From a coherent narrative standpoint, "2010" absolutely blows away its somewhat overly lauded predecessor. The plot is understandable, characters behave with normal human emotions instead of being told by a director to act dull, and there are fine performances from several cast members.
However, what makes "2010" a film that ultimately fails is its idiotic obsession with Cold War politics that has not only completely dated the film as a product of the 1980s (Kubrick by contrast wisely avoided all references to the Cold War in "2001" and thus enabled the film to still seem fresh today) but also dates it as an example of silly left-wing "moral equivalence" philosophy which saw the United States as equally bad as the USSR if not worse. One gets the feeling that Hyams is less interested in continuing the speculative look to the future as he is about making a statement about Ronald Reagan by having his unseen President take the world toward WWIII for following a tough foreign policy. It is worth noting that the original novel "2010" contains *none* of this Cold War subplot (Clarke saved his apologia for communism for his dreadful novel "3001") and the blame for this bad story element rests entirely on Hyams's shoulders. Also, there is an inexcusable continuity lapse from the first film where Dr. Floyd indignantly says, "I never authorized anyone to tell HAL about the monolith!" But in "2001", it's abundantly clear that the opposite is true. Since this scene is also tied into making a slam at the U.S. government though, you can't help but wonder if this lapse was deliberate on Hyams's part.
As a look into a future society where space travel is the norm, "2001" still offers possibilities that might happen at a later date (I'm not one of those who buys its philosophy about the evolution of mankind though). Not so "2010", which was rendered permanently dated and absolutely dead wrong for eternity by the world events of 1989-91. That this point isn't recognized widely enough by people is a sad comment on how little we have really learned.
However, what makes "2010" a film that ultimately fails is its idiotic obsession with Cold War politics that has not only completely dated the film as a product of the 1980s (Kubrick by contrast wisely avoided all references to the Cold War in "2001" and thus enabled the film to still seem fresh today) but also dates it as an example of silly left-wing "moral equivalence" philosophy which saw the United States as equally bad as the USSR if not worse. One gets the feeling that Hyams is less interested in continuing the speculative look to the future as he is about making a statement about Ronald Reagan by having his unseen President take the world toward WWIII for following a tough foreign policy. It is worth noting that the original novel "2010" contains *none* of this Cold War subplot (Clarke saved his apologia for communism for his dreadful novel "3001") and the blame for this bad story element rests entirely on Hyams's shoulders. Also, there is an inexcusable continuity lapse from the first film where Dr. Floyd indignantly says, "I never authorized anyone to tell HAL about the monolith!" But in "2001", it's abundantly clear that the opposite is true. Since this scene is also tied into making a slam at the U.S. government though, you can't help but wonder if this lapse was deliberate on Hyams's part.
As a look into a future society where space travel is the norm, "2001" still offers possibilities that might happen at a later date (I'm not one of those who buys its philosophy about the evolution of mankind though). Not so "2010", which was rendered permanently dated and absolutely dead wrong for eternity by the world events of 1989-91. That this point isn't recognized widely enough by people is a sad comment on how little we have really learned.