# Ridley Scott Is Producing a Miniseries Sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey



## Rainy Dave (Nov 11, 2001)

Coming to SyFy sometime in 2015

Gizmodo article


----------



## thewebgal (Aug 10, 2007)

Oh god, please not ... Scifi channel has yet to fund a good concept its due ...
I grew up as a fan of Science Fiction, So I tend to stay away from SyFy channel mostly these days - they have broken my heart with too many poorly done great concepts ...
Besides, Wrestling ... Sharknado, pirana/gators from space ...

Then again, Ridley Scott and Scott Free productions have done some pretty good TV over the years ...

http://www.imdb.com/company/co0074212/


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Umm, there were already several sequel books, and at LEAST one sequel movie.

(I may have to turn in my geek card, but I think the movie is totally overrated and makes absolutely no sense... I STILL might check this out.)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Is your Season Pass not picking this up?


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

mattack said:


> Umm, there were already several sequel books, and at LEAST one sequel movie.


RTFA: "...a Syfy Channel miniseries version of Clarke's _2001_ sequel, _3001: The Final Odyssey_."

The movie sequel was _2010_. They're skipping the book _2061_, though.



> _(I may have to turn in my geek card, but I think the movie is totally overrated and makes absolutely no sense... I STILL might check this out.)_


I pretty much agree. I've watched it a number of times, and each time, I see things I didn't see before. But I think the virtues of the film are primarily cinematic, and not so much on the science fiction side of things. The whole machine-turning-against-man plot is... lame. Interestingly, if you haven't seen _2010_,


Spoiler



basically the whole movie is a reaction against that plot.


 It's also a much more straightforward and understandable film (serious fans of _2001_ probably hate _2010_ for these very reasons).

_3001_ would be pretty trippy just due to the source material, instead of just being trippy by way of a confusing presentation.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

wmcbrine said:


> It's also a much more straightforward and understandable film (serious fans of _2001_ probably hate _2010_ for these very reasons).


Ironically, the book 2001 was also relatively straight-forward...the movie was largely the book with all the elements that explain what's going on excised, replaced by Kubrick's technophobia and mysticism.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Ironically, the book 2001 was also relatively straight-forward...the movie was largely the book with all the elements that explain what's going on excised, replaced by Kubrick's technophobia and mysticism.


I did see 2010, but don't remember much about it.

The whole "floating in the room at the end" is the part of 2001 that makes no sense. I may not even be describing that right, but it's what I seem to remember it showing.

2001 had good special effects, but it also had (again, based on my bad memory) loooong slooowwww stretches where nothing happens. (The first Star Trek movie did too, but nowhere near as bad.) BTW, "nothing happens" does NOT mean I expect explosions and MTV cuts all the time. People talking, even sometimes not directly pushing the plot forward, can be something happening.


----------

