Yay, Someone actually continuing on to 2010 after 2001!

@mnomadvfx

3 ай бұрын

Ye, first reaction I've seen of it yet.

@car103d

3 ай бұрын

@@mnomadvfx Reactions to 2010 The Year We Make Contact on YT channels: Cam&Zay Casual Nerd Reactions GIS TBR Schmitt TeaMamba Watches Movies And countless Reviews

There's a line in the book that still gives me chills 30 years. There's just a passing mention that they have altered billions of worlds but also made millions of mistakes.

@barbarjinx3802

3 ай бұрын

Ever read The Expanse series?

@AlanCanon2222

3 ай бұрын

"They sowed, and occasionally they reaped. And sometimes, they had to weed."

@joesworld396

Ай бұрын

Guess which we are...

@AlanCanon2222

Ай бұрын

@@joesworld396 First two guesses don't count....

YES! YEEEES! Every time a reactor watches 2001, I beg them to watch 2010 right away, but they almost never do.

Heywood Floyd, as a character, was in 2001, with a different actor. He's the man we follow to the moon, inspecting the monolith. So he was directly involved in both the mission planning, and its operation. Which is why he's so driven. They talk around it, but he feels responsible. So finding out he got iced out of the pivotal decision that led to the missions doom was also redemption for him as well as HAL.

In the scene in the park, the guy to the left of the screen, feeding the birds, is none other than the author, Arthur C. Clarke.

@silikon2

3 ай бұрын

There's a Time magazine in around the middle of the movie that says "WAR?" that shows depictions of Clarke and Kubrick as the American and Russian leaders.

When Arthur C. Clarke published his novel 2010: Odyssey Two in 1982, he telephoned Stanley Kubrick, and jokingly said, "Your job is to stop anybody from making it [into a movie] so I won't be bothered." Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer subsequently worked out a contract to make a film adaptation, but Kubrick had no interest in directing it. However, Peter Hyams was interested and contacted both Clarke and Kubrick for their blessings: I had a long conversation with Stanley and told him what was going on. If it met with his approval, I would do the film; and if it didn't, I wouldn't. I certainly would not have thought of doing the film if I had not gotten the blessing of Kubrick. He's one of my idols; simply one of the greatest talents that's ever walked the Earth. He more or less said, 'Sure. Go do it. I don't care.' And another time he said, 'Don't be afraid. Just go do your own movie.

There is a series of books written by Arthur C Clarke (who developed the original story with Kubrick), in order they are: 2001 A Space Odyssey; 2010: Odyssey Two; 2061 Odyssey Three and 3001 The Final Odyssey. You can see Clarke and Kubrick on the cover of Time Magazine 26:43 as the Presidents of the US and Soviet Union.

@silikon2

3 ай бұрын

I don't know what happened in the following novels, but I find it unlikely humans won't land on Europa. (Or at least try... the message said to not ATTEMPT to land, possibly suggesting it'll be prevented.)

@DurkMcGerk

3 ай бұрын

You can also see a cameo by Clarke in front of the White House sitting on the park bench. edit: you can only see the top of his head in this reaction 🤣

@RustyX2010

2 ай бұрын

I hope they turn the other books into movies too!

My God, it's full of stars...

The aerobraking sequence is still awesome. Love the design of the Leonov.

@Muck006

3 ай бұрын

SADLY that design is flawed, because EITHER the entire ship should rotate OR there should be two sections that rotate in opposing directions.

@k1productions87

2 ай бұрын

the concept of aerobraking was good, but the execution in the film was flawed. 1) the "ballute" didn't shield the whole ship. The entire main engine structure was exposed ahead of it, and should have been sheered off during the fireball 2) they don't exactly do a good job showing why the whole ship is on fire, and the imagery of such was a bit hokey. It was supposed to be essentially re-entry heating 3) the design of the Leonov in the movie is a radical departure from the design in the book, which was described as having a giant conical ablative heat shield at the front, which would be discarded once the aerobraking maneuver was completed (effectively lightening the ship and thus lowering fuel cost for the duration of the mission). Also, about the Leonov herself... we see the spinning section, but no indication that gravity is within that section itself. Further, the sets do not fit within the ship in any way, which becomes apparently not only with the angle some of the sets turn off in, but also when we see Max and Curnow leaving in spacesuits, and then Max taking the pod out - the size of them and the size of the sets they left just do not compute. Also, in the book, Leonov was built for speed. So amenities like artificial gravity were omitted entirely, and also the reason for its smaller size. But... this film did a poor job giving any kind of background on the ship itself. Thomas-Peters on DeviantArt actually did a very wonderful set of renderings of what a book-accurate Leonov would have looked like Full spacecraft with fuel tanks for journey to Jupiter: www.deviantart.com/thomas-peters/art/Leonov-American-crew-Arriving-136698961 After jettisoning fuel tanks, and with antenna and radiator panels tucked in for aerobraking maneuver: www.deviantart.com/thomas-peters/art/Skimming-the-Jovian-Clouds-139442464 Heat shield jettison: www.deviantart.com/thomas-peters/art/LEONOV-Heatshield-Release-139696540 And being attached to the Discovery: www.deviantart.com/thomas-peters/art/Heeding-Bowman-447540799

Three fun facts: - In the early scene in front of the white house, the old man feeding the birds is actually played by Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote the book. - In the hospital scene when the nurse drops her copy of Time Magazine, the presidents depicted are actually Arthur C. Clark and Stanley Kubrick - The voice of SAL-9000 was played by "Olga Mallsnerd". This is a pseudonym for then-insanely-popular actress Candice Bergen

I'm one of those that likes more this one than the first. More because it has a story and I watched it back in '87, when I was 13 years old and I felt so close the fear of the cold war. The idea that we could blow up any minute was very real and perfectly portraided here.

@silikon2

3 ай бұрын

It's crazy how many nuclear/cold war themed movies there were back then, and in music etc. If you don't know, here's a mind blower: than song "The Future's so Bright I gotta Wear Shades" was actually about nuclear war. I liked 2010 better back then too, but like 2001 way more now. I can watch 2001 over and over but not this one so much. Really, the two movies are too drastically different to compare though.

@letmadora28

3 ай бұрын

@@silikon2 Many, many songs and movies. It really inspired a lot. But to fair, I haven't seen the first one in years, so. I should give It another try.

@silikon2

3 ай бұрын

@@letmadora28 I think ultimately the movies shouldn't be evaluated against each other any more than comparing tennis to hockey or something like that. Way different than, say, A New Hope vs Empire Strikes Back.

@BSwenson

3 ай бұрын

I also prefer this film over the original. It’s an under appreciated sequel.

@k1productions87

2 ай бұрын

I saw this one first as well. The fear of war didn't hit me nearly as hard as Jupiter sucking itself in, only to end with young Me anticipating the year 2010 to see the two suns in the sky. Yeah, I was naive at a young age :P

It's the same voice actor for HAL. And the same actor playing Dave Bowman, refusing to age when he's not in makeup.

@tranya327

3 ай бұрын

Further trivia, regarding the voice of HAL: The actor who voiced him, Douglas Rain, was selected by Woody Allen (or his casting director), to voice an A.I. character just like HAL, in the 1973 film, Sleeper (occurring 200 years after that film's release date, and 149 years in our future, 2173.). The character, 'Biocentral Computer 2100 Series G, doesn't have a big role in the film, but the voice and deadpan mannerism of HAL is unmistakable. It's a little like HAL returned for a cameo, in a film that came out only five years after the film 2001 was released. (It's an entertaining film; I've always enjoyed it.)

@miller-joel

3 ай бұрын

@@tranya327 Even the AE-35 unit was back in 2010!

@GamerKatz_1971

3 ай бұрын

And Keir Dullea is still kicking. He looks a little different now, being 87, but he's still going.

@sarahfullerton6894

3 ай бұрын

In "2001, A Space Odyssey" they called the computer "HAL", because the letters each were one letter before those in the name of computers from the biggest computer company in 1969: IBM.

Jupiter has a ton of moons, moons for days. That small star that Jupiter has now become is intended to make them habitable. The monolith(s) job seems to be to advance sentient life.

@Belzediel

3 ай бұрын

Sapient.

@Muck006

3 ай бұрын

Any "moons" around a sun would be completely INHOSPITABLE for life, ... unless it can somehow be based upon molten lava. [Writers need to RESEARCH PHYSICS before writing stuff ... Hollywood is very much guilty of this, but also writers of books.]

@Parallax-3D

Ай бұрын

@@Belzediel- Have to have sentient life before sapient. They said, “advance sentient life”, which is correct.

@Belzediel

Ай бұрын

@@Parallax-3D Not if you know what the word means.

Not only did they give conflicting orders to HAL, they programed him to lie about it. His core programing was basically not to lie.

This is one of those semi-lost ‘80’s movies that is really good but overlooked. I saw this at the theater and we were very excited. In the book, the Soviet crewmember that gets in Floyd’s bunk during the aerobraking had been in a plane crash and burned which is why she is so frightened. It’s never explained in the movie. Bowman visits his mother and brushes her hair. In the book it explains how he didn’t like doing it as a kid but his mother loved it which is why he does it; a very sweet moment. Another fun overlooked ‘80’s movie with John Lithgow is “The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across The 8th Dimension.”

Thanks to Cameron and Isaiah! 🌌 I'm so glad y'all watched this. So many reacters never get around to it... and I think it's very good. Cheers to director Peter Hyams. I've also read the two novels that carry the story even further. All hail the author Arthur C. Clarke.

Roy Scheider was on fire after steadily building his career with Jaws making him a household name. You can watch most of his films around this time without qualifying them and gain entertainment. While I'm the type whom doesn't need everything answered, I'll admit once we hit the final act of 2001 I gave up reading my crystal ball.

One final recommendation: “The Andromeda Strain” (1971). This movie will intrigue you and also make you wonder if this could have been the original man-made Pandemic. 🤔

This movie is extremely underrated. I instantly know that someone hasn't seen it if they say they didn't understand "2001". I actually like this one better than the first. It has tighter pacing, a more thrilling finale and an incredible cast.

The TIME magazine cover is Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick.

Yes, that was David saying goodbye to his mom in the hospital. In the novel, it stated when he was young he would brush her hair.

Finally someone reacting to this!!!!!!!!!

I always thought this was a very solid sequel, and Roy Scheider is always fun to watch.

So glad you guys reacted to this film. It’s a very under appreciated sci-fi film and sequel, but I think it’s fantastic.

When reading the book and HAL says "look behind you", I damned near peed myself. When watching the film, I knew that this scene was coming and it STILL freaked me out :)

As someone who grew up in West-Berlin since the early 70s ... this movie's message is important to me. Sadly the Cold War DIDNT END ... only one side stopped fighting it, while the other continued it to keep justifying the funding for military and "intelligence" agencies.

I liked this one better than the original

@garethmorgan8326

3 ай бұрын

Same Here

Read the book! It explains everything in complete detail. It’s nothing you can guess by watching. In 2001 the monolith in the end was uploading his whole life which is why he was aging rapidly and then he was reborn as a star child… hid memories and experiences were incorporated into the larger spiritual beings who no ,longer require bodies. He was no longer Dave bowman, though those memories faintly remain. He can travel through the universe with thought as a new spiritual life form and revisits his home of earth and gazes in it newly as a star child. Hard to explain…seriously read the book!

Going to the movies every week back in the long long ago was so much fun , every week something different for everyone, fun times

I am pleasantly surprised you chose this film. I use to own the DVD but i always felt like it was a film that was never mentioned or acknowledged by anyone. EVER!

Read the book. It is very good. Arthur C. Clarke wanted to wait until the Galileo mission to Jupiter so he could incorporate as much of what we discovered there into the story as possible. Galileo was delayed and he decided to go ahead and write 2010 anyways. Like I said, the book is great. It's detailed enough that you feel like you were there.

Hey, guys. I'm glad you liked this movie. Many fans of 2001 are very dismissive of 2010 because Kubrick didn't direct it. Small piece of trivia; all of the models and sets for 2001 were destroyed after the movie was released in order to prevent a sequel from being made. So, everything had to be reconstructed by visual references alone. Even the original drawings were destroyed. I'm really curious what you guys would think of the movie "The Black Hole", which was Disney's first PG rated movie from 1979. Myself, I love it despite its flaws. I saw it in theaters in 1979 when it came out and loved it. It is on Disney+, but you'd have to use the Search function to find it.

FUN FACT - The old man sitting on the bench on the left side of the screen (at 5:56 in the video, you can see the top of his head) is actually Arthur C. Clarke himself (he wrote the books "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "2010" and many others).

It's been said that Jupiter is a failed star. It has everything needed to become another sun but never happened. Our friends gave it the extra push to ignite. Now we are a solar system within a solar system. Nasa is looking for an example of something like that right now.

You have to love Peter Hyams. He’s one of those “working man directors” that does his own cinematography and has a “mid budget dramatic thriller” style that lends itself to making “popcorn movies”.

I prefer this one to the original honestly.

@garethmorgan8326

3 ай бұрын

Same Here

@StarShipGray

3 ай бұрын

Because this one isn’t boring!

@betsyduane3461

3 ай бұрын

LOL

@betsyduane3461

3 ай бұрын

@@StarShipGray It also is not a masterpiece.

@StarShipGray

3 ай бұрын

@@betsyduane3461neither is the first one. It’s overrated and dull as hell.

2010 is one of my favorite movies. I think it's very good that they didn't try to ape Kubrick's style.

Now you get to act smug when people don't understand the first one!

@Belzediel

3 ай бұрын

XD

I really enjoyed this! I liked the sequel! It tied up loose ends. Brought everything together. You guys were great! Thanks Guys for being you! 😂😊

Really glad to see you guys reacting to this one...I have always liked it a lot. I can see why folks compare it to Kubrick's 2001, but the two are so different in focus, I think this one is really good in its own way. I hope you both like it a lot too.

Clarke collaborated very closely with the director, e-mailing each other every day when e-mail was a new thing and Clarke basically had personal use of the satellite and the only Internet connection in Sri Lanka.

A little fun fact: SAL was voiced by actress Candice Bergen, under a pseudonym, Olga Mallsnerd (likely the "snerd" part references Mortimer Snerd, a dummy character of her ventriloquist father, Edgar Bergen).

I cried for HAL at the end, the first time I watched this in a theater opening weekend...😭 So glad you two reacted to this! It's my favorite of the two!

I read the book all the way back when it was published in 1982, and I was wondering how a filmmaker could ever top 2001. Turns out, Peter Hyams didn’t have to try, because this sequel is really good. Glad you watched it. Also, the aliens who created the Monolith used it to multiply and increase Jupiter’s density, turning it into a star, to give the Europa lifeforms a chance.

You do realize that "2001" and "2010" are just the first two books in a quadlogy, right? Arthur C Clarke also wrote "2061" and "3001." Movies could, hypothetically, still be made based on those two books.

This movie made me cry for a computer and that’s incredible. 👍🏻

Bit of trivia in case you didn't read it someplace. The original name for the computer was going to be the IBM 9000, but when IBM realized what evil it was going to do, They didn't allow their company name to be used. So The production company and writers simply went backwards from each of the letters I-B-M and came up with H-A-L: ergo, Hal 9000 lived!

The atmospheric "braking" maneuver has a scientific basis: in the vacuum of space there's no wind resistance to slow down a moving object, so astronauts have to come up with creative ways to slow down to a near stop. Newton said, "An object in motion tends to stay in motion until acted upon by an outside source (i.e. the atmosphere)." Like Alien declared, "in space no one can hear you scream."

There's a sort of scary detail built in to this: most star systems have more than one star in them. How long has this been going on? - and do the gardeners weed their garden? 2061 Odyssey Two asks these questions.

FULL RECTANGLE! Brilliant comment!

The historical background of the movie is the Cold War, a time in history when people thought a hot nuclear war between the super powers could start at any time in 24hours. The news coming from Earth reflect a then common sudden rise of tensions between the US and the Soviet Union going all the way until the end and at a brink of an inevitable war.

I'm so glad you guys watched this and enjoyed it! This is what got me into 2001. I have always loved HAL the most... and SAL. There could always be more of HAL and SAL! Peter Hyams actually directed a "feel good" sequel to 2001!

We now need someone to be brave enough to make books three and four in the series.. 2061 and 3001. Denis Villeneuve anyone?

@Sgt_Glory

3 ай бұрын

If anyone can do them justice, it's him. But first he's going to be tackling Rendezvous With Rama, which is another cool 'big alien thing in space' mystery.

What is the monolith? Essentially a cosmic version of the Swiss army knife. It's not one tool, it's a multi tool. There are 4novels in the series: 2001: A Space Odyssey 2010: Odyssey Two 2061: Odyssey Three 3001: The Final Odyssey

Thanks for this reaction: it's a VASTLY underappreciated film!

The soundtrack to this is highly, highly UNDERRATED!

Such an underrated film. It should be required viewing as a tandem to 2001.

The best scene in this movie was when the original astronaut Dave Bowman. Appeared behind him. because that actor looked exactly the same as if he didn't age since 1968.

22:56 I believe the widow of Dave Bowman is played by Mary Jo Deschanel - the mother of actresses Emily and Zoey Deschanel

“It’s their fault. They should have listened.” While true, that offers little comfort in the death of a colleague or friend.

Hell Yes!!!

The movie is sublime as a sequel that stands on its own. It doesn't try necessarily to follow the first. It is really compelling. The thing that draws me in is the fact that it's a slower pace, but still super hard hitting. There are two more stories after this one - 2063, and 3001, but 2010 was the only sequel film adaptation. I'd be super interested in seeing 2063 made.

26:43 - It's Arthur and Stanley!

There were some differences between the movie and the book version of 2001. This film is a sequel to the book version which is why a small handful of things don't line up with the last movie. (Mainly in the movie Floyd knows HAL knows about the Monolith, in the book it was "The Government", not Floyd that told HAL about the Monolith). So in this film Floyd doesn't HAL knew about the Monolith beforehand which is why he's surprised and angry.

@zvimur

3 ай бұрын

Mind you book 2010 kept the movie 2001's location of Jupiter. 2001 original script and Clarke's novel placed monolith in Saturn's orbit. 1968 VFX couldn't make a satisfactory image of Saturn. I believe Interstellar can be seen as a reboot of Space Odissey.

"They could do another" - sadly you probably won't ever see a film of it but if you're up for it try reading 2001, 2010 and then 2061. Just take note that 2010 was written after the movie of 2001 and follows the movie more than the book.

I believe I mentioned this in the first film, but Arthur C. Clarke wrote 4 books, 2001, 2010, and 2061, 3001. Haywood was affected by his time in space and out lives his family in the third book, but there had been no news on a third or foothold fourth movie

They are based off different books. By the same author. There are 4 books. 2061 and 3001. I read them all. Good stuff. Frank comes back in 3001.

Next, you need to watch “Oblivion” (2013). Highly underrated sci-fi movie which will keep you captivated.

When I watched this in theaters many years ago; I never heard of Helen Mirren, but this was one of two movies I'd seen her in. Excalibur was the first. Her Russian was amazing. One of the Russian actors was a famous Russian comic back in the 80s

@goldenager59

Ай бұрын

Elya Baskin, right? I've seen him in *Raise the Titanic,* *Moscow on the Hudson* and a slew of other things as well. And this was my first Helen Mirren movie as well. Loved her then, love her now. 😎

This is the ONE sequel that actually worked. True to the original but expanded the canon without going full bore insane. I loved this movie. Seeing David Bowman again was insane.

They're actually a monolith on the moon on Saturn! Look up Buzz Aldrin!

I prefer this movie to 2001. It's paced much better than 2001. 2001 sparked questions and answered almost none. 2010 answered a lot and introduced new questions while being well paced and not being confounding.

This movie is a great example about the fundamental flaw with AI. It untimely is a recreation of its designer. All the complexity and faults of a human mind with none of the filters and checks that evolution has built into the brain.

There are four SPACE ODYSSEY books by Arthur C. Clarke. 2001, 2010, 2061 and 3001. In 2061, a spacecraft has a malfunction and must make an emergency landing on Europa! That's all I'm sayin'. 🧑‍🚀

@pauld669

3 ай бұрын

Attempt no landing there. Humans will never learn

The flying ink pen wasn't done with CGI. Because there was no CGI yet. I believe it was done with a magnetic field I believe.

@cyrilmauras4247

3 ай бұрын

I read in the making of 2001 book that the pen was attached to a rotating piece of plexiglass, but I remember being able to see, up on the theater screen, very thin wires holding it up and rotating it.

FYI HAL is making fun of IBM (each letter in HAL is one letter BEFORE IBM), IBM was the big tech company when 2001 was made

@betsyduane3461

3 ай бұрын

Kubrick dismissed this theorizing, saying that the computer’s name is an acronym for heuristic and algorithmic, “the two methods of computer programming,” in his words. Seeing the IBM acronym in those letters “would have taken a cryptographer,” he said.

@techtubeB

3 ай бұрын

There are two more books I. The series, 2068 and 3001.

Check out The Day the Earth Stood still (1951), The Thing (1951), The War of the Worlds (1953), THEM! (1954). Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Forbidden Planet both released in (1956).

@cyrilmauras4247

3 ай бұрын

All great scifi films that were remade horribly.

The monolith did not intentionally kill Max. He was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The books kinda have a loose continuity compared to the movies. It started because Clarke wrote that the mission was to Saturn in the original, and it was changed to Jupiter (I think because it would be harder to get the rings right) for the movie. So then Clarke changed it to Jupiter in 2010: Odyssey Two and indicated that each book was in a slightly alternate universe.

This film fills in many blanks on Hal's reasoning on why he did what he did. Arthur C Clarke has a cameo in this film as the road sweeper outside the White House.

The visual effects in this movie are fantastic. They still hold up.

I think your rating of 8.6 is right on. BTW, I met Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote the books of 2001 and 2010, along with Isaac Asimov, back in 1974. 😊

I still insist this is the best cinematic climactic payoff ever!

There is a third book: 2061 Odyssey Three

I love 2010. It's one of my favorites.

This is one of the most underrated Sci-Fi movies of all time in my opinion

@fastertove

3 ай бұрын

Who rates this low?

I love 2010. I don't think it's a great sequel to 2001, but I do think it's a great adaptation of the book 2010, and a great, more grounded (though still high concept) 80's scifi flick.

Damn I feel old I saw this in the theaters at age 22. I can't believe that was forty years ago. Times goes by so fast each year. I noticed when I turned 25 each year seemed to go by faster. There was a lot of great movies made in 82, 84, 85 and 1986.

A great mainstream Hollywood movie follow-up to an artistic avant-garde film!

Do androids dream of electric sheep?

@Parallax-3D

Ай бұрын

The novel that Blade Runner is based on, by Philip K Dick.

My major complaint with this movie is the lack of care with the scenes in the ships. The Leonov flight deck and the Discovery pod bay, tunnel, and bridge are all zero-G environments, but everyone is moving like they're in gravity. The scene of the three Americans walking through Leonov after Chandra is back on board has the same issue; the rotational section of Leonov isn't spinning, but Floyd flips the cable cutter and it falls back into his hand. I saw this opening night in a theater in ninth grade, and I was _not_ pleased, especially after the care Kubrick took with those scenes and environments in 2001.

@cyrilmauras4247

3 ай бұрын

All part of science FICTION. Easier to forget about zero gravity to save money making a space film. At least Sandra Bullock gets it right in "Gravity".

@Parallax-3D

Ай бұрын

There was gravity in the pod bay in 2001.

FUN FACT - The 2 men on the TIME magazine cover (at 26:44 in the video) are Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick (Clarke is on the left side and Kubrick is on the right side).

Arthur's "Childhood's End" is considered one of the three great "modern" SF books (along with "Dune" and the "Foundation" trilogy).

@stevetheduck1425

Ай бұрын

'Childhood's End' was done as a TV miniseries, but much of the story was jettisoned, sadly.

The final message is very similar to the mythos of The Garden of Eden, with Adam and Eve allowed to roam and eat whatever they liked, live on any of the newly created worlds, but they could not eat the Fruit of Knowledge and not live on Europa.

Poole didn't get "eaten" by a robot... He was attacked by his pod, under HAL's control, and died due to lack of oxigen (his oxigen hose was cut), and afterwards Bowman took another pod and tried to rescue him, eventually giving up.

@barreloffun10

3 ай бұрын

Spoiler ….. about Frank Poole….. In 3001, future humans find Poole’s corpse floating in space, and realize that because his brain and body were frozen so quickly, there was no decay and his brain structure is mostly intact. They are able to rebuild his body, restore his memories, and bring him back to life.

@stevetheduck1425

Ай бұрын

@@barreloffun10 He finds out that they tried several times, later in the story. The Book is hard to film, but if they explain how he's the closest they could get, and actor with similar features could play him.

Best movie scene about getting dragged into the gas giant Jupiter is called "The Wandering Earth"

I don't know if it's urban legend, however I heard a story that the original monolith prop was converted into an executive office desk.

Poor HAL. Didn't know that everyone who has ever done business with politicians gets done dirty.

I actually LOVE this one

This is such a good, but underrated sci-fi movie. I've always said that if it were a stand alone film it would be far more highly regarded, far more celebrated, but it has always suffered from its inevitable comparison to the genius that is 2001: A Space Odyssey.