The film's introductory text is the first warning this is a sloppy job. The monolith excavation is said to be located on the Sea of Tranquility. But the film names it the "Tycho Monolith" (Peter Hymans apparently never read the briefing charts on the 2001 moon bus). The name adds further nonsense, considering the Sea of Tranquility is at least 1,000 miles from the Tycho crater.
Former space agency bureaucrat, Dr. Heywood Floyd's angry, "I was never told" (about HAL's secrecy) is a direct contradiction to 2001. He appears on the briefing film that pops up after HAL is lobotomized in 2001. Man-up Heywood !
HAL did not malfunction in Jupiter space. The scene would have been markedly different looking, with a looming gas giant planet in the background.
The Leonov's aerobraking would had to have happened before visiting Europa. The ship had to first be slowed and captured in Jupiter's gravitational well. A flyby at inbound high velocity would be too brief, as demonstrate by NASA probes.
Clarke's central theme is that the monolith is completely inert (aside from serving as a stargate) leaving a lot to the imagination. The idea that is has some sort of self-defense mechanism completely undercuts this compelling Sphinx-like enigma.
Leonov is markedly smaller than Discovery - like a school bus next to a tractor trailer. But somehow there is lots of elbow-room for crew. Add to that some sort of huge weird docking mechanism that it uses to clamp onto Discovery. The vast Xmas-tree lit flight deck looks like something off a big nuclear submarine (like in The Hunt for Red October). All this contradicts the ship's screen size in my opinion. Just compare their flight deck to Discovery's modest flight deck - with windows! Bottom line: Discovery looks plausible, not Leonov.
The external shots around Io are static. The ships are in orbit such that day and night would come and gone over a rolling terrain. Just like the videos from the Earth-orbiting ISS.
Floyd illustrates how the two ship would dock by using floating pens. But he's living in artificial gravity on the Leonov. (A cute takeoff on the Orion shuttle pen shot?)
When Discovery's engines shut down the ship stops moving and the Leonov undocks and keeps going under its own propulsion, leaving Discovery in the dust. This is as common error in sci-fi films. Nobody remembers Newton's law of motion from H. S. physics?
Following the 1979 Voyager 1 flyby, Europa looked unique as a world with a subsurface ocean. But now we know a lot moons in the outer solar system are similar. If you melt Europa it would simply be a ball of water - twice the volume of Earth's oceans - wrapped around a rocky core (like some exoplanets we know of).
If "2010" had a technical consultant, they were out of their league. 2001 had space scientist, rocket historian, and author, Fred Ordway as consultant. And the movie shows it.
Former space agency bureaucrat, Dr. Heywood Floyd's angry, "I was never told" (about HAL's secrecy) is a direct contradiction to 2001. He appears on the briefing film that pops up after HAL is lobotomized in 2001. Man-up Heywood !
HAL did not malfunction in Jupiter space. The scene would have been markedly different looking, with a looming gas giant planet in the background.
The Leonov's aerobraking would had to have happened before visiting Europa. The ship had to first be slowed and captured in Jupiter's gravitational well. A flyby at inbound high velocity would be too brief, as demonstrate by NASA probes.
Clarke's central theme is that the monolith is completely inert (aside from serving as a stargate) leaving a lot to the imagination. The idea that is has some sort of self-defense mechanism completely undercuts this compelling Sphinx-like enigma.
Leonov is markedly smaller than Discovery - like a school bus next to a tractor trailer. But somehow there is lots of elbow-room for crew. Add to that some sort of huge weird docking mechanism that it uses to clamp onto Discovery. The vast Xmas-tree lit flight deck looks like something off a big nuclear submarine (like in The Hunt for Red October). All this contradicts the ship's screen size in my opinion. Just compare their flight deck to Discovery's modest flight deck - with windows! Bottom line: Discovery looks plausible, not Leonov.
The external shots around Io are static. The ships are in orbit such that day and night would come and gone over a rolling terrain. Just like the videos from the Earth-orbiting ISS.
Floyd illustrates how the two ship would dock by using floating pens. But he's living in artificial gravity on the Leonov. (A cute takeoff on the Orion shuttle pen shot?)
When Discovery's engines shut down the ship stops moving and the Leonov undocks and keeps going under its own propulsion, leaving Discovery in the dust. This is as common error in sci-fi films. Nobody remembers Newton's law of motion from H. S. physics?
Following the 1979 Voyager 1 flyby, Europa looked unique as a world with a subsurface ocean. But now we know a lot moons in the outer solar system are similar. If you melt Europa it would simply be a ball of water - twice the volume of Earth's oceans - wrapped around a rocky core (like some exoplanets we know of).
If "2010" had a technical consultant, they were out of their league. 2001 had space scientist, rocket historian, and author, Fred Ordway as consultant. And the movie shows it.
Tell Your Friends