I am intrigued by the notion that a sequel can interfere with our
appreciation of the original. Is this an example of the sins of the
children being visited on the fathers?! When I have shown "2001" to
classes in recent years, and I admit that I've really had no alternative
but to show it on a big TV screen, and this isn't even quite acceptable as
a minimum, students have often responded by saying that its special
effects are "dated" or "hokey" which I think reflects their beings used to
more "advanced" effects in many movies since. But does this means that
the achievement of "2001" is somehow diminished? Ideas? Phil Hamlin
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|