TheHoboInYourRoom

The problem with 2010 is that everyone views it in comparison to 2001 when it's really doing its own thing. Taken on its own terms, it's actually a pretty good movie. I haven't read the entire book, but I can see how certain aspects of it would not have been filmable at the time. Plus, it had the obligation to tie in with the 2001 movie, which the book did not have to do.

(If you can, get a copy of "The Odyssey Files", a promotional book from 1984 which is basically a transcript of the communications between Arthur C. Clarke and Peter Hyams, the writer/director of the movie. They collaborated long-distance via computer between Los Angeles and Sri Lanka. Pretty groundbreaking stuff, considering that it was done before e-mail as we know it today existed. I have a sneaking suspicion that the book was printed to offset their phone bills!)

I think if you can take it on its own without comparing it to 2001, it's a decent furthering of the mythos, if a bit standard, but let's face it---2001 was a work of art more than a movie...