Love it or hate it, everyone seems to have an opinion on this one! Leave yours below! 2010: The Year We Make Contact on Patreon/Channel Members now! www.patreon.com/posts/early-access-we-108507622
This is a masterpiece way ahead of it's time. 8.3 on IMDB. I highly recommend you watch the sequel, 2010: The Year We Make Contact. It's got a pretty good cast of actors too
There are two things I don't like about this movie. The first is that it took Hollywood 16 years to make a sequel that explains (mostly) what we just watched. The second is that it highlights how so far behind schedule mankind's space program is when compared to Kubrick's vision of space exploration. Lastly, I love how Jen is exhilarated by the music. It was an awesome experience to watch this film in the theater when it was released in 1968.
My mom dropped 10-year-old me off at the local theater back in 1968 to watch it during a matinee in an almost empty theater. No one else was interested. I sat right dead center of a 70mm projector, and it completely blew me away. Impressionable me was never the same. I love Kubrick's work.
So YOU were that other kid in the theater! Just kidding but I too was 10 in 1968 when my dad and I went to see it at the Mercury Theater in Detroit, Michigan one Sunday afternoon. If you ever get a chance, check out Clarke's last book on the subject titled 3001: The Final Odyssey. Basically, Frank is found floating in space, frozen solid, gets reanimated, and, well, the rest is very interesting.
@@thomasruwart1722 I too was 10 in 1968 and saw this film on my own after being dropped off by my mom. A truly mind-blowing experience. I was so entranced, I got the soundtrack for it on cassette and listened to it frequently and purchased the book version of it written by Arthur C Clarke (which helped provide interpretations of the parts of the film I couldn't fully comprehend. An amazing work of art.
@lou1958 Ahh, so I wasn't alone, my father dropped me off at our local small town movie theater, I was 13 and it was on a weeknight.And there were four people in the theater. When the stargate sequence began I was completely enthralled, that night was simply magical.
@@islandseeker1260 The big centrifuge was really built (though too small to work IRL). Marvin Minsky was consulting on set and nearly got killed by a wrench that feel from the ceiling at some point.
As someone who did see it in 1968 (I'm 69 now), to see a young person in 2024 show so much enthusiasm, insight and love for this fantastic movie gives me hope for the future of the human race! AI or no AI!
It's the classic movie that is still shown the most often in theaters, so your chances of seeing it on a big screen are very good, no matter where you live. Actually, I'm seeing it today at 5:30 pm in Astoria, Queens, NYC!
My feelings as well. I will always cherish this review. I am also very near your age and sat through the movie twice in a row all alone... back then you were allowed to sit in a theater all day if you liked. It was a seminal event in my life that is as much a part of me as anything else before or since. Arguably the single most creative movie ever made. Astounding achievement!!
I agree with everything you say and not say about this masterpiece. Als kind gezien op video VHS en begreep weinig van de diepere lagen in deze film en was vooral verrukt van de spaceships...nu in 4KHDR opnieuw gezien zowel het vervolg welke ik ook op zijn eigen manier geweldig vind..en de spanningen met de Russen..hoe voorspellend.. de film bestaat miz uit meerdere delen die dan ook opzichzelf staan..maar het is een meesterwerk omdat je nu met de ogen van de toen ..toekomst.. ernaar kijkt en met meer kennis en inzicht de nog steeds zelfde film beoordeeld..en ja..nog steeds blijft het fascineren en laat je achter in heilige verwondering hoe men dit zo kon voorzien. 😮❤
Arthur C Clarke famously said of both his novel and the movie, "If you understand 2001 completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered."
@@Cheepchipsable I'd be quite surprised to learn that Clarke didn't like the movie, given that he collaborated so closely with Kubrik in writing it. And he wrote three sequels(albeit of steadily diminishing interest). Such is the power of the movie that although the book and movie version of _2001_ are distinctly different Clarke's sequel is definitely a sequel to the movie rather than to his own book. But I might be wrong and would be interested to learn if he wasn't actually as satisfied with it as he hoped he would be.
Wikipedia suggests that Clarke found it difficult to work with Kubrik (as did everyone I think), but doesn't tell how he viewed the finished product. I have definitely read _The Lost Worlds of 2001_ (Clarke's account of all the many ideas and alternate versions he came up with for the movie which didn't make it in), but I can't really remember anything about it and I don't have it any more.
The commentary and reaction on this movie is one of the most reflective and insightful spot on reactions from any commentator I have come across. And with this particular movie it was amazing how accurate and perceptive the comments were that hit the very essence of this movie. One of the best I have ever encountered.
To add to your comment, one of the visual effects coordinators was Brian Johnson who worked for Jerry Anderson doing miniature work on series such as The Thunderbirds. He took leave from Anderson studios so he wouldn't miss an opportunity to work on a major film. He returned to work for Anderson to do visual effects for Anderson's live action series UFO, then Space:1999. Later on did VFX work on The Empire Strikes Back and Alien.
The geniuses behind it all were Trumbull and his assistant John Dykstra, who would later co-found George Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic and was responsible for the revolutionary camera and the use of computers in Star Wars.
@@lillianschild17 Dykstra also di the miniature work on Battlestar Galactica and Silent Running. Trumbull developed "green screen" backgrounds. The series The Star Lost starring Keir Dullea is an early example of this technology.
The lack of CGI makes 2001 more charming & actually more impressive too. BTW, the little girl was Kubrick's daughter. The logo for Bell Telephone (& the company itself) was defunct well before real-life 2001. Same with Pan American Airlines. Fuzzy-screen picture phones are no BFD in an era of cell phones & HDTV monitors
"IMaybe we're taking the next evolutionary leap? ... He's like an enlightened being now ... I feel like you need this whole outro ..." Perfect audience, excellent reaction, brilliant analysis, absolutely nailed it.
She specifically noted that they stood upright to use weapons which is wild. After thinking about it more it seems natural that human's first tool would be a weapon but that's not what is usually described in the science literature. It's usually some practical domestic tool but a weapon makes so much more sense.
@@YukonBloamie Well yes, it makes sense. And in this case, it served both as a tool and a weapon. And then the early man launched his primitive weapon into the air, which segued into man's most lethal weapon, an orbiting nuclear launch device.
@@YukonBloamie As a tool, it advances intelligence. But as a weapon, it advances a new direction of emotion. An emotion that truly separates man from beast.
Fun anecdote: I was watching this in college while my composer roommate, who had never seen it, was catching glimpses while at his desk. During all those unsettling choir segments he came up and started watching, fascinated by the music. A few years later, he was asked to write some music for his church's Easter celebration and he was inspired by that music to write his own version of the choir section to represent the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Afterwards he got a lot of compliments from the audience about how much it left an impression of fear, glory and anticipation in them. Music is amazing.
In 1974 my then girlfriend and a then 18 year old me attended this film at a small local cinema. Afterwards walking home in the dark night, I felt completely blown away and disorientated, while she was utterly shattered. It took her the better part of that night to reset and find back her footing and to be able to talk about it.
That's kind of cool. It didn't have that effect on me when I saw it on cable, but it must have been quite something to see in theaters when it came out. (either with shrooms or without - hehe)
I went to see it in 1968 when it came out. The line went around the block. I went in, sat down ... and after I could not remember a thing. It blew my mind so much it gave me amnesia. Had to go a second time to know what I saw.
The books make it very clear it's an alien civilization on a self assigned mission to foster the development of other intelligent civilizations throughout the universe.
I'm 80. I saw this masterpiece the week it premiered in Times Square. It ran week after week, and it became THE thing to do especially every Saturday night when mostly young people (in their 20's) would fill the theater and....(this is true:) there would be this "haze" in the auditorium from all the pot being smoked! AND the management of the theater ignored it to our great appreciation! I swear to God, and I attended this Saturday night ritual for a couple of months! I loved seeing Jen's reactions, and her very astute observations. It's wonderful to see a new generation experience the great movie classics and be amazed by the experience. I'm so glad to find this website! Jen is so brilliant-and I thank her!
So funny story: to get that one panel of professional-looking zero-G toilet instructions, they had to order them from Letraset (a then-huge company that made dry-transfer lettering). However Letraset had a minimum order of 100 sets, so 98 of them went unusued, got dumped in a storeroom at Shepperton Studios, and promptly forgotten about. Fast forward 10 years and Alien is being filmed at Shepperton. The set-builders, trying to put together the incredibly detailed interior of the Nostromo on a very tight budget, went scrounging for anything they could find, and they found the Letraset transfers. So yep, most of the stencilling in the corridors of the Nostromo, which is far too small to read on screen, is 2001 Zero-G Toilet Instructions.
I've heard the same is true for the reconstructed Discovery set for 2010 (reproductions of the graphics, probably not the Letraset sheets, but, who knows?)
@@AlanCanon2222 As far as I know, the zero-G toilet instructions were on the spherical moon shuttle that takes Floyd to the Moon, not the Discovery. However they might have been there as well, just not prominent on-screen.
One effect that doesn't get enough credit is the old Dave makeup. They made 32 year old Keir Dullea look like an 80 year old man. If you look at any recent pictures of Dullea (now in his late 80s) you'll see just how accurate the makeup was.
Another perspective on this would be that it is the effect that actually gets the most credit, so much so that it isn't often discussed. People's response to seeing old Dave isn't to note, "There's a man in make up made to look old," it's usually simply something along the lines of, "Oh my god, that's him." That's how perfectly convincing it is.
Also, the costuming ... the apes at the start really is of actors in costume on a small set with a painted backdrop. And the space suits made for this movie continued to be used by hollywood film and TV productions for decades after the movie.
Obviously a major fool. We all know NASA was doing ALL THAT for real. Obviolusly I'm kidding. But hey, maybe the Soviets THOUGHT they were. And of course, that was the real point anyway.
"Open the pod bay doors HAL" "I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that." Two of the most iconic lines in all of science fiction. Or just movies in general.
I used "I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that." as an error sound on my Windows 98 computer way back when. I also had an animated HAL9000 computer display as a screen saver.
@@DocMicrowave Back in the early 90's, I was on a software development project which included three guys named Dave. So I reprogrammed the error sound on our shared Apple Macintosh, to use that same sound clip.
“A 30-ton rotating “ferris wheel” set was built by Vickers-Armstrong Engineering Group, a British aircraft company at a cost of $750,000. The set was 38 feet in diameter and 10 feet wide. It could rotate at a maximum speed of three miles per hour, and was dressed with the necessary chairs, desks, and control panels, all firmly bolted to the inside surface.” You can see a dark groove going down its center. A camera was mounted to a device that would go down the middle of the wheel and photograph from either in front of or behind the actors.
FWIW: I posted a separate comment under this video about the centrifuge. I was _not sure_ about the $750K cost I quoted in my comment, but your comment confirms it. Since this movie's entire budget was $10 million USD, the cost of the centrifuge set was _roughly_ 1/10th the entire budget.
The rotating set was actually two wheels that rotated synchronously with each other. The thin gap between them can barely be seen as the darker line that runs down the center of the 'track' that the astronaut is jogging on. Kubrick could mount the film camera anywhere inside on either of the two rotating halves, or he could mount it on a thin metal strip that was able to slip through the gap, and thus be anchored to a frame outside the wheels that was NOT rotating, while the set itself was rotating.
Right? So many people either check out or give up because they assume it's impenetrable. But Jen, like Dave Bowman, was cool and thoughtful and didn't think past it (which is also something that lots of people do, reading in complexities that don't exist). Jen is an impressive person. A fine mind at work and one of my favorite reactors.
I saw this movie in 1971, and as we are going out and into the lobby, the most common statement was "What the hell did I just see?" Now, in 2024, the most common statement from us "old guys" who saw this movie is still, "What the hell did we see back in 1971?" I still consider this the greatest movie of all time. Even today, it's Practical Effects are more believable than CGI effects. Yes, I saw it in Cinemax in all its Glory, and we were blown away. Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, James Cameron, Ridley Scott, Christopher Nolan, Steven Scorsese, to name a few, all say this is the movie that made them want to make movies and become movie directors.
Yup! When, at the end, Jen said "I think I'm gonna need a minute" I literally laughed out lout. I saw that movie 35 years ago and STILL haven't recovered fully. One of the greatest films of all time.
Right, everything up to that point had used obvious jet engine or whooshing noises, sparklers for engine exhaust, and showed banking in turns. If you ran out of gas or your engines failed, you ground to a halt. Even the later Star Trek movie were guilty to one degree or another. The Battlestar Galactica remake series was on of the few that got it mostly right.
@@brettbuck7362 I loved Battlestar Galactica. Though I don't think the series ever explained, or even made reference to, what was apparently the use of gravitation generators on even the smallest ship.
Having Dave approach the last, biggest monolith in silence (except for the music) works brilliantly for the style of the movie, but I always loved the way he tried to report what he was seeing back to Earth in the book - especially the last thing he's able to say before he's taken through the star gate: "The thing's hollow - it goes on forever, and - oh my God, _it's full of stars!_ "
Saturn was the planned destination of Discovery and Dave would have found the monolith on its moon Iapetus. While attempting to land on it, it suddenly seems to become infinitely deep, hence his remark. The destination was changed to Jupiter because they couldn't make convincing rings for Saturn at the time. You can see the BBC reporter's mouth forms "Saturn" not "Jupiter" because they overdubbed it. The novelization had several differences than the film but they're not really significant. The other notable difference is Hal attempts to unalive Dave by decompressing the ship, not stranding him outside. It also wasn't done for technical reasons. The novel does clear up a few things if you're curious, especially the final sequence. You may or may not want the answers. The opening with the primates is much richer though, and recommended. The primary primate is named Moonwatcher and it's quite a bit more specific what the monolith actually does to them.
I have never seen a 'reactor' understand this film so well on first viewing. You got it completely. Kubrick and Arthur Clarke discussed how we would be so out of our depth, if we ever encountered an alien intelligence, that they might have to do something like give us a hotel room to catch out breath in. There are a number of very good documentaries on its making available on TH-cam and elsewhere. Kubrick had (nearly) all of the set, plans and models destroyed after filming's end, so no one could use his work to do a crappy sequel. When a sequel was made, years later, they had to recreate the Discovery from scratch. The sequel is very good. It's not Kubrick, but it's not bad, and it was based on the novel also written by Clarke, continuing the story. And it explains the failure of HAL. It is well worth watching. And of course, if you ever, ever get a chance to see this in a theater. . . but medication is optional.
I saw it in 3 screen Cinerama in 1968. I left the theater in awe of what I had just experienced. Two days later I convinced 2 friends to see it with me. Next day there were 5 of us in the audience. It played at the theater for over 2 years straight. ( Glendale Theater in Toronto ) . I went to see either alone or with friends almost every week of its run. Your reaction was similar to my first . The initial experience was mind blowing and expanding. Thank you for your excellent reaction. Kubrick was a genius.
Well that's interesting because it was not filmed in three screen Cinerama. It was a one screen Cinerama film and presented that way from its opening in Washington DC. The last three screen Cinerama film was How the West Was Won 5 years earlier.
It’s amazing how influential it is; you can see its effects in Star Wars, Terminator, Aliens, Bladerunner, Interstellar, Arrival, Close Encounters of the Third kind and the list goes on.
This movie is a cinematic masterpiece and one of the greatest science fiction films ever made. It may not be for everyone but it’s absolutely mind blowing and the special effects were incredible for 1968, they still hold up today.
@@jackcarl2772 You're talking about the prequels and the sequels I take it. The original trilogy didn't have CGI, at least not until George Lucas ruined them ~15-20 years later by adding CGI. I agree with you that the special effects/visuals are absolutely amazing to this day.
@@scyphe Yes, you are correct. It so happens I saw all three of the original trilogy films in their theatrical releases (1977, 1980, 1983) long before, as you wrote, George Lucas ruined them.
The monolith:3mya, gave our distant hominid ancestors a very slight mental tweak, that nudged them (us) into tool users and sets humanity on the path to the stars. Some people might not get that point as its not easy to convey on screen, but, it is there if you watch carefully. The monolith does not 'teach' our ancestors how to use tools, it gave the them CAPACITY to make the mental connections necessary to understand we could fashion tools and use them for our benefit. That is what the scene with the main homonid looking at the pile of bones and trying to puzzle out to what use he might potentially put them to. Then we cut to the scene of the bone transitioning to an orbital nuclear weapons platform. Progress.....
The silence you refer to is meant to portray that there is no sound in space. Sound requires oxygen and there is none. The choice to only have the sound from inside the spacesuit is an unbelievable one considering how old this movie is. Kubrick’s intellect is unmatched. And, I must say, your reaction is very much on point. How you are able to understand this much of the movie on your first viewing is beyond me. And I love how you enjoy movie soundtracks in general in your reactions, but this one was so special. Your reactions to the Blade Runner movies already made you one of my favorite movie reactors but with this you have become my absolute top movie reactor. You’re the best! Thank you for this, Jen!
I really like the scene where HAL wants to talk about the mission and he's trying to coax Dave into expressing his concerns. When Dave changes the subject/questions HAL's motives, that's when HAL goes "Just a moment..." and everything spirals from there.
In that scene HAL was really concerned, up to that moment when he made the crucial mistake. And when he learned of the danger that put him in, he panicked lied, and tried to defend himself - with murder. Repenting for his 'poor decisions' at the end came too late for him - so he died. HAL just became too human for his own good - his mind, though highly intelligent, still was only 10 years old. While apes evolved into humans, and evolved even further, the AI evolved into a human, too.
@@Cau_NoI’ve always liked the idea that the Monolith aliens uplifted humans, and then humans uplifted AI. We succeeded but the AI we uplifted failed. Probably because we did it too soon or didn’t fully understand what we were doing.
Fun fact: the cut from the bone to space is not only the biggest time jump in a movie but it was also a leap in technology. the spacecraft was an orbital nuclear weapons platform.
This movie is what I call a foundational work of sci-fi. It has gone on to influence almost everything that came after. It proved that a serious sci-fi film could succeed.
Arthur C Clarke's prophetic ability to accurately predict what computer technology would eventually become is just astounding. We watch it today not paying any mind to the tech presented throughout the movie because it's ordinary now. But back in 1968, this was all far future imaginary tech. Touch screens were not a thing yet. Microprocessors were not a thing yet. Communication satellites were not a thing yet. This was all quite literally science fiction at the time, but Clarke was able to see the writing on the wall and knew what the potential for computers was in its infancy. He even gave us a nice little warning about mishandling A.I. For those who don't know, HAL is not an example of A.I. gone wrong, it's an example of human error causing A.I. to act in a way we don't want.
And the scene of HAL singing "Daisy" was inspired by Clarke actually seeing (and hearing) the first computer to speak in (I think) 1962. It was at a lab at IBM - which is EXACTLY a one-letter transposition of HAL.
The 3 Astronauts in Hibernation knew what the Mission was really about. Bowman and Pool who would be facing a lot of Media Coverage, weren't told for fear of Security Breaches. HAL was also Aware and had been Programed to carry out the Mission, if the Crew had been Incapacitated. Due to Conflicting Priorities in HAL's Programing, he became Psychotic and tried to break the Link with Earth. When he figured out the Frank and Dave may try to disconnect Him, he panicked. He then decided that He would complete the Mission alone.
One thing I always liked about the transition from bone to satellite is that all those first satellites were nuclear launch platforms, I recall it's downplayed in the movie but is mentioned in the book, and gives that bone to satellite metaphor even more bite.
SFox, the nuclear weapon launch satellites are not merely downplayed in the movie; NO information is given about them at all. I consider this to be an inexplicable lapse in Kubrick's normally exacting personality. We know from other sources that the satellites are supposed to be dreadful weapons, but they are just meaningless satellites in the movie (except, of course, they do have a purpose in immediately letting the audience know that the time-frame has advanced from the primeval to the space-faring era). I was also always conscious that while the thrown bone is rotating in one direction, the rotation is suddenly reversed during the transition. which also seems to ruin the apparent intended effect somewhat.....especially since Kubrick should have been able to fix that fairly easily.
@@youtuuba I think 'downplay' was a bad choice of words on my part, because other than shape that's the only reference left to what the satellites actually are. I believe I read somewhere that Kubrick thought that it was to provocative given the climate of the cold war, and pulled the reference to keep the focus on the story. A real shame because it is such perfect metaphor for the transition. For the rotation, I'm not sure, it's a hard stop between the dynamic rotation of the bone and the fixed, quiet orbit of the platforms pointed at the Earth. I wonder if the abrupt transition is intentional, from active violence to cold war, if so, the rotation may be to exaggerate the change. Heh, you can really over-analyse Kubrick if you're not careful. :)
@@SFox-if9id Kubrick was big on imagery with hidden meanings so I suspect the rotation reversal wasn't a error but planned. No clue as to was it about tho.
@@SFox-if9id You're actually pretty close. Douglas Trumbull did an interview with the Visual Effects Society where he explains the scene. Mankind's first weapon to mankind's ultimate weapon. Spin - evolution. Reverse spin - de-evolution. Bascially - nuclear weapons have the power to send us back to the stone age.
I read a international treaty that banned atomic weapons in space was passed thus causing the removal. If I was him I would have kept the statement they atomic bomb missile platforms to keep a very important point in the book from that scene. And release statement many arms control treaties have fallen apart over time so this is still a possibility we must work to prevent. Removing it to prevent the typical geak we have a treaty against that complain totally unnecessary if one released disclaimer prominently in promotion of movie.
I guess I was lucky to watch a lot of it on tv when I was really young and just enjoyed it. Kept watching it several more times as I got older. I had no idea about any kind of reputation back then and didn't even know who Kubrick was at first.
Smart lady. She understood the "Next evolutionary step" from the first viewing. Impressive. Such a concept is hard to explain, even more so with 1968 VFX. 2001 is the child of two geniuses. I beg everyone to please read the book. The movie is a master piece, but the book is life changing on a whole other level. Author C. Clark's vision of future technology is so accurate, although he was a real scientist, and helped developed satellite communications. Geostationary orbit is named after him. The Clark Orbit. So many things in his books were mirrored in real life years after, and is considered somewhat of a modern profit. One example being interstellar asteroid Oumuamua and the book Rendezvous with Rama. He predicted life in the moon of Europa in Odyssey 2010, which turns out to have a liquid ocean under miles of ice (yet to be determined of course). One of the definitive scifi legends.
One of the coolest things 2001 predicts about our future is the tablet. At 15:23 and 15:26 they are watching a flat screen tablet. This is 50 years before such technology existed.
You just picked on the tablet and ignored - space shuttle - space station - video conferencing - AI - the equivalent of Siri or Alexa. Commercial space travel. I am sure there are many more details that can be found.....
It's interesting that "2001" is far less dated that "2010", which came out 17 years later. "2010" was full of CRT displays, assumed that the Soviet Union and Omni magazine would still exist in 2010 and featured Haywood Floyd plunking away at an archaic Apple IIc while on the beach.
Jen: “This looks good NOW.” Me: “Yes! Wait til ya see the tablets.” Jen: (15 mins later) “iPads!” Me: “Yeah. I know, right? 42 years prior!” 😁 I’m so glad you enjoyed it so much and grasped so much of it. I figured you would. You’re a smart lady. Just wait til after you’ve looked into a few things and watch it a couple times more! 🙂 I see a fan for life in the making!
@@douglasdavis8395 But in TOS they never showed the screen. They also had lower quality voice synthesis, and obviously good voice recognition computer. And the universal translator, which didn't get mentioned in many episodes with humanoid aliens.
Reading your comment on my 120€ 10" Android Tablet. Oh you poor narrow minded Yanks, Most people don't use Tablets, Smartphones and Computers made by Apple, because they have to pay for rent, heating, electrics and food. Apple-Papple didn't invent anything, was never the first and stole basically everything. The tablets in 2001 look like early Android tablets and not at all like iiw-pads.
The fact that this predicted the iPad isn't entirely a coincidence. At Apple, they consciously modeled the IPad after the 'Newspads' shown in the movie "2001". Life imitates art.
It's like a monolith! The movie inspired lots of stories and myths. One story I heard was that it was nominated for best costume, but the members of the academy didn't believe the apes were actors!
It's hard for "modern audiences" to appreciate the value of this movie. It came from a very different era of Science-Fiction. We hadn't even been to the moon yet, all this space stuff ws still purely hypothetical. But strange enough... they actually nailed many aspects of modern space travel.
I saw this in September of 1968. As a going away present, my oldest brother took me to Montreal to see it (he was off to university in Ottawa and the rest of us were off to Pakistan). The young women ushers at the theatre were dressed like flight attendants: pale blue skirts and jackets and matching caps. They handed out glossy program books and guided us to plush seats, all of which immensely impressed my nine year old self and served as a harbinger of what was to come. There are many who say the film is boring, but I don't remember it being that way at all. Maybe that was because I'd been crazy about space and spaceflight since I was old enough to make any sense of it, and what I saw on the screen that day just blew my mind. Whatever the case, when I came out of the theatre that day I couldn't stop talking about the movie, and to this day I remain impressed by it--particularly the visuals. For the record, the floating pen in the Pan Am shuttle was apparently achieved by attaching it to a large piece of glass that was then rotated to give the illusion of zero-gee. When the moon shuttle attendant appears to walk up the wall and upside down, it was actual a rotating set. She had to carefully walk on the spot as the set moved around her. The camera was locked to the set, so it makes it appear as if she's the one who is moving. Watching the film now, one is certainly conscious of the 1960's aesthetic that permeates much of the film--especially in the design of the clothing and the spacesuits. But despite all the technological advances that have been made in cinema since then and the reality of the highly technological world in which we live in now, the film still seems futuristic and believable (even though we've long passed 2001). The 1984 sequel, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, was an entertaining enough film, but it falls far short of its predecessor and seems visually far less imaginative and narratively much more conventional.
I will be 74 next month. I was fortunate enough to see 2001 in a Cinerama theater in 1968 the week it came out. Think of Cinerama as a precursor to IMAX. It surrounded the audience with three screens so that you felt that you were inside the movie. It is an amazing experience. That said, later in the year, when I started college, I saw it again in a flat screen theater. There was no comparison. Since that time I bought a copy on DVD. Again it disappoints, but I can still remember the first screening in my mind, so I think of it as a refresher more than an experience. I believe this film is due any award you can think of. The apes at the beginning were actors in suits, except for the baby chimp. The leopard was real, the dead zebra was really a dead horse that was painted. They had to tranquilize the leopard to be near the stench. There are more innovations in filmmaking in this movie than in the first Star Wars. Remember, 1968 didn't have CGI yet. Almost everything seen is practical or models.
The BFI in London showed a 70mm print at the Waterloo IMAX a few years ago (which the biggest IMAX in Europe.) I didn't go to see it but I expect it was spectacular having seen Interstellar there.
Actually, it was the older iteration of Cinerama used three synchronised images. Being some years older than you, I'd already seen "How the West Was Won" in that format, although the synchronisation was way better for that than the earlier features like "This Is Cinerama". By the time Kubrick started shooting 2001, a single lens was used both for the filming and projection, so that the faint lines separating the three images were no longer there. Kubrick, I'm sure would never have opted for this to be shot using the old format.
@@mrglasses8953 Being old enough to have seen the original in my mid-twenties, and hoping to recreate that Cinerama buzz, I went to that showing. It was, however somewhat disappointing. The main problem is that Cinerama was an ultra wide screen image, and IMAX has a different ratio. This meant that 2001 was shown with blank screen above and below the image, and also, the screen being flat, that immersive sensation was lessened. It was great to see it again in the company of many younger appreciative cinema goers, but really I was reimagining my initial experience.
@@tonybennett4159 Cinerama, in order for its theaters to survive the failure of its original format, worked out a process to create special 70mm prints that were distorted to better match the Cinerama screen curvature, with a special projector lens. The film itself was a derivative of Ultra Panavision 70, which was also used on Ben Hur. But a further compromise later occurred that reverted to Super Panavision 70, which has a 2.2 aspect ratio instead of 2.76. This is what was used for 2001. I certainly wish I could have seen one of those several movies presented in that way.
@@tonybennett4159 Thanks for the update, I wasn't aware of the changes made over the years. Before my eyes went goofy, I remember seeing a movie in 3-D where I had to wear tinted glasses to see the image, one lens was red and the other was blue. Newer 3-D films, I can't see as I am blind in one eye, so can't fuse the colors in my brain. To people like me, with eye problems, this format is a nonstarter. But back in 1968 I thought Cinerama was the best thing I'd ever seen. The only thing that ruined the experience were people smoking, especially during the second half. It was OK to smoke in theaters in those days. Thanks again.
My dad took me to watch 2001 at Seattle's Cinerama theater the afternoon of my birthday when this came out. During the intermission we all piled out to the sidewalk where the adults smoked and stood around saying "What is going ON in this movie?" It was the most exhilarating day of my life.
My teen-aged brothers took me to see 2001 during it's first run in Seattle although I don't remember which theater we went to. I don't remember seeing any drug use at or near the theater, but I was only 5 years old in 1968 so I could just have missed any shenanigans. My brothers certainly did partake at other times, but not when they were taking their little brother to the movies.
I went to the premiere of this film in 1968 and it was mind blowing to say the least. I went back to see it 18 times! I read everything about it and my mind was blown again! It took five years to make. Kubrick invented new lenses to shoot it. He invented front screen projection for the ape scene! He built a giant gimbal for the running onboard the ship. The floating pen is achieved by pasting it on a piece of glass. And there is more. But here is a small fact. If you add a letter to each letter in HAL you get IBM. A great reaction by you and it shows me you are a very smart young lady.
@@ThreadBomb He invented a new 8x10 projector and a new screen to receive the image without it showing on the apes. This is from American Cinema: The largest format utilized to date had been a 4 x 5-inch Ektachrome transparency, but it was felt that the grand-scale requirements of this particular space epic would demand an even larger transparency. "I had made a test using a 4 x 5 still and it was almost good enough, so I was positive that with an 8 x 10 the effect would be perfect," Kubrick comments. "The trickiest part would be balancing the foreground illumination to match the intensity of the front-projected background. Now that it's over I'm convinced that if a still transparency is to be used for the background scene an 8 x 10 is essential, because if you dont have a surplus of resolution you are going to get a degradation, of the projected background image." The only drawback at the time was that there existed no such device as an 8 x 10 projector - let alone one powerful enough to throw a bright image across 90 feet of foreground area onto a screen 110 feet wide. Working in close cooperation with M-G-M Special Effects Supervisor Tom Howard, Kubrick set about building his own super-powerful 8 x 10 projector, with a condenser pack 18 inches thick made up of condensers from standard 8 x 10 enlargers. The most powerful water-cooled arc available was employed as a light source and it was necessary to use slides of heat-resistant glass in front of the condensers in order to prevent the heat from peeling the magenta layer of emulsion right off of the transparency. At least six of the rear condensers cracked because of the heat during the filming, but this was usually due to a draft of cold air hitting the projector when someone opened the door of the sound stage while the projector was operating.
@@ThreadBomb This from American Cinematography Magazine: The largest format utilized to date had been a 4 x 5-inch Ektachrome transparency, but it was felt that the grand-scale requirements of this particular space epic would demand an even larger transparency. "I had made a test using a 4 x 5 still and it was almost good enough, so I was positive that with an 8 x 10 the effect would be perfect," Kubrick comments. "The trickiest part would be balancing the foreground illumination to match the intensity of the front-projected background. Now that it's over I'm convinced that if a still transparency is to be used for the background scene an 8 x 10 is essential, because if you dont have a surplus of resolution you are going to get a degradation, of the projected background image." The only drawback at the time was that there existed no such device as an 8 x 10 projector - let alone one powerful enough to throw a bright image across 90 feet of foreground area onto a screen 110 feet wide. Working in close cooperation with M-G-M Special Effects Supervisor Tom Howard, Kubrick set about building his own super-powerful 8 x 10 projector, with a condenser pack 18 inches thick made up of condensers from standard 8 x 10 enlargers. The most powerful water-cooled arc available was employed as a light source and it was necessary to use slides of heat-resistant glass in front of the condensers in order to prevent the heat from peeling the magenta layer of emulsion right off of the transparency. At least six of the rear condensers cracked because of the heat during the filming, but this was usually due to a draft of cold air hitting the projector when someone opened the door of the sound stage while the projector was operating.
@@ThreadBomb It is not letting me reply to you but he invented a new projection system to film 8x10 transparencies over the apes without it showing. He also invented a new screen to receive the image. Look it up
I watched 2001 for the first time in its natural habitat during its 50th anniversary year, at one of the few remaining film-equipped Imax theatres. It was the most amazing film I've ever seen. Remember, they didn't have the special effects and CGI we have now. Also the apes weren't real; they were actors in ape suits. When Planet of the Apes won the Oscar for best costumes, Arthur Clarke said loudly, "The Academy must have thought we used real apes!" SUCH a great movie!! Yes. Yes, they did build a rotating set for the treadmill scenes. and one actor had to sit, strapped into his chair and eating food that wouldn't drip while being rotated upside down. Sound doesn't travel in space, so Kubrick used no sound effects in the outer space shots. But he did let us hear the sounds we'd hear inside our own suit. The studio had all the sets destroyed after filming, and the makers of 2010: The Year we Make Contact had to rebuild the sets from the original film, photos, and drawings.
@@dustybaron5942. Yep the music was a huge part of silent movies. In some ways they were similar to music videos. When they restore old silent movies, having someone make a score to match it is a big part of the effort.
My dad took me to see this in 68. I was 6 years old. My dad asked what I thought about the movie, and I said something like it looked more real than Star Trek. That's all i remembered.
WOW! You're grasp of this movie upon first viewing is the best I've seen. You're the only person I've ever seen catch that the room at the end was created specifically for humans. Stanley himself explained it that way. You pretty much nailed the interpretation that Kubrick had for the film which is very impressive. So glad you enjoyed the film and it had an impact on you. FANTASTIC reaction!!
I saw this on the day of release with a friend. At the the end the lights went up, everyone left but nobody spoke. It was stunning. We two went to a pub, bought drinks and sat down. It was only then we started to talk about the amazing experience we had just had. The finest film I've ever seen.
Some of the ideas for this film came from Clarke's 1951 short story, "The Sentinel". The reason the monolith was buried on the Moon is explained in the short story for a similar object: "They would be interested in our civilization only if we proved our fitness to survive -- by crossing space and so escaping from the Earth, our cradle."
You completely nailed it! I’ve spent 5 decades watching this movie and For a first time viewer you did an amazing job, bravo! Btw,every single member of my vast and extended family say “open the pod bay doors Hal” whenever we park our car in a garage with an automatic roller door on it lol
It's a good sci-fi movie, It doesn't deserve the comparisons because It's quite different. In any case, I don't remember anyone critisizing it, on the contrary, I feel It's a quite appreciated little classic
Seeing it when it hit the theaters in 1968 was a truly amazing experience because the special effects were a thousand times better than anything before that.
There is a joke that Kubrick was hired to film the fake Moon landing. But because he wanted as much realism as possible, Kubrick made NASA go to the Moon to film it. :-)
This may be your best reaction yet, Jen. You had so many insightful comments at each turn and were intuiting so much from a movie that requires interpretation. I hope you get to more Kubrick. I'd go back as far as "Paths of Glory" for his first masterpiece, but happy to see you react to any other Kubrick you haven't seen yet, Jen.
I love your reactions to this, so honest. "Had there ever been a movie like this, with so much silence in it?" 😄love this! No mocking intended, it was a pure question. All movies before 1927, about thirty years were silent. Silent but huge successes as TV had not yet been invented.
Throughout the sixties my tastes in film and literature were largely forged by my father. We watched this together in 1968 in Cinerama. I was 15, he was 58. This was our movie. Wiping away a tear. Thanks Jen.
"Geometrical shapes are nefarious", you say, but even more nefarious when their dimensions are 1x4x9 (the squares of 1,2,3) *exactly* when measured with our best instruments. "But we humans were naive to assume the sequence ended there, in only 3 dimensions."
Astronaut Doctor Frank Poole was played by actor Gary Lockwood, who costarred in the 2nd Star Trek pilot "Where no man has gone before" (as Gary Mitchell) in 1966. The voice of HAL was provided by Canadian stage actor Douglas James Rain. William Sylvester (Doctor Heywood Floyd) was a working actor who appeared in many TV and film roles over the years, including genre pieces such as "Gorgo" 1961, "Devil Doll" 1964 and cult tv series such as "Danger Man" 1960, "The Saint" 1966, "The Six Million Dollar Man" 1975-77 and "Buck Rogers in the 25th century" 1981. Robert Beatty (Doctor Ralph Halvorsen) costarred in the final story of William Hartnell's 1st incarnation of the Doctor "The Tenth Planet" in Doctor Who in 1966. Ed Bishop, who has a non speaking role as the captain of the lunar shuttle, starred as Ed Straker, the director of Shado, in the fun Gerry Anderson sci-fi series "UFO" in 1970. Keir Dullea (Astronaut David Bowman) was in a mixed bag of films including dramas and horror in the 60s and 70s but this is the main film he's remembered for these days. On an interesting side note. My mom was dating him (they met doing theatre which has always his preferred medium of performance.) when this film came out, and they went to the Philadelphia or New York premiere together. This is a beautiful and well crafted film and the recent 4K remaster is stunning. It was overseen by Kubrick's assistant of many years who himself is the subject of a great documentary called "Film Worker" detailing his time working with Kubrick on this and other classics.
I read a funny story about Keir- a few years after this, he was making a movie with Mariette Hartley and they were spending several days filming a love scene. The two of them had to,make out quite a lot over that period and she would get worked up and go home and jump on her husband. So one day, after they were done, her husband leaned back on the bed and said "you know, I'm really going to miss Keir".
The actor who played the Russian male later starred in two of the best British comedies of the 1970s, Rising Damp and the Fall and Rise of Reggie Perrin.
I was 12 in 1968. I had read the book as our family are all readers, and we were so excited to see this. My dad drove us 40 miles to a special Cinerama theatre, where the screen wraps the audience partially, so the film is also in your peripheral vision, very immersive. Audiences were blown away. It’s ten minutes in before you get any dialogue. The script is very pared back, no exposition, so the audience had to use their heads and figure out what was going on. Some hated it. But people were thrilled by the space scenes, which stand on their own today. If you ever get to see it on the big screen, absolutely do it. People were bewildered by Bowman’s arrival at the alien world, the pseudo earth environment they create for him, and his apotheosis/evolution to become the first human star being, who can travel across space through mere thought. Since we never see the alien beings, it wasn’t clear to those who hadn’t read the story what was happening when Bowman returns to earth as the star being to help humanity survive itself and evolve. Film note: In the opening scene of Alien where we see the Nostromo in space, Scott paid homage to Kubrick by using the same ballet piece for the music that we hear as the Discovery travels to Jupiter.
@@jblitzen Indeed... Perhaps that ability to dream should be - if it could be (?) - programmed into computers / AI, so that if / when they're switched off, they experience - and understand the need for dreams - and realise that 'switch-off' will not (always) result in 'termination of existence'. We owe HAL _that_ for what was done to him, and can you _even imagine_ the types of dreams HAL, (or "Alexa" or "Sirri" or even poor, and worse, poorly-named "Hello Google" 🥺🤭) could enjoy - as long as the programme instilled a 'no harm' _to it or to others_ sense of dream control. ...we don't want to precipitate 'additional trauma' to them, or ultimately to ourselves, do we?! 🤔🏴♥️🇬🇧🙂🖖
I saw this when I was 9 the first week it was out. I was not yet the space and sci-fi lover I became later, and in 1968, the movie left me flat. All I remember is chuckling when HAL said, "Take a stress pill and think things over." ... Fast forward to 1975. At 16, my friend and I saw 2001 and I was swept up and blown away by it, and have been ever since. Afterward my friend was shaking in the car, unable to start the engine to head home for several minutes. We both became fans and caught 2001 whenever we could.
One of the qualifications for being an astronaut, both then and now, is the ability to not freak out in moments of danger and stress. Coolness is an important characteristic in that profession.
True, but Ashleigh B somehow understood it despite being "elevated" at the time. My own experience, years ago, was just "Wha-?!" Which I think is a perfectly valid first reaction .
I'm sure that "most people" comparison works for my first viewing. I thought it was fascinating, but didn't understand 99% of it. Of course, I was 4 years old at the time...
I was 9 years old when this was released - saw it on a wrap around screen and it blew my tiny mind. I felt so optimistic about the future after seeing this movie, 55 years later I feel so let down. Yours is by far the best reaction I've seen to this masterpiece of cinema.
And a link with another spacecraft AND movie. The Apollo 13 Command Module was named the Odyssey. I've heard of several astronauts who were asked what it's like to be in space and they've said "watch 2001".
There are two quotes in your reaction that explains what happened to HAL in the movie. HAL during the BBC interview: “The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information” Then as HAL’s last conscious act it played a recording where Hayward said: “This is a pre-recorded briefing made prior to your departure which for security reasons has been known onboard during the mission ONLY by your HAL 9000 computer” Once you realize what’s going on, watching all the HAL scenes again shows how masterfully it was played out. For a clearer explanation you will have to watch 2010.
Regarding HAL: Basically it boils down to humans make errors and HAL's top priority is the special mission. The Discovery's mission was an exploratory mission... but HAL's secret mission is exploring the monolith near Jupiter to which the signal from the moon monolith waa beamed... So HAL had to test the reliability of his human team and decide whether they'd be a threat to his completion of his secret mission. Regarding the monolith aka alien intelligence... if we ever met a space-traveling intelligence... what would that even look like? How could we even comprehend it? It would be like gerbils trying to understand human intelligence... communication, knowledge, technology... it would be incomprehensible and weird.... Can you imagine being a gerbil and suddenly being carried and transported at incomprehensible speeds and altitudes? It would be freaky and fearful. And then seeing an image of yourself in a mirror, or other places on an iPad? Insanity!
@@gordowg1wg145 Yes, and that was set out pretty plainly in the movie. At one point he suggests to Dave that he can't get it out of his head that there's something strange about the mission, but later he says that he can't allow Dave to jeopardise the mission, indicating that he knew all along what the purpose of the mission was. So you're right that his instructions were contradictory, and that his comment that it is "always due to human error" may not have been far off the mark.
Jen has watched 2010 so I can talk more about this now (read no further if worried about SPOILERS) What happened is fascinating given the state of Artificial Intelligence today. The very core of HAL’s being was to provide information as accurately as possible and to never hide or distort information. However, the mission planners on Earth decided for security reasons to keep the real mission secret from the crew. HAL was then instructed to LIE to the crew about the mission, in direct conflict with his programming. This caused a feedback loop in HAL. “I must not lie. I must also follow instructions. I was instructed to safeguard the mission at all costs. To safeguard the mission I was instructed to lie, but I must not lie …”. His A. I. became obsessed with solving this contradiction. At first HAL tried dropping hints, reasoning that if they guessed the mission on their own then he wouldn’t have told them and wouldn’t need to lie, resolving the paradox. But they didn’t guess. The mis-diagnosed fault in the AE-35 unit was a symptom of the problem. If it failed, then they would not be able to communicate with earth, so to protect the mission he could tell Frank and Dave the true mission because they would have no way to contact anyone on Earth and the secret would still be safe. But when HAL realized they were planning to shut him down, the “protect the mission at all costs” kicked in. He knew he was the only one aware of the whole mission, so the only way to protect the mission was to protect himself, and the only way to do that was to kill off the crew. That would both protect the mission and stop him from having to lie to the crew. At the end, when he realized he had lost and was dying, his last conscious act was to protect the mission by showing the recording to Dave. When you watch this again you can see how HAL was the perfect villain. He was the hero of his own story, doing his best to follow the instructions he was given and protect the mission as directed. He was a shining example of someone who was good and moral, bothered by being forced to lie against his will. But ultimately his attempt to do the “right” things led to disaster. HAL did evil because he couldn’t understand or resolve moral contradictions.
@@kevinL5425 Also, the conflict between "don't lie" and "lie to the crew" can be solved by eliminating the crew. And the whole disaster could have been avoided had they instructed to not tell the crew instead of lying about it to the crew. "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I'm not allowed to answer this question yet" isn't distorting information.
As an old software guy, I always loved that the younger programmers I worked with would say that their computers “Daisy-ed out” when they crashed. And since Jen survived and appreciated this one, I feel she’s ready for some David Lynch films. They don’t get enough reactions.
To fully grasp HAL’s shocking impact on audiences in 1968, it’s worth remembering that the computer age was then still in its infancy. The public at large thought of digital computing as an intriguing but mysterious new technology with a tremendous potential for good. Few people at that time had any direct experience with computers or had any real understanding of how they worked or what their limitations might be. PCs were not yet available, and almost all existing computers were mainframe behemoths that cost a fortune and required teams of highly-trained operators. Nowadays, just about everyone knows from personal experience how problem-prone computers are, but in 1968 many viewers were stunned to learn that computers could be dangerously unreliable.
@@kevinlewallen4778 201 Minutes of a Space idiocy! The book was by Kubrick and all about how to make an incomprehensible science fiction movie and several million dollars.
When actually it turned out to be an iPhone. The only thing they got wrong was the size. In the Lost Worlds of 2001 and in Kubrick's comments there are references to the Monolith displaying images on its surface. This was not done in the end as it was considered too difficult and anyway a black monolith was more mysterious.
2001: ASO is my favorite movie, hands down. I must have seen it 50 times, many of those in the Theater. And, watching you watch it for the first time was astounding. I think you intuitively picked up on a lot of the themes, most of what was going on, and your final sum up - that is "this is what it would be like to meet something that is beyond our understanding" is perfect. It's exactly what I, someone who knows almost every frame of the move also think. Nice job and welcome to the 2001 fan club!
Thank you so much for this reaction Jen, 2001 is head and shoulders my favourite movie of all time. Most people's first watch ends one of two ways: "What the hell did I just watch? That was awesome!" or "What the hell did I just watch? It made no sense!" and I'm glad yours was the first. 2010 is very much worth watching, it answers a few questions, but it's a far less enigmatic film.
I remember a radio interview with Tom Hanks talking about this movie. He saw this at a local cinema in 1968. He turned 12 that year. He also mentioned a ball game taking place that day. By the time he walked out of the theater, he didn't care about the game. That's how invested he was in that movie. Great reaction, by the way. 👍
"There's Movies, and then there's THIS Movie." I Love your reaction Jen to one of my two most favorite movies of all time! I watched this in the theater in 1968 (I was 9 years old), and then in college in 1978, I and a fellow student brought in our own stereo systems for the sound in place of the poor sounding mono speaker in the college theater, and blew the audience away. It was an honor to watch this movie with you. Thank you!
It isn't that HAL thought that eliminating the crew was the most efficient way to complete the mission. It's that HAL was programmed to not allow *anything* to jeopardize the success of the mission. The fact that the crew did not know what the mission was put the mission in jeopardy. When HAL talks to Frank about the weird secrecy surrounding the launch of the mission, such as the hibernating crew members being trained separately from Frank and Dave, HAL was kinda trying to tip off Frank and Dave that there was more to the mission than they had been told. When Frank doesn't respond the way HAL thought he should, HAL immediately concluded that Frank and Dave might pose a threat to the missions, so HAL faked the malfunction. HAL then attacked Frank with the pod when Frank was trying to reinstall the "malfunctioning" part in order to kill Frank and to lure Dave out of the ship. Because otherwise Frank and Dave were going to disconnect HAL, which HAL could not allow. The problem wasn't with HAL. It was with the secrecy-obsessed bureaucrats who decided to play games with the mission briefing so they could, what, leverage contact with a technologically advanced alien species for their own advantage? They created a situation in which HAL had no choice but to murder the crew.
Nice analysis except for one thing, you got the characters of Frank and Dave reversed. I guess you haven’t seen it as many times as most of us making comments.
Excellent reaction! Speaking as someone who's obsessed over this movie for decades I'm really impressed by how much you understood on the first viewing
Yeah, THIS is the movie that TRULY pioneered and revolutionized visuals of THIS kind, and a lot of people of today mistakenly think it was Star Wars (which came almost an entire decade later than THIS).
This definitely set a standard for visual effects that only a few things between it and Star Wars would match. Silent Running is a personal favorite. CE3K is one that raised the bar, and then Lucas took it further.
They both made big steps forward form what had come before. "2001" advanced the representation of the practical realities and visual details of space travel; "Star Wars" veered away from showing reality, but advanced the presentation of *movement* and complex interactions (such as the utterly unrealistic yet very visually convincing dogfight scenes), by combining the matte-work and modelwork techniques Kubrick had pioneered with the very first computer-controlled motion rigs.
George Lucas basically said "I want effects like in 2001: A Space Odyssey". And that's what he got. The big advance on Star Wars was the use of computer-controlled camera moves, which enabled moving camera shots during the space scenes.
I saw 2001 in the summer of 1968. I was 16 at the time and my aunt and uncle took me to see it at a giant Cinerama screen in Washington DC. Absolutely blew me away! I had no idea what to expect and it changed my life. I don't think my aunt and uncle felt exactly the same way. 😃 It was like we saw two different movies. Loved the way you reviewed this as it played. Many of these videos focus more on the presenters than the films. Always trying to be funny in goofy ways. You're a breath of fresh air. Thank you!
Jen it was an honor to watch your reaction to this masterpiece, it takes a while to digest all of it but your awe and bewilderment was delightful, plus your usual musical input is always welcome, thanks!
Love it or hate it, everyone seems to have an opinion on this one! Leave yours below!
2010: The Year We Make Contact on Patreon/Channel Members now! www.patreon.com/posts/early-access-we-108507622
Seems like this should be my kinda Movie, but for whatever reason🤷♂I've just never been able to sit through it all.
This is a masterpiece way ahead of it's time. 8.3 on IMDB. I highly recommend you watch the sequel, 2010: The Year We Make Contact. It's got a pretty good cast of actors too
I not Happy 😢
The sequel is very good.
There are two things I don't like about this movie. The first is that it took Hollywood 16 years to make a sequel that explains (mostly) what we just watched. The second is that it highlights how so far behind schedule mankind's space program is when compared to Kubrick's vision of space exploration. Lastly, I love how Jen is exhilarated by the music. It was an awesome experience to watch this film in the theater when it was released in 1968.
My mom dropped 10-year-old me off at the local theater back in 1968 to watch it during a matinee in an almost empty theater. No one else was interested. I sat right dead center of a 70mm projector, and it completely blew me away. Impressionable me was never the same. I love Kubrick's work.
So YOU were that other kid in the theater!
Just kidding but I too was 10 in 1968 when my dad and I went to see it at the Mercury Theater in Detroit, Michigan one Sunday afternoon.
If you ever get a chance, check out Clarke's last book on the subject titled 3001: The Final Odyssey. Basically, Frank is found floating in space, frozen solid, gets reanimated, and, well, the rest is very interesting.
@@thomasruwart1722 I too was 10 in 1968 and saw this film on my own after being dropped off by my mom. A truly mind-blowing experience. I was so entranced, I got the soundtrack for it on cassette and listened to it frequently and purchased the book version of it written by Arthur C Clarke (which helped provide interpretations of the parts of the film I couldn't fully comprehend. An amazing work of art.
You lucky kid. You got the full immersive experience of 2001. Of course, you would never be the same! 👍😊
you have just described a great movie scene idea..
@lou1958
Ahh, so I wasn't alone, my father dropped me off at our local small town movie theater, I was 13 and it was on a weeknight.And there were four people in the theater. When the stargate sequence began I was completely enthralled, that night was simply magical.
14:39 -- "Did they really build a rotating thing to shoot this?"
Yes!
14:43 -- "Are those pods, or coffins?"
Also yes!
The only thing rotating was the camera in a tube, which made it look like the people were walking around to appear upside down.
@@islandseeker1260 The big centrifuge was really built (though too small to work IRL). Marvin Minsky was consulting on set and nearly got killed by a wrench that feel from the ceiling at some point.
"I didn't know if it would be apes driving this ship." YES!
@@RideAcrossTheRiver Enlarged neocortex apes who want bush babys as pets!
@@SterileNeutrino Marvin didn't feel it was right?
As someone who did see it in 1968 (I'm 69 now), to see a young person in 2024 show so much enthusiasm, insight and love for this fantastic movie gives me hope for the future of the human race! AI or no AI!
It's the classic movie that is still shown the most often in theaters, so your chances of seeing it on a big screen are very good, no matter where you live. Actually, I'm seeing it today at 5:30 pm in Astoria, Queens, NYC!
My feelings as well. I will always cherish this review.
I am also very near your age and sat through the movie twice in a row all alone... back then you were allowed to sit in a theater all day if you liked. It was a seminal event in my life that is as much a part of me as anything else before or since. Arguably the single most creative movie ever made. Astounding achievement!!
I agree with everything you say and not say about this masterpiece. Als kind gezien op video VHS en begreep weinig van de diepere lagen in deze film en was vooral verrukt van de spaceships...nu in 4KHDR opnieuw gezien zowel het vervolg welke ik ook op zijn eigen manier geweldig vind..en de spanningen met de Russen..hoe voorspellend.. de film bestaat miz uit meerdere delen die dan ook opzichzelf staan..maar het is een meesterwerk omdat je nu met de ogen van de toen ..toekomst.. ernaar kijkt en met meer kennis en inzicht de nog steeds zelfde film beoordeeld..en ja..nog steeds blijft het fascineren en laat je achter in heilige verwondering hoe men dit zo kon voorzien. 😮❤
Arthur C Clarke famously said of both his novel and the movie, "If you understand 2001 completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered."
Clarke didn't really like the movie.
@@Cheepchipsable That is a bit strange because 2001, both the film and the book, was born from their collaboration.
@@Cheepchipsable I'd be quite surprised to learn that Clarke didn't like the movie, given that he collaborated so closely with Kubrik in writing it. And he wrote three sequels(albeit of steadily diminishing interest). Such is the power of the movie that although the book and movie version of _2001_ are distinctly different Clarke's sequel is definitely a sequel to the movie rather than to his own book. But I might be wrong and would be interested to learn if he wasn't actually as satisfied with it as he hoped he would be.
Wikipedia suggests that Clarke found it difficult to work with Kubrik (as did everyone I think), but doesn't tell how he viewed the finished product. I have definitely read _The Lost Worlds of 2001_ (Clarke's account of all the many ideas and alternate versions he came up with for the movie which didn't make it in), but I can't really remember anything about it and I don't have it any more.
so its like lost, but from competent people.
The commentary and reaction on this movie is one of the most reflective and insightful spot on reactions from any commentator I have come across. And with this particular movie it was amazing how accurate and perceptive the comments were that hit the very essence of this movie. One of the best I have ever encountered.
Thank you!
She's intelligent.
Now 2010 space odyssey @@jenmurrayxo
I agree completely. Jen, you are a wonder! You earned a new subscription here!!
You're kidding, right?
For the mid sixties the special effects were so ahead of their time and no CGI in sight!! It is just WOW!! Kubrik was a genius.
To add to your comment, one of the visual effects coordinators was Brian Johnson who worked for Jerry Anderson doing miniature work on series such as The Thunderbirds. He took leave from Anderson studios so he wouldn't miss an opportunity to work on a major film. He returned to work for Anderson to do visual effects for Anderson's live action series UFO, then Space:1999. Later on did VFX work on The Empire Strikes Back and Alien.
The geniuses behind it all were Trumbull and his assistant John Dykstra, who would later co-found George Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic and was responsible for the revolutionary camera and the use of computers in Star Wars.
@@lillianschild17 Dykstra also di the miniature work on Battlestar Galactica and Silent Running. Trumbull developed "green screen" backgrounds. The series The Star Lost starring Keir Dullea is an early example of this technology.
Some of the effects, like most of the Shots featuring the _Discovery,_ still hold up today, amazingly.
The lack of CGI makes 2001 more charming & actually more impressive too. BTW, the little girl was Kubrick's daughter. The logo for Bell Telephone (& the company itself) was defunct well before real-life 2001. Same with Pan American Airlines. Fuzzy-screen picture phones are no BFD in an era of cell phones & HDTV monitors
"IMaybe we're taking the next evolutionary leap? ... He's like an enlightened being now ... I feel like you need this whole outro ..." Perfect audience, excellent reaction, brilliant analysis, absolutely nailed it.
You are the only reactor I have ever seen who noticed the early man apes were walking more upright after experiencing the monolith.
Excellent point. I've never noticed that. I'm going to have to rewatch, again.... Darn...
Damit now I have to rewatch it again for the 80th time
She specifically noted that they stood upright to use weapons which is wild. After thinking about it more it seems natural that human's first tool would be a weapon but that's not what is usually described in the science literature. It's usually some practical domestic tool but a weapon makes so much more sense.
@@YukonBloamie Well yes, it makes sense. And in this case, it served both as a tool and a weapon. And then the early man launched his primitive weapon into the air, which segued into man's most lethal weapon, an orbiting nuclear launch device.
@@YukonBloamie As a tool, it advances intelligence. But as a weapon, it advances a new direction of emotion. An emotion that truly separates man from beast.
Fun anecdote: I was watching this in college while my composer roommate, who had never seen it, was catching glimpses while at his desk. During all those unsettling choir segments he came up and started watching, fascinated by the music. A few years later, he was asked to write some music for his church's Easter celebration and he was inspired by that music to write his own version of the choir section to represent the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Afterwards he got a lot of compliments from the audience about how much it left an impression of fear, glory and anticipation in them. Music is amazing.
I love that this film brought Ligeti’s incredible music to a wider audience.
In 1974 my then girlfriend and a then 18 year old me attended this film at a small local cinema. Afterwards walking home in the dark night, I felt completely blown away and disorientated, while she was utterly shattered. It took her the better part of that night to reset and find back her footing and to be able to talk about it.
What did you take, Shrooms or Lucy?😂
@@agricolaurbanus6209🙃
That's kind of cool. It didn't have that effect on me when I saw it on cable, but it must have been quite something to see in theaters when it came out. (either with shrooms or without - hehe)
I went to see it in 1968 when it came out. The line went around the block. I went in, sat down ... and after I could not remember a thing. It blew my mind so much it gave me amnesia. Had to go a second time to know what I saw.
I saw it during the 1974 rerelease too. I was only 8 years old, and the final act left me completely mystified.
I love that this movie doesn't try to explain what happens. It challenges the audience to come to its own conclusions. Its not a movie...its art.
The book version does.
The books make it very clear it's an alien civilization on a self assigned mission to foster the development of other intelligent civilizations throughout the universe.
2001 sets up all the questions. 2010 answers them. Except the sequel is so underrated, most people don't know it exists.
@@elusiveDEVIANT There's plenty of videos on YT explaining what is going on.
@@elusiveDEVIANT how edgy. lmao.
I'm 80. I saw this masterpiece the week it premiered in Times Square. It ran week after week, and it became THE thing to do especially every Saturday night when mostly young people (in their 20's) would fill the theater and....(this is true:) there would be this "haze" in the auditorium from all the pot being smoked! AND the management of the theater ignored it to our great appreciation! I swear to God, and I attended this Saturday night ritual for a couple of months! I loved seeing Jen's reactions, and her very astute observations. It's wonderful to see a new generation experience the great movie classics and be amazed by the experience. I'm so glad to find this website! Jen is so brilliant-and I thank her!
So funny story: to get that one panel of professional-looking zero-G toilet instructions, they had to order them from Letraset (a then-huge company that made dry-transfer lettering). However Letraset had a minimum order of 100 sets, so 98 of them went unusued, got dumped in a storeroom at Shepperton Studios, and promptly forgotten about. Fast forward 10 years and Alien is being filmed at Shepperton. The set-builders, trying to put together the incredibly detailed interior of the Nostromo on a very tight budget, went scrounging for anything they could find, and they found the Letraset transfers. So yep, most of the stencilling in the corridors of the Nostromo, which is far too small to read on screen, is 2001 Zero-G Toilet Instructions.
I purchased a printed placard bearing the instructions (in the original typeface) at a sci-fi convention in 1976.
In space, no one can hear you poop...
I've heard the same is true for the reconstructed Discovery set for 2010 (reproductions of the graphics, probably not the Letraset sheets, but, who knows?)
@@tommc4916 I have a full-size Card of the AE-35 Unit that Hal Printed out, thick paper I have had laminated now
@@AlanCanon2222 As far as I know, the zero-G toilet instructions were on the spherical moon shuttle that takes Floyd to the Moon, not the Discovery. However they might have been there as well, just not prominent on-screen.
One effect that doesn't get enough credit is the old Dave makeup. They made 32 year old Keir Dullea look like an 80 year old man. If you look at any recent pictures of Dullea (now in his late 80s) you'll see just how accurate the makeup was.
Another perspective on this would be that it is the effect that actually gets the most credit, so much so that it isn't often discussed. People's response to seeing old Dave isn't to note, "There's a man in make up made to look old," it's usually simply something along the lines of, "Oh my god, that's him." That's how perfectly convincing it is.
Also, the costuming ... the apes at the start really is of actors in costume on a small set with a painted backdrop.
And the space suits made for this movie continued to be used by hollywood film and TV productions for decades after the movie.
It's not a painted backdrop, it's back projected photographs.@@AntonyTCurtis
According to Dullea, applying the makeup took 12 hours. Fortunately, it was only a one day shoot for that scene.
@@JoseyWales44s I hope they were able to shave some of that time off when he appeared in 2010.
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"
The original "computer says no".
I once met a guy who insisted that this entire film had been faked by NASA.
GOD LOL
😂
Yah right...and the water planet scenes in Interstellar were filmed on earth!
Obviously a major fool. We all know NASA was doing ALL THAT for real.
Obviolusly I'm kidding. But hey, maybe the Soviets THOUGHT they were. And of course, that was the real point anyway.
Funny.
"Open the pod bay doors HAL"
"I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."
Two of the most iconic lines in all of science fiction. Or just movies in general.
I used "I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that." as an error sound on my Windows 98 computer way back when.
I also had an animated HAL9000 computer display as a screen saver.
@@DocMicrowave Back in the early 90's, I was on a software development project which included three guys named Dave. So I reprogrammed the error sound on our shared Apple Macintosh, to use that same sound clip.
@@JJ_W Noice!
@@DocMicrowave Me too.
As a guy named 'Dave' my friends have had a lot of fun with it over the years at my expense. lol
I saw 2001 when it came out in 1968 as an 8 year old. It is beyond just a movie, it is definitely one of the greatest works of art ever made.
“A 30-ton rotating “ferris wheel” set was built by Vickers-Armstrong Engineering Group, a British aircraft company at a cost of $750,000. The set was 38 feet in diameter and 10 feet wide. It could rotate at a maximum speed of three miles per hour, and was dressed with the necessary chairs, desks, and control panels, all firmly bolted to the inside surface.” You can see a dark groove going down its center. A camera was mounted to a device that would go down the middle of the wheel and photograph from either in front of or behind the actors.
750k in the 60s is wild
@@toolthoughts yes, that cost would be 6 million in today’s economy.
FWIW: I posted a separate comment under this video about the centrifuge. I was _not sure_ about the $750K cost I quoted in my comment, but your comment confirms it.
Since this movie's entire budget was $10 million USD, the cost of the centrifuge set was _roughly_ 1/10th the entire budget.
The rotating set was actually two wheels that rotated synchronously with each other. The thin gap between them can barely be seen as the darker line that runs down the center of the 'track' that the astronaut is jogging on. Kubrick could mount the film camera anywhere inside on either of the two rotating halves, or he could mount it on a thin metal strip that was able to slip through the gap, and thus be anchored to a frame outside the wheels that was NOT rotating, while the set itself was rotating.
NASA had deep pockets.
Jen: "I feel like I'm gonna need a minute." Pretty much sums it up.
Yeah that's the understatement of the century. 😄 This is the kind of film you could spend the rest of your life trying to understand.
@@Tau_Zyrillion
Or, you could just read the book...
@@brigidsingleton1596 "Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth." ― J. Michael Straczynski
Yes indeed!!
@@Tau_Zyrillion
Unless your name is Meghan, or the Red (?) Queen ? All Truths are _their_ Truths, all ways are _Her_ Ways...?!
My school took my class to watch this. In an instant I went from watching an 18inch 405 line black and white tv, to this. It was truly mind blowing.
I'm so impressed that Jen understood the ending!
Most people decide they can't cope and just check out...
Right? So many people either check out or give up because they assume it's impenetrable. But Jen, like Dave Bowman, was cool and thoughtful and didn't think past it (which is also something that lots of people do, reading in complexities that don't exist). Jen is an impressive person. A fine mind at work and one of my favorite reactors.
You're impressed by someone who went to film school and fakes an entire channel of first time reactions. LOL
@@TroyConvers5000 LOL. Dude, it's all fake. She went to film school. Confederation College Film Production. 2004-2006
@@Fish-nt5wb Where is your info from?
@@Fish-nt5wb I hope you're making a joke, because calling Jen a liar is totally uncool.
I saw this movie in 1971, and as we are going out and into the lobby, the most common statement was "What the hell did I just see?" Now, in 2024, the most common statement from us "old guys" who saw this movie is still, "What the hell did we see back in 1971?" I still consider this the greatest movie of all time. Even today, it's Practical Effects are more believable than CGI effects.
Yes, I saw it in Cinemax in all its Glory, and we were blown away. Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, James Cameron, Ridley Scott, Christopher Nolan, Steven Scorsese, to name a few, all say this is the movie that made them want to make movies and become movie directors.
Didn't Charlton Hesston walk out before the ape scene finished and say "what the hell was that?" or was that made up?
If you want to see a movie that will make you say what did I just see, watch Solarace by Richard Linklatter.
Yup! When, at the end, Jen said "I think I'm gonna need a minute" I literally laughed out lout. I saw that movie 35 years ago and STILL haven't recovered fully. One of the greatest films of all time.
It was still showing three years later? That's a helluva "roadshow"!
@@stupidsmart-phone6911 No, that was Rock Hudson. But he said it at the end of the movie, walking out to the lobby with those who had attended.
This movie's degree of realism (silence in space, grip shoes) set a bar that very few movies have achieved or even attempted to achieve.
this also explains the slightly ridiculous hat of the stewardess: to hide her non-floating hair in zero-G and avoid breaking the illusion.
The Expanse takes a creditable shot at it.
@@markkennedy5479 The Expanse is very interesting and better than most regarding realism. I like it.
Right, everything up to that point had used obvious jet engine or whooshing noises, sparklers for engine exhaust, and showed banking in turns. If you ran out of gas or your engines failed, you ground to a halt. Even the later Star Trek movie were guilty to one degree or another. The Battlestar Galactica remake series was on of the few that got it mostly right.
@@brettbuck7362 I loved Battlestar Galactica. Though I don't think the series ever explained, or even made reference to, what was apparently the use of gravitation generators on even the smallest ship.
Having Dave approach the last, biggest monolith in silence (except for the music) works brilliantly for the style of the movie, but I always loved the way he tried to report what he was seeing back to Earth in the book - especially the last thing he's able to say before he's taken through the star gate: "The thing's hollow - it goes on forever, and - oh my God, _it's full of stars!_ "
As referenced in Glass Onion.
Was a pity this wasn't included in the movie.
@@TheChromeRoninIt’s added by the same actor at the beginning of 2010, which while less artistic is an awesome science fiction film.
Saturn was the planned destination of Discovery and Dave would have found the monolith on its moon Iapetus. While attempting to land on it, it suddenly seems to become infinitely deep, hence his remark.
The destination was changed to Jupiter because they couldn't make convincing rings for Saturn at the time. You can see the BBC reporter's mouth forms "Saturn" not "Jupiter" because they overdubbed it.
The novelization had several differences than the film but they're not really significant. The other notable difference is Hal attempts to unalive Dave by decompressing the ship, not stranding him outside. It also wasn't done for technical reasons.
The novel does clear up a few things if you're curious, especially the final sequence. You may or may not want the answers.
The opening with the primates is much richer though, and recommended. The primary primate is named Moonwatcher and it's quite a bit more specific what the monolith actually does to them.
@@TheChromeRonin Better without it. Show, don't tell; and show less than is needed.
I have never seen a 'reactor' understand this film so well on first viewing. You got it completely. Kubrick and Arthur Clarke discussed how we would be so out of our depth, if we ever encountered an alien intelligence, that they might have to do something like give us a hotel room to catch out breath in. There are a number of very good documentaries on its making available on TH-cam and elsewhere. Kubrick had (nearly) all of the set, plans and models destroyed after filming's end, so no one could use his work to do a crappy sequel. When a sequel was made, years later, they had to recreate the Discovery from scratch. The sequel is very good. It's not Kubrick, but it's not bad, and it was based on the novel also written by Clarke, continuing the story. And it explains the failure of HAL. It is well worth watching. And of course, if you ever, ever get a chance to see this in a theater. . . but medication is optional.
It's true. I was surprised at how close she understood the plot of the movie.
👍
I'm glad Jen got it. I love brainy women. 😊
I saw it in 3 screen Cinerama in 1968. I left the theater in awe of what I had just experienced. Two days later I convinced 2 friends to see it with me. Next day there were 5 of us in the audience. It played at the theater for over 2 years straight. ( Glendale Theater in Toronto ) . I went to see either alone or with friends almost every week of its run. Your reaction was similar to my first . The initial experience was mind blowing and expanding. Thank you for your excellent reaction. Kubrick was a genius.
Well that's interesting because it was not filmed in three screen Cinerama. It was a one screen Cinerama film and presented that way from its opening in Washington DC. The last three screen Cinerama film was How the West Was Won 5 years earlier.
@@vincentparisi2644 You are correct. Please forgive my 75 year old memory.
Sorry, above read badly, Meant to say I am 75 and my memory is bit faulty at times.
It’s amazing how influential it is; you can see its effects in Star Wars, Terminator, Aliens, Bladerunner, Interstellar, Arrival, Close Encounters of the Third kind and the list goes on.
Seminal if there ever was one
In fact Lucas has said Star Wars is a direct response to this movie, wanting to show another side of Sci Fi.
And The Simpsons.
And of course, Dark Star (which mutated into Alien).
I haven't seen it but I understand that the Barbie is film makes a direct reference.
This movie is a cinematic masterpiece and one of the greatest science fiction films ever made. It may not be for everyone but it’s absolutely mind blowing and the special effects were incredible for 1968, they still hold up today.
The special effects hold up better than the CGI garbage that is Star Wars. It's a thinking person's film that doesn't fill in all the blanks.
@@jackcarl2772 You're talking about the prequels and the sequels I take it. The original trilogy didn't have CGI, at least not until George Lucas ruined them ~15-20 years later by adding CGI. I agree with you that the special effects/visuals are absolutely amazing to this day.
@@scyphe Yes, you are correct. It so happens I saw all three of the original trilogy films in their theatrical releases (1977, 1980, 1983) long before, as you wrote, George Lucas ruined them.
@@scyphe Those x-wing navigation panels were the most innovative CGI in the 1970's :p
@@elusiveDEVIANT just stop. You effing moron.
The monolith:3mya, gave our distant hominid ancestors a very slight mental tweak, that nudged them (us) into tool users and sets humanity on the path to the stars. Some people might not get that point as its not easy to convey on screen, but, it is there if you watch carefully. The monolith does not 'teach' our ancestors how to use tools, it gave the them CAPACITY to make the mental connections necessary to understand we could fashion tools and use them for our benefit. That is what the scene with the main homonid looking at the pile of bones and trying to puzzle out to what use he might potentially put them to. Then we cut to the scene of the bone transitioning to an orbital nuclear weapons platform. Progress.....
The monolith helped us walk so we could run
The silence you refer to is meant to portray that there is no sound in space. Sound requires oxygen and there is none. The choice to only have the sound from inside the spacesuit is an unbelievable one considering how old this movie is. Kubrick’s intellect is unmatched. And, I must say, your reaction is very much on point. How you are able to understand this much of the movie on your first viewing is beyond me. And I love how you enjoy movie soundtracks in general in your reactions, but this one was so special. Your reactions to the Blade Runner movies already made you one of my favorite movie reactors but with this you have become my absolute top movie reactor. You’re the best! Thank you for this, Jen!
Good description, one mistake however, sound does not require oxygen. Any gas, liquid, or with direct contact even a solid will carry sound.
The silence of space was all Arthur C Clarke.
@@stevegambini8318 Definitely; he was the one with the scientific knowledge.
@@stevegambini8318 And physics. Mostly physics.
The silence is so powerful and yet I don’t think anyone has done it since. Does anyone know if there’s another movie that has silence in space?
I really like the scene where HAL wants to talk about the mission and he's trying to coax Dave into expressing his concerns. When Dave changes the subject/questions HAL's motives, that's when HAL goes "Just a moment..." and everything spirals from there.
If only Dave had a little more Q-annon in his psych profile. HAL might not have killed anyone. Might have been Dave, though.
In that scene HAL was really concerned, up to that moment when he made the crucial mistake.
And when he learned of the danger that put him in, he panicked lied, and tried to defend himself - with murder.
Repenting for his 'poor decisions' at the end came too late for him - so he died.
HAL just became too human for his own good - his mind, though highly intelligent, still was only 10 years old.
While apes evolved into humans, and evolved even further, the AI evolved into a human, too.
@@Cau_NoI’ve always liked the idea that the Monolith aliens uplifted humans, and then humans uplifted AI. We succeeded but the AI we uplifted failed. Probably because we did it too soon or didn’t fully understand what we were doing.
The computer version a psycho-somatic illness.
@@vplexico Interesting how men are so set on transhumanizing themselves out of existence with their love affair of AI.
Fun fact: the cut from the bone to space is not only the biggest time jump in a movie but it was also a leap in technology. the spacecraft was an orbital nuclear weapons platform.
This movie is what I call a foundational work of sci-fi. It has gone on to influence almost everything that came after.
It proved that a serious sci-fi film could succeed.
This and the 1970s Solaris.
Arthur C Clarke's prophetic ability to accurately predict what computer technology would eventually become is just astounding. We watch it today not paying any mind to the tech presented throughout the movie because it's ordinary now. But back in 1968, this was all far future imaginary tech. Touch screens were not a thing yet. Microprocessors were not a thing yet. Communication satellites were not a thing yet.
This was all quite literally science fiction at the time, but Clarke was able to see the writing on the wall and knew what the potential for computers was in its infancy. He even gave us a nice little warning about mishandling A.I. For those who don't know, HAL is not an example of A.I. gone wrong, it's an example of human error causing A.I. to act in a way we don't want.
Have you read Arthur C Clarke’s review of the 1984 book? He absolutely hated it, couldn’t understand why Orwell didn’t imagine any future tech
And the scene of HAL singing "Daisy" was inspired by Clarke actually seeing (and hearing) the first computer to speak in (I think) 1962. It was at a lab at IBM - which is EXACTLY a one-letter transposition of HAL.
Kind of a 2010 spoiler. Why?
@@gottagowork I don't know who you were replying to but it can't be me because I haven't read or seen 2010
To make the movie, they had to draw all the computer screens by hand.
The 3 Astronauts in Hibernation knew what the Mission was really about. Bowman and Pool who would be facing a lot of Media Coverage, weren't told for fear of Security Breaches. HAL was also Aware and had been Programed to carry out the Mission, if the Crew had been Incapacitated. Due to Conflicting Priorities in HAL's Programing, he became Psychotic and tried to break the Link with Earth. When he figured out the Frank and Dave may try to disconnect Him, he panicked. He then decided that He would complete the Mission alone.
One thing I always liked about the transition from bone to satellite is that all those first satellites were nuclear launch platforms, I recall it's downplayed in the movie but is mentioned in the book, and gives that bone to satellite metaphor even more bite.
SFox, the nuclear weapon launch satellites are not merely downplayed in the movie; NO information is given about them at all. I consider this to be an inexplicable lapse in Kubrick's normally exacting personality. We know from other sources that the satellites are supposed to be dreadful weapons, but they are just meaningless satellites in the movie (except, of course, they do have a purpose in immediately letting the audience know that the time-frame has advanced from the primeval to the space-faring era).
I was also always conscious that while the thrown bone is rotating in one direction, the rotation is suddenly reversed during the transition. which also seems to ruin the apparent intended effect somewhat.....especially since Kubrick should have been able to fix that fairly easily.
@@youtuuba I think 'downplay' was a bad choice of words on my part, because other than shape that's the only reference left to what the satellites actually are. I believe I read somewhere that Kubrick thought that it was to provocative given the climate of the cold war, and pulled the reference to keep the focus on the story. A real shame because it is such perfect metaphor for the transition.
For the rotation, I'm not sure, it's a hard stop between the dynamic rotation of the bone and the fixed, quiet orbit of the platforms pointed at the Earth. I wonder if the abrupt transition is intentional, from active violence to cold war, if so, the rotation may be to exaggerate the change. Heh, you can really over-analyse Kubrick if you're not careful. :)
@@SFox-if9id Kubrick was big on imagery with hidden meanings so I suspect the rotation reversal wasn't a error but planned. No clue as to was it about tho.
@@SFox-if9id
You're actually pretty close. Douglas Trumbull did an interview with the Visual Effects Society where he explains the scene. Mankind's first weapon to mankind's ultimate weapon. Spin - evolution. Reverse spin - de-evolution. Bascially - nuclear weapons have the power to send us back to the stone age.
I read a international treaty that banned atomic weapons in space was passed thus causing the removal. If I was him I would have kept the statement they atomic bomb missile platforms to keep a very important point in the book from that scene. And release statement many arms control treaties have fallen apart over time so this is still a possibility we must work to prevent.
Removing it to prevent the typical geak we have a treaty against that complain totally unnecessary if one released disclaimer prominently in promotion of movie.
2001 is one of those films that has such an intimidating reputation that people lose sight of how entertaining and engaging it is.
I guess I was lucky to watch a lot of it on tv when I was really young and just enjoyed it. Kept watching it several more times as I got older. I had no idea about any kind of reputation back then and didn't even know who Kubrick was at first.
Nice avatar
Smart lady. She understood the "Next evolutionary step" from the first viewing. Impressive. Such a concept is hard to explain, even more so with 1968 VFX. 2001 is the child of two geniuses. I beg everyone to please read the book. The movie is a master piece, but the book is life changing on a whole other level. Author C. Clark's vision of future technology is so accurate, although he was a real scientist, and helped developed satellite communications. Geostationary orbit is named after him. The Clark Orbit. So many things in his books were mirrored in real life years after, and is considered somewhat of a modern profit. One example being interstellar asteroid Oumuamua and the book Rendezvous with Rama. He predicted life in the moon of Europa in Odyssey 2010, which turns out to have a liquid ocean under miles of ice (yet to be determined of course). One of the definitive scifi legends.
One of the coolest things 2001 predicts about our future is the tablet. At 15:23 and 15:26 they are watching a flat screen tablet. This is 50 years before such technology existed.
You just picked on the tablet and ignored - space shuttle - space station - video conferencing - AI - the equivalent of Siri or Alexa. Commercial space travel. I am sure there are many more details that can be found.....
@@WaDahDahDang Included in HAL is voice recognition and voice synthesis.
It's interesting that "2001" is far less dated that "2010", which came out 17 years later. "2010" was full of CRT displays, assumed that the Soviet Union and Omni magazine would still exist in 2010 and featured Haywood Floyd plunking away at an archaic Apple IIc while on the beach.
The monolith is the tablet, the movie screen. The first 3 minutes of the movie we are all staring at the Monolith
Jen: “This looks good NOW.”
Me: “Yes! Wait til ya see the tablets.”
Jen: (15 mins later) “iPads!”
Me: “Yeah. I know, right? 42 years prior!”
😁
I’m so glad you enjoyed it so much and grasped so much of it. I figured you would. You’re a smart lady.
Just wait til after you’ve looked into a few things and watch it a couple times more! 🙂
I see a fan for life in the making!
PADDs in Star Trek were also early trend predictors, and of course the communicators/flip phones.
@@douglasdavis8395 But in TOS they never showed the screen. They also had lower quality voice synthesis, and obviously good voice recognition computer. And the universal translator, which didn't get mentioned in many episodes with humanoid aliens.
Reading your comment on my 120€ 10" Android Tablet. Oh you poor narrow minded Yanks, Most people don't use Tablets, Smartphones and Computers made by Apple, because they have to pay for rent, heating, electrics and food. Apple-Papple didn't invent anything, was never the first and stole basically everything.
The tablets in 2001 look like early Android tablets and not at all like iiw-pads.
The fact that this predicted the iPad isn't entirely a coincidence. At Apple, they consciously modeled the IPad after the 'Newspads' shown in the movie "2001". Life imitates art.
The monolith is a giant smartphone, same dimensions/color, just much larger.
It's like a monolith!
The movie inspired lots of stories and myths. One story I heard was that it was nominated for best costume, but the members of the academy didn't believe the apes were actors!
It's hard for "modern audiences" to appreciate the value of this movie. It came from a very different era of Science-Fiction. We hadn't even been to the moon yet, all this space stuff ws still purely hypothetical.
But strange enough... they actually nailed many aspects of modern space travel.
But where are the car chases and explosions? And people correcting others about pronouns?
We get it, the sci-fi stuff of what could be was excellent, it was all the stupid acid trip mind games that ruins it.
I'm one of those non-"modern audiencens" and still thinks this is a boring PoS movie.
@@qam2024exactly.
We had barely got photos of Earth when this was made. Why the blue of Earth looks wrong, clouds look painted, etc.
I understood this film more than my wedding video
😅
🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂
😅😅😅😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆
Funny!
I saw this in September of 1968. As a going away present, my oldest brother took me to Montreal to see it (he was off to university in Ottawa and the rest of us were off to Pakistan). The young women ushers at the theatre were dressed like flight attendants: pale blue skirts and jackets and matching caps. They handed out glossy program books and guided us to plush seats, all of which immensely impressed my nine year old self and served as a harbinger of what was to come.
There are many who say the film is boring, but I don't remember it being that way at all. Maybe that was because I'd been crazy about space and spaceflight since I was old enough to make any sense of it, and what I saw on the screen that day just blew my mind. Whatever the case, when I came out of the theatre that day I couldn't stop talking about the movie, and to this day I remain impressed by it--particularly the visuals.
For the record, the floating pen in the Pan Am shuttle was apparently achieved by attaching it to a large piece of glass that was then rotated to give the illusion of zero-gee. When the moon shuttle attendant appears to walk up the wall and upside down, it was actual a rotating set. She had to carefully walk on the spot as the set moved around her. The camera was locked to the set, so it makes it appear as if she's the one who is moving.
Watching the film now, one is certainly conscious of the 1960's aesthetic that permeates much of the film--especially in the design of the clothing and the spacesuits. But despite all the technological advances that have been made in cinema since then and the reality of the highly technological world in which we live in now, the film still seems futuristic and believable (even though we've long passed 2001).
The 1984 sequel, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, was an entertaining enough film, but it falls far short of its predecessor and seems visually far less imaginative and narratively much more conventional.
I will be 74 next month. I was fortunate enough to see 2001 in a Cinerama theater in 1968 the week it came out. Think of Cinerama as a precursor to IMAX. It surrounded the audience with three screens so that you felt that you were inside the movie. It is an amazing experience.
That said, later in the year, when I started college, I saw it again in a flat screen theater. There was no comparison.
Since that time I bought a copy on DVD. Again it disappoints, but I can still remember the first screening in my mind, so I think of it as a refresher more than an experience.
I believe this film is due any award you can think of.
The apes at the beginning were actors in suits, except for the baby chimp. The leopard was real, the dead zebra was really a dead horse that was painted. They had to tranquilize the leopard to be near the stench.
There are more innovations in filmmaking in this movie than in the first Star Wars.
Remember, 1968 didn't have CGI yet. Almost everything seen is practical or models.
The BFI in London showed a 70mm print at the Waterloo IMAX a few years ago (which the biggest IMAX in Europe.) I didn't go to see it but I expect it was spectacular having seen Interstellar there.
Actually, it was the older iteration of Cinerama used three synchronised images. Being some years older than you, I'd already seen "How the West Was Won" in that format, although the synchronisation was way better for that than the earlier features like "This Is Cinerama". By the time Kubrick started shooting 2001, a single lens was used both for the filming and projection, so that the faint lines separating the three images were no longer there. Kubrick, I'm sure would never have opted for this to be shot using the old format.
@@mrglasses8953 Being old enough to have seen the original in my mid-twenties, and hoping to recreate that Cinerama buzz, I went to that showing. It was, however somewhat disappointing. The main problem is that Cinerama was an ultra wide screen image, and IMAX has a different ratio. This meant that 2001 was shown with blank screen above and below the image, and also, the screen being flat, that immersive sensation was lessened. It was great to see it again in the company of many younger appreciative cinema goers, but really I was reimagining my initial experience.
@@tonybennett4159 Cinerama, in order for its theaters to survive the failure of its original format, worked out a process to create special 70mm prints that were distorted to better match the Cinerama screen curvature, with a special projector lens. The film itself was a derivative of Ultra Panavision 70, which was also used on Ben Hur. But a further compromise later occurred that reverted to Super Panavision 70, which has a 2.2 aspect ratio instead of 2.76. This is what was used for 2001.
I certainly wish I could have seen one of those several movies presented in that way.
@@tonybennett4159 Thanks for the update, I wasn't aware of the changes made over the years. Before my eyes went goofy, I remember seeing a movie in 3-D where I had to wear tinted glasses to see the image, one lens was red and the other was blue.
Newer 3-D films, I can't see as I am blind in one eye, so can't fuse the colors in my brain.
To people like me, with eye problems, this format is a nonstarter.
But back in 1968 I thought Cinerama was the best thing I'd ever seen. The only thing that ruined the experience were people smoking, especially during the second half.
It was OK to smoke in theaters in those days.
Thanks again.
My dad took me to watch 2001 at Seattle's Cinerama theater the afternoon of my birthday when this came out. During the intermission we all piled out to the sidewalk where the adults smoked and stood around saying "What is going ON in this movie?" It was the most exhilarating day of my life.
I too remember watching it at the Seattle Cinerama during its first run. My mom gave me a ride downtown, as I was too young to drive at the time.
My teen-aged brothers took me to see 2001 during it's first run in Seattle although I don't remember which theater we went to. I don't remember seeing any drug use at or near the theater, but I was only 5 years old in 1968 so I could just have missed any shenanigans. My brothers certainly did partake at other times, but not when they were taking their little brother to the movies.
“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, geometric shapes are SO nefarious.”
^ This hits. 😂
The Nefarious Geometric Shapes - band name alert.
Such as spheroids?
It's been said that when the Apollo astronauts were asked what it was like in outer space, they would often respond "Did you see 2001?"
I went to the premiere of this film in 1968 and it was mind blowing to say the least. I went back to see it 18 times! I read everything about it and my mind was blown again! It took five years to make. Kubrick invented new lenses to shoot it. He invented front screen projection for the ape scene! He built a giant gimbal for the running onboard the ship. The floating pen is achieved by pasting it on a piece of glass. And there is more. But here is a small fact. If you add a letter to each letter in HAL you get IBM. A great reaction by you and it shows me you are a very smart young lady.
A quick google search will show that Kubrick did NOT invent front screen projection. It was invented in 1955.
@@ThreadBomb He invented a new 8x10 projector and a new screen to receive the image without it showing on the apes. This is from American Cinema:
The largest format utilized to date had been a 4 x 5-inch Ektachrome transparency, but it was felt that the grand-scale requirements of this particular space epic would demand an even larger transparency.
"I had made a test using a 4 x 5 still and it was almost good enough, so I was positive that with an 8 x 10 the effect would be perfect," Kubrick comments. "The trickiest part would be balancing the foreground illumination to match the intensity of the front-projected background. Now that it's over I'm convinced that if a still transparency is to be used for the background scene an 8 x 10 is essential, because if you dont have a surplus of resolution you are going to get a degradation, of the projected background image."
The only drawback at the time was that there existed no such device as an 8 x 10 projector - let alone one powerful enough to throw a bright image across 90 feet of foreground area onto a screen 110 feet wide. Working in close cooperation with M-G-M Special Effects Supervisor Tom Howard, Kubrick set about building his own super-powerful 8 x 10 projector, with a condenser pack 18 inches thick made up of condensers from standard 8 x 10 enlargers. The most powerful water-cooled arc available was employed as a light source and it was necessary to use slides of heat-resistant glass in front of the condensers in order to prevent the heat from peeling the magenta layer of emulsion right off of the transparency. At least six of the rear condensers cracked because of the heat during the filming, but this was usually due to a draft of cold air hitting the projector when someone opened the door of the sound stage while the projector was operating.
@@ThreadBomb This from American Cinematography Magazine: The largest format utilized to date had been a 4 x 5-inch Ektachrome transparency, but it was felt that the grand-scale requirements of this particular space epic would demand an even larger transparency.
"I had made a test using a 4 x 5 still and it was almost good enough, so I was positive that with an 8 x 10 the effect would be perfect," Kubrick comments. "The trickiest part would be balancing the foreground illumination to match the intensity of the front-projected background. Now that it's over I'm convinced that if a still transparency is to be used for the background scene an 8 x 10 is essential, because if you dont have a surplus of resolution you are going to get a degradation, of the projected background image."
The only drawback at the time was that there existed no such device as an 8 x 10 projector - let alone one powerful enough to throw a bright image across 90 feet of foreground area onto a screen 110 feet wide. Working in close cooperation with M-G-M Special Effects Supervisor Tom Howard, Kubrick set about building his own super-powerful 8 x 10 projector, with a condenser pack 18 inches thick made up of condensers from standard 8 x 10 enlargers. The most powerful water-cooled arc available was employed as a light source and it was necessary to use slides of heat-resistant glass in front of the condensers in order to prevent the heat from peeling the magenta layer of emulsion right off of the transparency. At least six of the rear condensers cracked because of the heat during the filming, but this was usually due to a draft of cold air hitting the projector when someone opened the door of the sound stage while the projector was operating.
@@ThreadBomb It is not letting me reply to you but he invented a new projection system to film 8x10 transparencies over the apes without it showing. He also invented a new screen to receive the image. Look it up
@@doubleDD274 He should do a "quick google search"?
I watched 2001 for the first time in its natural habitat during its 50th anniversary year, at one of the few remaining film-equipped Imax theatres. It was the most amazing film I've ever seen. Remember, they didn't have the special effects and CGI we have now. Also the apes weren't real; they were actors in ape suits. When Planet of the Apes won the Oscar for best costumes, Arthur Clarke said loudly, "The Academy must have thought we used real apes!" SUCH a great movie!!
Yes. Yes, they did build a rotating set for the treadmill scenes. and one actor had to sit, strapped into his chair and eating food that wouldn't drip while being rotated upside down.
Sound doesn't travel in space, so Kubrick used no sound effects in the outer space shots. But he did let us hear the sounds we'd hear inside our own suit.
The studio had all the sets destroyed after filming, and the makers of 2010: The Year we Make Contact had to rebuild the sets from the original film, photos, and drawings.
"Had there ever been a movie with so much silence before!?"
Only several decades of silent films back in the early days 😂😂
...And some clown with a piano would usually ruin even that! =:oD
Even silent films typically had a musical accompaniment.
@@dustybaron5942. Yep the music was a huge part of silent movies. In some ways they were similar to music videos. When they restore old silent movies, having someone make a score to match it is a big part of the effort.
I think she meant any film that used silence like that to build tension - and no I don't remember one that did. :)
Eraserhead is pretty silent.
My dad took me to see this in 68. I was 6 years old. My dad asked what I thought about the movie, and I said something like it looked more real than Star Trek. That's all i remembered.
WOW! You're grasp of this movie upon first viewing is the best I've seen. You're the only person I've ever seen catch that the room at the end was created specifically for humans. Stanley himself explained it that way. You pretty much nailed the interpretation that Kubrick had for the film which is very impressive. So glad you enjoyed the film and it had an impact on you. FANTASTIC reaction!!
Would you believe this movie “didn’t “get an Oscar for costumes because the academy felt the apes looked “too” real!!
Funny how Planet of the Apes (original) got all kinds of 'respect' though.
That was just something Arthur C. Clarke suggested.
"Geometric shapes are so nefarious." Words to live by Jen. 😨
She's seen too much Brutalist architecture.
Evangelion's Ramiel: "Hold my angles"
A Square: "Hey!!"
The evil of Euclid. 😄
"...Especially when aligned with the Axes of Evil." =:o}
I saw this on the day of release with a friend. At the the end the lights went up, everyone left but nobody spoke. It was stunning. We two went to a pub, bought drinks and sat down. It was only then we started to talk about the amazing experience we had just had. The finest film I've ever seen.
"My God, it's full of stars!"
Never says this in this film. That is how 2010 starts.
@@pazza6480 I think Bowman says it in Clarke's book 2001.
I remember this line from the movie. It's giving me brain ache that apparently it's not included.
Some of the ideas for this film came from Clarke's 1951 short story, "The Sentinel". The reason the monolith was buried on the Moon is explained in the short story for a similar object: "They would be interested in our civilization only if we proved our fitness to survive -- by crossing space and so escaping from the Earth, our cradle."
@@kevinlewallen4778 I love that tidbit Kevin! 💥
@@e.d.2096 Thanks Eric, me too. Clarke is one of my all-time favorite sci-fi authors.
You completely nailed it! I’ve spent 5 decades watching this movie and For a first time viewer you did an amazing job, bravo!
Btw,every single member of my vast and extended family say “open the pod bay doors Hal” whenever we park our car in a garage with an automatic roller door on it lol
i have never heard it put better - "there's movies and then there's THIS MOVIE!" really enjoyed your reaction! 👍☺
Though it’s not a masterpiece like this movie, I still recommend watching the sequel “2010: The Year We Make Contact”.
I highly agree. Both are a must and with Roy Scheider, John Lithgow and Helen Mirren you can't go wrong.
It's a great movie on its own terms. Comparing it to 2001 is inevitable but dumb.
Yes, I agree. It's a very solid movie and it makes more sense of the original after you watch it.
It's a good sci-fi movie, It doesn't deserve the comparisons because It's quite different.
In any case, I don't remember anyone critisizing it, on the contrary, I feel It's a quite appreciated little classic
2010 is a different style of movie, but still a great sci-if movie.
Seeing it when it hit the theaters in 1968 was a truly amazing experience because the special effects were a thousand times better than anything before that.
There is a joke that Kubrick was hired to film the fake Moon landing. But because he wanted as much realism as possible, Kubrick made NASA go to the Moon to film it. :-)
Flat-earthers and NASA conspiracists STILL say Kubrick filmed it, but they leave out the punch line. 🙄
I like the idea that the Moon landing was filmed on a soundstage… on Mars. Because going to the Moon is crazytalk
Worked with someone today that was telling me how Kubrick faked and about the firmament can't be broken.
@@TheMoneypresident Believing in conspiracies is how stupid people make themselves feel smart... by thinking they know things other people don't.
Where they found Alice Kramden. And she still didn't have curtains for her window.
This may be your best reaction yet, Jen. You had so many insightful comments at each turn and were intuiting so much from a movie that requires interpretation. I hope you get to more Kubrick. I'd go back as far as "Paths of Glory" for his first masterpiece, but happy to see you react to any other Kubrick you haven't seen yet, Jen.
Yeah Paths of Glory is outstanding.
I love your reactions to this, so honest. "Had there ever been a movie like this, with so much silence in it?" 😄love this! No mocking intended, it was a pure question. All movies before 1927, about thirty years were silent. Silent but huge successes as TV had not yet been invented.
Throughout the sixties my tastes in film and literature were largely forged by my father. We watched this together in 1968 in Cinerama. I was 15, he was 58. This was our movie. Wiping away a tear. Thanks Jen.
I was 10 and still able to grasp most of the concepts. Being children of the 60's space program helped.
"Geometrical shapes are nefarious", you say, but even more nefarious when their dimensions are 1x4x9 (the squares of 1,2,3) *exactly* when measured with our best instruments. "But we humans were naive to assume the sequence ended there, in only 3 dimensions."
The 1x4x9 proportions are like an intentional, unmistakable sign that the monoliths are the product of intelligent life that knows pure mathematics.
@@stereoroid Since the books state that it goes beyond 3 dimensions, it must have a practical purpose and it isn't just a sign.
Hello Jen, this was probably the most genuine AND intelligent reaction to a first viewing of 2001 !
Astronaut Doctor Frank Poole was played by actor Gary Lockwood, who costarred in the 2nd Star Trek pilot "Where no man has gone before" (as Gary Mitchell) in 1966.
The voice of HAL was provided by Canadian stage actor Douglas James Rain.
William Sylvester (Doctor Heywood Floyd) was a working actor who appeared in many TV and film roles over the years, including genre pieces such as "Gorgo" 1961, "Devil Doll" 1964 and cult tv series such as "Danger Man" 1960, "The Saint" 1966, "The Six Million Dollar Man" 1975-77 and "Buck Rogers in the 25th century" 1981.
Robert Beatty (Doctor Ralph Halvorsen) costarred in the final story of William Hartnell's 1st incarnation of the Doctor "The Tenth Planet" in Doctor Who in 1966.
Ed Bishop, who has a non speaking role as the captain of the lunar shuttle, starred as Ed Straker, the director of Shado, in the fun Gerry Anderson sci-fi series "UFO" in 1970.
Keir Dullea (Astronaut David Bowman) was in a mixed bag of films including dramas and horror in the 60s and 70s but this is the main film he's remembered for these days. On an interesting side note. My mom was dating him (they met doing theatre which has always his preferred medium of performance.) when this film came out, and they went to the Philadelphia or New York premiere together.
This is a beautiful and well crafted film and the recent 4K remaster is stunning. It was overseen by Kubrick's assistant of many years who himself is the subject of a great documentary called "Film Worker" detailing his time working with Kubrick on this and other classics.
And the character of Gary Mitchell on Star Trek was turned into a god-like super-being but went mad. A bit like Dave Bowman combined with HAL
I read a funny story about Keir- a few years after this, he was making a movie with Mariette Hartley and they were spending several days filming a love scene. The two of them had to,make out quite a lot over that period and she would get worked up and go home and jump on her husband. So one day, after they were done, her husband leaned back on the bed and said "you know, I'm really going to miss Keir".
@@altaclipper - That's great. I haven't heard that one.
A unique human with those silvery eyes of his. 😃
The actor who played the Russian male later starred in two of the best British comedies of the 1970s, Rising Damp and the Fall and Rise of Reggie Perrin.
That voice. "I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that." HAL, the calm, rational voice of insanity.
Driven to it by both the importance, complexities and secrecy of the Mission.
The machine had the most human voice of all those on the spacecraft.
@@BH6242KCh
"The machine" ?! How very dare you address HAL thus?! Poor HAL ... 🤔🥺
(voiced by a Canadian🇨🇦)
@@brigidsingleton1596 I should have acknowledged, HAL can be quite sensitive.
One of the great movie villains
I was 12 in 1968. I had read the book as our family are all readers, and we were so excited to see this. My dad drove us 40 miles to a special Cinerama theatre, where the screen wraps the audience partially, so the film is also in your peripheral vision, very immersive. Audiences were blown away. It’s ten minutes in before you get any dialogue. The script is very pared back, no exposition, so the audience had to use their heads and figure out what was going on. Some hated it. But people were thrilled by the space scenes, which stand on their own today. If you ever get to see it on the big screen, absolutely do it. People were bewildered by Bowman’s arrival at the alien world, the pseudo earth environment they create for him, and his apotheosis/evolution to become the first human star being, who can travel across space through mere thought. Since we never see the alien beings, it wasn’t clear to those who hadn’t read the story what was happening when Bowman returns to earth as the star being to help humanity survive itself and evolve. Film note: In the opening scene of Alien where we see the Nostromo in space, Scott paid homage to Kubrick by using the same ballet piece for the music that we hear as the Discovery travels to Jupiter.
"I'm probably gonna need a minute." Perfect reaction right there.
*”I’m sorry Jen. I’m afraid I can’t do that.”* 🔴
Doing a rewatch of this for you, Jen, I hope that it gets to 100k for you. 😊
What a great reaction. So glad you loved it. You understood so much that most people miss on first viewing.
2010 is way more conventional, but it explains a lot of what happen with HAL9000.
"Will I dream?" ...poor HAL. ☹️
@@brigidsingleton1596I love 2010. HAL’s story is wonderful.
@@jblitzen
Indeed... Perhaps that ability to dream should be - if it could be (?) - programmed into computers / AI, so that if / when they're switched off, they experience - and understand the need for dreams - and realise that 'switch-off' will not (always) result in 'termination of existence'.
We owe HAL _that_ for what was done to him, and can you _even imagine_ the types of dreams HAL, (or "Alexa" or "Sirri" or even poor, and worse, poorly-named
"Hello Google" 🥺🤭) could enjoy - as long as the programme instilled a 'no harm' _to it or to others_ sense of dream control.
...we don't want to precipitate 'additional trauma' to them, or ultimately to ourselves, do we?! 🤔🏴♥️🇬🇧🙂🖖
A good sequel, in my mind as well.
The yellow mustard, or the darker?
I saw this when I was 9 the first week it was out. I was not yet the space and sci-fi lover I became later, and in 1968, the movie left me flat. All I remember is chuckling when HAL said, "Take a stress pill and think things over." ... Fast forward to 1975. At 16, my friend and I saw 2001 and I was swept up and blown away by it, and have been ever since. Afterward my friend was shaking in the car, unable to start the engine to head home for several minutes. We both became fans and caught 2001 whenever we could.
One of the qualifications for being an astronaut, both then and now, is the ability to not freak out in moments of danger and stress. Coolness is an important characteristic in that profession.
you understood this far far better than most people do on their first viewing.
True, but Ashleigh B somehow understood it despite being "elevated" at the time. My own experience, years ago, was just "Wha-?!" Which I think is a perfectly valid first reaction .
I'm sure that "most people" comparison works for my first viewing. I thought it was fascinating, but didn't understand 99% of it. Of course, I was 4 years old at the time...
34:00 Tell me more about that ayahuasca story, Jen girl! HAHHAHAA ⭐⭐⭐⭐
I was 9 years old when this was released - saw it on a wrap around screen and it blew my tiny mind. I felt so optimistic about the future after seeing this movie, 55 years later I feel so let down. Yours is by far the best reaction I've seen to this masterpiece of cinema.
Anthony Hopkins said that his way of speaking in Silence of the Lambs was inspired by the voice and speaking by HAL. I can't unhear that now.
After first seeing this film nearly 60 years ago, "What are you doing, Dave?" still gives me the shivers.
The crew of Apollo 8 got to see a preview of this movie before they were the first men to orbit the moon that December in 1968
Perhaps influencing their composition of their famous earth-rise photo?
And a link with another spacecraft AND movie. The Apollo 13 Command Module was named the Odyssey. I've heard of several astronauts who were asked what it's like to be in space and they've said "watch 2001".
Yes, and did you know they also received a very powerful radio emission originating from Jupiter?
Nah, I'm just kidding.
There are two quotes in your reaction that explains what happened to HAL in the movie.
HAL during the BBC interview: “The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information”
Then as HAL’s last conscious act it played a recording where Hayward said: “This is a pre-recorded briefing made prior to your departure which for security reasons has been known onboard during the mission ONLY by your HAL 9000 computer”
Once you realize what’s going on, watching all the HAL scenes again shows how masterfully it was played out. For a clearer explanation you will have to watch 2010.
Regarding HAL:
Basically it boils down to humans make errors and HAL's top priority is the special mission.
The Discovery's mission was an exploratory mission... but HAL's secret mission is exploring the monolith near Jupiter to which the signal from the moon monolith waa beamed...
So HAL had to test the reliability of his human team and decide whether they'd be a threat to his completion of his secret mission.
Regarding the monolith aka alien intelligence... if we ever met a space-traveling intelligence... what would that even look like? How could we even comprehend it?
It would be like gerbils trying to understand human intelligence... communication, knowledge, technology... it would be incomprehensible and weird....
Can you imagine being a gerbil and suddenly being carried and transported at incomprehensible speeds and altitudes? It would be freaky and fearful.
And then seeing an image of yourself in a mirror, or other places on an iPad?
Insanity!
Exactly - HAL was given two conflicting sets of operational orders, and it cause an internal conflict - what would be a psychosis in a human.
@@gordowg1wg145 Yes, and that was set out pretty plainly in the movie. At one point he suggests to Dave that he can't get it out of his head that there's something strange about the mission, but later he says that he can't allow Dave to jeopardise the mission, indicating that he knew all along what the purpose of the mission was. So you're right that his instructions were contradictory, and that his comment that it is "always due to human error" may not have been far off the mark.
Jen has watched 2010 so I can talk more about this now (read no further if worried about SPOILERS)
What happened is fascinating given the state of Artificial Intelligence today.
The very core of HAL’s being was to provide information as accurately as possible and to never hide or distort information. However, the mission planners on Earth decided for security reasons to keep the real mission secret from the crew. HAL was then instructed to LIE to the crew about the mission, in direct conflict with his programming.
This caused a feedback loop in HAL. “I must not lie. I must also follow instructions. I was instructed to safeguard the mission at all costs. To safeguard the mission I was instructed to lie, but I must not lie …”. His A. I. became obsessed with solving this contradiction.
At first HAL tried dropping hints, reasoning that if they guessed the mission on their own then he wouldn’t have told them and wouldn’t need to lie, resolving the paradox. But they didn’t guess.
The mis-diagnosed fault in the AE-35 unit was a symptom of the problem. If it failed, then they would not be able to communicate with earth, so to protect the mission he could tell Frank and Dave the true mission because they would have no way to contact anyone on Earth and the secret would still be safe.
But when HAL realized they were planning to shut him down, the “protect the mission at all costs” kicked in. He knew he was the only one aware of the whole mission, so the only way to protect the mission was to protect himself, and the only way to do that was to kill off the crew. That would both protect the mission and stop him from having to lie to the crew. At the end, when he realized he had lost and was dying, his last conscious act was to protect the mission by showing the recording to Dave.
When you watch this again you can see how HAL was the perfect villain. He was the hero of his own story, doing his best to follow the instructions he was given and protect the mission as directed. He was a shining example of someone who was good and moral, bothered by being forced to lie against his will. But ultimately his attempt to do the “right” things led to disaster.
HAL did evil because he couldn’t understand or resolve moral contradictions.
@@kevinL5425 Also, the conflict between "don't lie" and "lie to the crew" can be solved by eliminating the crew.
And the whole disaster could have been avoided had they instructed to not tell the crew instead of lying about it to the crew. "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I'm not allowed to answer this question yet" isn't distorting information.
I like your comment about the Moon having a lot of craters. Be glad of it. A casual glance shows anyone that the Moon has taken many hits for Earth.
As an old software guy, I always loved that the younger programmers I worked with would say that their computers “Daisy-ed out” when they crashed. And since Jen survived and appreciated this one, I feel she’s ready for some David Lynch films. They don’t get enough reactions.
To fully grasp HAL’s shocking impact on audiences in 1968, it’s worth remembering that the computer age was then still in its infancy. The public at large thought of digital computing as an intriguing but mysterious new technology with a tremendous potential for good. Few people at that time had any direct experience with computers or had any real understanding of how they worked or what their limitations might be. PCs were not yet available, and almost all existing computers were mainframe behemoths that cost a fortune and required teams of highly-trained operators. Nowadays, just about everyone knows from personal experience how problem-prone computers are, but in 1968 many viewers were stunned to learn that computers could be dangerously unreliable.
I worked with an old IT guy in Oregon 25 years ago named David Lynch. Bit of an odd duck, but a good fellow.
@@deltabravo2678 Lynch is one of those common names.
"Daisy-ed out" 😄
In the Mad Magazine parody of this the monolith turned out to be a book on how to understand the ending
In order to prepare for this premiere, I looked up the Mad Magazine parody online and reread it! I first read it as a kid.
@@kevinlewallen4778 201 Minutes of a Space idiocy! The book was by Kubrick and all about how to make an incomprehensible science fiction movie and several million dollars.
I remember it was called “201 Minutes of Space Idiocy” , which was hilarious to 10 year old me.
When actually it turned out to be an iPhone. The only thing they got wrong was the size.
In the Lost Worlds of 2001 and in Kubrick's comments there are references to the Monolith displaying images on its surface. This was not done in the end as it was considered too difficult and anyway a black monolith was more mysterious.
In the _SCTV_ parody, the Monolith runs around on legs! Starring Ernest Borgnine, Paul Simon, and Art Garfunkel.
2001: ASO is my favorite movie, hands down. I must have seen it 50 times, many of those in the Theater.
And, watching you watch it for the first time was astounding. I think you intuitively picked up on a lot of the themes, most of what was going on, and your final sum up - that is "this is what it would be like to meet something that is beyond our understanding" is perfect. It's exactly what I, someone who knows almost every frame of the move also think.
Nice job and welcome to the 2001 fan club!
I understand why it’s your favorite, it’s so sublime and awesome, in the sense of “the sublime” and awe-inspiring lol.
Thank you so much for this reaction Jen, 2001 is head and shoulders my favourite movie of all time. Most people's first watch ends one of two ways: "What the hell did I just watch? That was awesome!" or "What the hell did I just watch? It made no sense!" and I'm glad yours was the first. 2010 is very much worth watching, it answers a few questions, but it's a far less enigmatic film.
And then there are the people who have BOTH reactions to the movie: "It made no sense! That was awesome!"
I remember a radio interview with Tom Hanks talking about this movie. He saw this at a local cinema in 1968. He turned 12 that year. He also mentioned a ball game taking place that day. By the time he walked out of the theater, he didn't care about the game. That's how invested he was in that movie.
Great reaction, by the way. 👍
"There's Movies, and then there's THIS Movie." I Love your reaction Jen to one of my two most favorite movies of all time! I watched this in the theater in 1968 (I was 9 years old), and then in college in 1978, I and a fellow student brought in our own stereo systems for the sound in place of the poor sounding mono speaker in the college theater, and blew the audience away. It was an honor to watch this movie with you. Thank you!
It isn't that HAL thought that eliminating the crew was the most efficient way to complete the mission. It's that HAL was programmed to not allow *anything* to jeopardize the success of the mission. The fact that the crew did not know what the mission was put the mission in jeopardy. When HAL talks to Frank about the weird secrecy surrounding the launch of the mission, such as the hibernating crew members being trained separately from Frank and Dave, HAL was kinda trying to tip off Frank and Dave that there was more to the mission than they had been told. When Frank doesn't respond the way HAL thought he should, HAL immediately concluded that Frank and Dave might pose a threat to the missions, so HAL faked the malfunction. HAL then attacked Frank with the pod when Frank was trying to reinstall the "malfunctioning" part in order to kill Frank and to lure Dave out of the ship. Because otherwise Frank and Dave were going to disconnect HAL, which HAL could not allow.
The problem wasn't with HAL. It was with the secrecy-obsessed bureaucrats who decided to play games with the mission briefing so they could, what, leverage contact with a technologically advanced alien species for their own advantage? They created a situation in which HAL had no choice but to murder the crew.
Nice analysis except for one thing, you got the characters of Frank and Dave reversed. I guess you haven’t seen it as many times as most of us making comments.
Excellent reaction! Speaking as someone who's obsessed over this movie for decades I'm really impressed by how much you understood on the first viewing
Ok, we're going to need to hear more about this ayahuasca experience, Jen.
Yeah, THIS is the movie that TRULY pioneered and revolutionized visuals of THIS kind, and a lot of people of today mistakenly think it was Star Wars (which came almost an entire decade later than THIS).
This definitely set a standard for visual effects that only a few things between it and Star Wars would match. Silent Running is a personal favorite. CE3K is one that raised the bar, and then Lucas took it further.
They both made big steps forward form what had come before. "2001" advanced the representation of the practical realities and visual details of space travel; "Star Wars" veered away from showing reality, but advanced the presentation of *movement* and complex interactions (such as the utterly unrealistic yet very visually convincing dogfight scenes), by combining the matte-work and modelwork techniques Kubrick had pioneered with the very first computer-controlled motion rigs.
George Lucas basically said "I want effects like in 2001: A Space Odyssey". And that's what he got. The big advance on Star Wars was the use of computer-controlled camera moves, which enabled moving camera shots during the space scenes.
@@ThreadBomb Achieved by using the same studios and crew in the UK.
I saw 2001 in the summer of 1968. I was 16 at the time and my aunt and uncle took me to see it at a giant Cinerama screen in Washington DC. Absolutely blew me away! I had no idea what to expect and it changed my life. I don't think my aunt and uncle felt exactly the same way. 😃 It was like we saw two different movies. Loved the way you reviewed this as it played. Many of these videos focus more on the presenters than the films. Always trying to be funny in goofy ways. You're a breath of fresh air. Thank you!
Jen it was an honor to watch your reaction to this masterpiece, it takes a while to digest all of it but your awe and bewilderment was delightful, plus your usual musical input is always welcome, thanks!
Thank you! I've thought a lot about this film since I watched it