2010 in 2010

An interesting little look back/contrast on what we thought the future would be like back in 1984 through this sequel to Kubrick-Clarke’s odd original 2001. It’s certainly an Eighties movie with its greater emphasis on action (relatively more compared to the first one made in 1968), a couple big-name actors (again, I don’t recall 2001 starring anymore famous then) and using the politics of the era (2001 made no mention of the situation on Earth). I also managed to read the book well before the film’s release; it kept me entertained during the move from Houston to Indianoplace. Unlike Dune, I didn’t mind director-writer Peter Hyams modifying Clarke’s novel for time and plot, especially when he removed the subplot involving the Chinese getting to Jupiter and dying on Europa well before the Leonov arrives. Hyams was an excellent choice too. Before 2010, he had directed other Sci-Fi fare: Outland (its legacy is purporting the myth of explosive decompression) and Capricorn One (that one probably wrote itself with all the Moon-Landing Hoaxers out there).

Time has been kind to the movie was my immediate reaction when we watched it last week (it was in our physical Netflix queue due to the streaming rights ending on December 31, 2009). The effects, overall plot and science remain sound, credible and interesting despite knowing how it all panned out 25 years ago. Its only shortcoming was extrapolating the political situation in Latin America into the near future. This was probably done to create conflict/tension in the story and give a touchstone for 1984 audiences. If you told even me in high school that the Soviet Union would dissolve in 1991-2, my reaction would have been “yeah, right, sounds like a Reagan fantasy.” Syd Mead, who also designed the Leonov for this, once said future technologies have a way of happening sooner than we anticipate. I would add a corollary about it applying to international-imperial rivalries since few could’ve predicted China or India’s position 25 years ago.

Putting aside the cultural-historical nitpicking, the performances from Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, Helen Mirren and the rest clinch its effectiveness as a story. After learning more about Russian history and culture over the years, I had a greater appreciation for the actors portraying the Soviet cosmonauts; if you notice when they speak, there’s little “enthusiasm” when most of them speak. Americans would interpret this as them being depressed or annoyed. It’s just something in their national character which is very alien to people from a more gregarious society.

I have learned more about the scientific shortcomings of 2010 though, mostly from the writings of Dr. Plait.

• Jupiter could never turn into a star, its mass is 1/13th of what would be needed. So I guess the monoliths can violate the Law of the Conversation of Matter and Energy to make it happen.
• Afterwards, the orbits of our solar system would change thanks to the huge shift in Jupiter’s mass. I think it would pull the Earth back significantly from its cozy distance from the Sun of 1 AU.
• Despite the Leonov using the Discovery to get the boost to escape Jupiter igniting, the crew would die long before getting to Earth since there would be a pretty powerful burst of radiation (probably Gamma Rays) which was illustrated as a shockwave.
• The Soviet ship would use CRTs instead of LCD/LED displays because electronics in space have to be hardened against cosmic radiation. Thus, stuff which was state-of-the art a few years ago works best.

Yes, I remember, it’s only a movie, a very good one and a sequel like Aliens; it advances the first story and succeeds by making a different type of film instead of repeating most of the original.