor rather than taken on its own merits. Although it probably won’t ever be heralded as one of the best sci-fi sequels, 2010 deserves to be rediscovered and re-evaluated as one of the great “thinking-man’s” sci-fi movies of the 20th century. Its massive scope and thrilling story of a tenuous Russian-American mission to Jupiter make for a thrilling cosmic odyssey, and its out-of-this-world special effects and truly great performances make it a timeless should-be classic that is worthy of mainstream attention.
