2001: A Space Odyssey Movie Reaction (I can't believe this was rated G)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ส.ค. 2021
- 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
FIRST TIME WATCHING 2001 A Space Odyssey was such a mind trip. Stanley Kubrick is truly one of the great filmmakers of the 20th Century and we were lucky to have his visionary storytelling.
For More Exclusive Content On Movies and TV Shows, and To Support My Channel, Please Subscribe To Me On Patreon: / kazzyreacts
Banner and Thumbnail designed by: @Skynobi_starwars
/ skynobi
Social Media:
Twitter: / kazzyreacts
Instagram: / kazzy.reacts
Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/KazzyReacts
#moviereaction #react #2001ASpaceOdyssey
Song by Kazzy's brother #Copyright
LOVE to ALL of you!
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @kazzycreates - บันเทิง
![[ไฮไลต์] แบดมินตันชาย SHI Yu Qi (จีน) vs วิว กุลวุฒิ (ไทย) รอบ 8 คน | โอลิมปิก 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/f7z7taforOM/mqdefault.jpg)
I’m glad to have suggested this wonderful film.
YOU ROCK!! Thank you, Moto Dork! Look at how everyone LOVES this movie!! There are more comments under this movie than most movies I have watched! 💯👍🏻🔥
@@KazzyCreates that makes me happy :-)
@@KazzyCreates …it was released in 1968. Kubrick started shooting the moon and Dr. Floyd sequences in 1965. The Dawn Of Man proto-man-apelike ancestors sequences were done last. It’s also noteworthy that the MPAA ratings were just a year or two old at that time. Your reaction was great. It’s a hard film to process, and I feel like you “get” more than think.
Thank you Kazzy Reacts! I love 2001 a space Odyssey. Even though I still don't understand the ending. The trippy visual effects just before the climax still look amazing! Also, 2010; the year we make contact is great! A criminally underrated movie.
@@KazzyCreates Don't forget Kubrick's friend and writer of the move is the legend of high quality science fiction, Arthur C. Clark. Very unusually Clarke wrote the book/script as they were making the movie. Reading the book (not very long) explains things, especially the end. Frank has been shot forward evolutionarily and become a "star child." The monolith on the moon sent a signal to near Saturn (in the book) as a sort of notification to the parent monolith as man has conquered space and is ready for another boost up in evolutionarily like the effect on early man technology was born when that bone was used as a tool and effective weapon. As the bone transitions into a graceful space ship we see the bone has evolved to a space ship bookending the history of technology. Based loosely on Clarke's short story The Sentinel about the discovery of a monolith of unknown origin.
"I don't quite understand the film."
Oh, just think about it for the next 50 years, there's no hurry.
Too true. I read the book before I saw the film and had to do some explaining to the people I saw the movie with.
People who don't read books will always be slow to catch up! But I suppose the human race does need Thicko! 😂😂😂
reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra helps :)
@@ThothWhoWrites The book doesn't explain the film at all they are two totally different things that were created in tandem, but not strictly related to each other.
@@joeldb I hate getting in arguments on the internet. But my experience was that the book explained a lot about the end. James Blish is closer to my view of that than yours. see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(novel)#Reception
You are entitled to your opinion, of course.
@19:00 in one of the lawsuits by Apple against Samsung for copying their iPad design, Samsung's attorneys brought up this scene to demonstrate that Apple didn't invent the iPad design 🙂
F***ing brilliant!
I watched a couple of “first watch” videos of 2001, and you are the first time one noticed the iPads! For many kids today, the iPads are so normal, they don’t get how outstanding they are back then
Excellent! I thought the IPAD idea in 1968 was brilliant!
"What kind of gift do you want?"
"A telephone."
Kubrick knew even back in the late 60s.... cell phones were coming.................. and the dang kids were gonna want them.
Lol yes. And she told him via an earth to moon Skype call.
Ocrilat
More of an Earth to ISS call.
I believe that was actually Clarke's idea for the movie, not Kubrick's.
@@rookmaster7502 Do you have a source for that?
@@Ocrilat No, not directly. However, Clarke touched on the very subject in his 1962 book, "Profiles of the Future", where he made predictions about future inventions and technological advancements. Of course, it is possible Kubrick read Clarke's book and thought it would be a good idea to incorporate that concept into the film.
Quite simply one of the most important movie of all times. A genuine masterpiece.
Kubrick never intended for people to fully understand this movie on first viewing, if ever. He preferred that viewers ponder its meaning rather than ruin the mystical effect by over-explaining it.
Though Arthur C Clarke explained it in the book. If you want the answers, read the book. Then you will understand the movies.
@@wackyvorlon Yes, the book, chapters of which Clarke sent to Kubrick as he was writing it, explains everything exactly. Once you know what's going on, every little bit of the movie from beginning to end makes perfect sense.
@@wackyvorlon
Yes, the book is far less arcane and mysterious.
I saw this first as a teen, and it was pretty obvious even then that the film was about the evolution of humanity. It's very stylized, but there's nothing really confusing about it.
@@wackyvorlon There is a story that Kubrick was misdirecting Clarke on the ending of the movie.
2001: A Space Odyssey isn’t a film. It’s an experience.
The only thing I can think of that compares to it was voting for Barack Obama.
Apparently a lot of people who saw it were on LSD at the time. I’ve heard it’s nuts when viewed that way. I’m not much of a drug person though.
@@trhansen3244 😂😂😭
In a full size screen and theater sound. I can't tell you how many times I saw it that way when it first came out at a state of the art theater. Now it's on a monitor with ear buds. For shame, for shame. Even a 58 inch 4K with a sound bar doesn't hold up to the theater. I know from experience.
An experience, indeed! Best experienced on the biggest screen you can get to. Saw it on an IMAX screen a few years ago at a film festival in Copenhagen. Still fantastic.
More like: first there was a bone, now it's a spaceship. That's why THAT cut from the bone to the spaceship. That's the whole evolution of technology in one single cut! :D The most ingenious cut in the history of film.
It's a nuke satellite, a weapon just as the bone.
@@Malfehzan very astute observation there... Reminds me of George Carlin's remark regarding missiles all looking like dicks! From evolution to de-evolution and all over penis envi!?! 🤣
bone weapon.
spaceship orbital nuke weapon.
@@Malfehzan Humanity's first weapon jump cuts to humanity's last.
@@willmfrank that would have been another bone.
The greatest science fiction film ever made. Absolutely epic
The Starchild, the next step of the evolution of humans.
Those other animals are Tapirs. They are related to horses and rhinos on the evolutionary chain. They are considered living fossils because they have remained unchanged for a very long time.
Also, they are, and were, south American, so our forebears never actually met them. But Kubrick liked their prehistoric appearance.
@@AlanCanon2222
Very true!👍
Loved your reaction!
I was in college 66-70 when this film first came out, and you are correct--we were blown away. To truly appreciate the film, one must understand that our culture was undergoing three significant influences that touched our lives every single day: First, the war in Vietnam. Second, the Cold War with the Soviet Union and the 24/7 threat of nuclear Armageddon. (We had nuclear attack drills in school, like tornado drills nowadays). Third was the all-consuming Space Race. Billions of $$ were sunk into that program and every day there was news about some new scientific discovery or accomplishment or manned space launch. In less than 10 years we landed men on the moon. And more than once!. So, in those days it was reasonable and not beyond comprehension that in another 32 years (1969 to 2001) we would realistically have space stations or manned probes to Jupiter. People today cannot understand the economic, financial, employment, and other such sectors impacted by that Space Race. Had we continued at that rate (not saying that we could have done so) we would have colonized Mars by now. Incredible times to be 20 years old!!
The visual effects are all the more impressive when you consider fillming occurred in 1965-7 and there was no such thing as CGI. All the spaceships are physical models. The floating pen was stuck to a large piece of clear perspex. How do you get the effect of an astronaut jogging around a big cylinder? You build the life sized set and literally rotate it at the same speed as the jogger. The lengths they went to to get those effects - amazing! That's Kubrick for you. I saw this in '68 in Cinerama. Now that was an experience!
I was born 8 months to the day after 2001 premiered, and it's been my favorite movie since childhood. Seen it in theaters twice, but hundreds of times otherwise. I envy your seeing the premiere, very much.
There was no other movie like it in 1967. It would be decades before special effects in movies caught up to what Kubrick did in 2001.
@@AlanCanon2222 I didn't see the actual premiere, but I saw the film in '68 which was the year of release and in the original release format - Cinerama: 70mm on a curved screen. Very immersive and almost 3D. I was 15. It really made an impact on me.
@@marknickols7316 Saw it on the post Star Wars re-release, I think at the 70mm equipped Cinerama theater at Showcase Cinemas (Louisville), though it's possible I wasn't seeing it in 70mm. I'd had the soundtrack album forever, and my level of anticipation was through the roof. I can't remember if I read the novel first or soon thereafter.
I also saw it on its initial release in Cinerama in Auckland, New Zealand. It was such an overwhelming experience that I went again the following week, and my viewing of it now is still through the lens of that experience. I saw it a few years ago in the BFI Imax cinema in London but the image only took up part of the Imax screen. Still, there were a lot of young people in the audience so maybe for them it was as impactful, but somehow I doubt it : this film cries out for Cinerama!
“I’m sorry, Kazzy. I’m afraid I can’t do that.” 🔴
Way back in the day, a G rated movie just meant it was open to everybody. PG meant that parents needed to use discretion on allowing their kids to see the movie...they could have nudity, violence and profanity. R was absolutely nobody under 17. If you think about it, Jaws was rated PG. It wasn't until 1984 when PG-13 was introduced that more graphic material in PG movies was "rated up", and made more kid friendly.
To see more examples of "G" rated films from this era I recommend "The Green Berets" (1968), "Planet of the Apes" (1968) (which I tried desperately to get my parents to let me see!), "Romeo and Juliet" (1968), "Dracula Has Risen From the Grave" (1969), "Airport" (1970), and "Dark Star" (1971). For an quick overview of the "M" rating, check out "Valley of the Dolls" (1968), "Rosemary's Baby" (1968), and "Night of the Living Dead" (1968), and the GP "Vanishing Point" (1971), which means unaccompanied children would be allowed to watch any of them.
Actually, back in the day, a PG movie had mild sex, violence, and/or profanity. An R rated film meant that if you were under 17 years of age, you needed to be accompanied by a parent (or 21 year old) to get in. If a movie had an X rating (as ‘A Clockwork Orange’ did originally), you could not get in if you were under 18. The PG-13 rating came later.
@@slw59 That's pretty much what I said. I got a few things wrong, so to clarify here's a quote from an article about the MPAA ratings system...
"The initial rating categories were G (appropriate for all ages), M (for mature audiences, but all ages admitted), R (persons under 16 not admitted without an accompanying adult) and X (no one under 17 admitted). The M category was eventually changed to PG (parental guidance suggested), the R age limit was raised to 17 and on July 1, 1984, the PG-13 category was added to indicate film content with a “higher level of intensity.” According to the MPAA, the content of a PG-13 film “may be inappropriate for a children under 13 years old” and “may contain very strong language, nudity (non-explicit), strong, mildly bloody violence or mild drug content.” On August 10, 1984, the action film Red Dawn, starring Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen, became the first-ever PG-13 movie to be released in theaters."
@@KC1976fromDetroit I was correcting you on your comment "R was absolutely nobody under 17". You could get into an R rated movie if someone 21 years or older was with you.
PG-13 only exists because Spielberg refused to cut the "still-beating heart" scene from Temple of Doom
Eventually you should watch this on a 60 foot screen with a powerhouse sound system in 70mm FILM. It’s AWESOME!
I never saw this in cinemascope as there are not too many theaters that can.
If you watch the 1984 sequel, "2010: The Year We Make Contact", HAL's mental breakdown is explained in a way that makes perfect sense. 2010 isn't as good as 2001, but it's definitely worth watching.
2010 is more of a contemporary film, made to be appreciated as a "movie" rather than a more artsy film. While this does give it less historical significance, it does make the narrative easier to follow.
I could not agree more. By focusing the plot of the sequel on the mystery of HAL's betrayal Peter Hyams avoids trying to create a derivative work or making the mistake of trying to explain the existence of the monoliths and their origin. Instead we are taken on a very grounded journey to answer a very simple question. And while the answer is simple and satisfying it is what we also learn during the process that enhances our appreciation for the original and confounds us with the fact that we will never truly know what it is all about. As sequels go, I don't think anyone could ask for more.
I agree I was about to make the same comment
There are also TH-cam videos (such as collative learning) which provide various explanations. Also a good one in the book "The Making of Kubrick's 2001". Read none of them. Watch none of them. Let 2001 ferment in the head and try to come up with your own notions. That's probably the point of the movie. I wish I had done that.
@@t.gadway6729 I love Collative Learning, great channel!
The idea behind the breathing in the helmet came about when Kubrick tried the helmet on when the completed costume piece was shown to him. He tries the helmet on and realizes he cant hear anyone and can only hear his own breathing which is amplified inside the helmet. As he walks around with the helmet on he finds the experience fascinating and it became the inspiration for that scene.
And the sound you hear is Kubrick's breath.
It actually came out in 1968, not 1969. I know because I always thought how brilliant it was that it was made before the first moon landing (1969). I also know because I read that they hard time with the opening scene as just about every makeup artist in Hollywood was working on Planet Of The Apes (1968).
"Planet Of The Apes" opened the same day as "2001", can you believe that? You could have seen "2001"....and in a way, you could have pretended "Planet Of the Apes" was the sequel! Starchild gives the planet back to the apes! lol. Also: "2001" was filmed between 1966 and 1968. (it opened in April). Amazing.
@@TTM9691 Planet of the Apes actually premiered on February 8 1968: 2001 on April 2nd.
@@MarkFoster321789 It's premiere was on February 8. But it opened nationwide April 3rd. 2001 premiered on April 2nd, but opened nationwide April 3rd. For all intents and purposes, April 3rd is the day when paying audiences were able to see both movies.
@@TTM9691 Thank you for the info.
I haven't seen anyone mention this yet, but the seed for this movie was Arthur C. Clarke's short story, "The Sentinel", which, although it doesn't deal with the philosophical, or spiritual, messaging of 2001, gave birth to the purpose of the monolith.
It's basically the middle section of the movie.
Read the novelization of the movie by Arthur C. Clarke.
The Dawn of Man sequence up to the bone throw (since the space station and moon scenes are also part of The Dawn of Man) is also lifted from his story "Encounter in the Dawn".
@@CelestialWoodway one piece of Encounter in the Dawn carried over into the 2001 novel is that one night the researchers (= monolith) make a mistake, and accidentally kill one of the man-apes. In both stories, the visiting intelligence feels sorrow.
@@CelestialWoodway Technically, the book is not a novelization of the movie as it was written concurrently as the movie was made. The movie isn't based on the book, nor the book on the movie. They were meant to be Clarke's and Kubrick's separate takes on the story.
Released in 1968, they started production in 1965 so even more impressive and before the moon landing in 1969
Another interesting film to note in that regard is Destination: Moon from 1950. While it is a product of its time, visually; it does break from the tradition of alien creatures and invasions. It was just a trip to the moon, and the technical challenges in doing so, as well as problem-solving when things go wrong. While they had not yet considered things like orbital maneuvering, rendezvous, and the other important aspects of the Apollo missions, it does get a surprising amount of aspects correct, especially for its time. Its is definitely worth watching for context.
They started filming in December 1965. Kubrick spent about a year or so before that working on the story with Arthur C. Clarke.
Some of the comments recommend reading Arthur C. Clarke's novel based on the screen play (he co-wrote the screenplay with Kubrick) or watching the sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact" as ways of better understanding "2001". Personally, I don't think the movie was meant to have "answers". There is intentional ambiguity in the film and it's meaning and intent are meant to be left open to interpretation. If Kubrick wanted to provide answers, he would have given them. I'm not saying the book and the sequel aren't worth reading or watching, just that I wouldn't think of those as somehow providing definitive answers to questions about 2001.
I stumbled on a video of clips of Christopher Nolan (Nolan worked on a restoration of the movie in 2018) talking about 2001 and he said pretty much the same thing regarding Arthur C. Clarke's novelization of the movie's screenplay. Very interesting: th-cam.com/video/U43HcQi2w84/w-d-xo.html
Yes, the film is very much intended to be a writerly work. It's deliberately open to interpretation and leaves it up to the viewer to extract meaning from it.
But definitely read the book, it's a fantastic work in its own right
There are those who say that the choice of the Introduction to "Also Sprach Zarathustra" by Richard Strauss which accompanies the iconic opening sequence is no accident. Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophical book of the same name, amongst other things talks about the ultimate formation of a super race (the Star Child). Kubrick was never drawn into revealing anything, but it's certain that he had a healthy cynicism about the intelligence of the "intelligent ape", it's a thread that runs through his films.
I can't say I remember it properly, but, at the end, the Star Child contemplated the approaching nuclear missiles and thought that he didn't know what to do but would think of something.
That echoed the thought of the first ape raised in intelligence at the beginning (Moon Watcher), who thought the same after obtaining food, water and security through tool use.
But keep in mind the book was written AFTER the movie. Clarke and Kubrick had many disagreements making the film so Clarke decided to put in the book all the things that Kubrick did not let him put in the film
One last thing: The G rating. This was when they first put out the ratings. G meant general audiences, it didn't mean "for kids" like we think now. ("Midnight Cowboy" and "A Clockwork Orange" were rated X, lol). That said, schools brought their students to "2001", that's how one member of my family saw it.
Same thing with Planet of The Apes. I was surprised when I read that it was G as well.
And US and UK ratings differ as well. Even nowadays, a US rating of "R" can get a "certificate X" in the UK, mostly because they don't have an actual "R" rating, and a certain amount of violence can mean it gets left there in the UK's "X" certification category. Inversely, the UK is less prudish about sex and profanity, so there can be mismatches, comparing the same film on different certification criteria.
The Dawn of Man scene is interesting. A huge "front projection" reflective screen is used in a couple of places. The tiger in the tundra was filmed first, then the actor in the ape costume had to perfect their positioning, relative to the tiger footage to sell the illusion of a tiger attack. Kubrik's shooting ratio was said to be about 100:1 (a hundred takes to get it right) in some cases, especially for this film, and way over budget. When the monolith appeared, the sky in the background was projected still photo. Notice how the clouds don't move, as if the monolith has stopped time! This whole movie is a master class in the best effects technology of the era.
My comments about the Dawn of Man scene was off topic. I forgot I was still in the Reply section. Oh well. Sorry I went a little off topic. Cheers.
@@ericgollinger367 also, the ship is an attack ship like the bone was used to attack. I wished they showed that particular ship some more.
This is an amazing movie, but let us not forget the enormous contribution by Arthur C. Clarke, and even some input by Carl Sagan,
"The lost worlds of 2001" by Clarke is also an interesting read. It's a mix of alternative scenes he worked on and Clarke talking about his collaboration with Kubrick and the film production.
@Zombie True dat!
Except this movie was supposed to be based on the first book of Clarke's four book series and Kubrick didn't let him finish and Clarke wasn't pleased.
N.A.S.A. also had a big part in it.
Sagan? Never knew that
In 2019 I finally lived a lifelong dream and saw this movie in a theater. It was incredible!
The Monolith’s appearances marks the moment when mankind reaches a significant point of evolution. The dawn of man is the change when apes discover the ability to use tools. Then the monolith on the moon. It was buried there by the same intelligent life waiting for the time when mankind reaches the moon and discovers it. The high pitch sound was activated when sunlight hits the excavated monolith and it sends a signal towards Jupiter which is why a ship was sent there to investigate.
However, eventually technology is a dead end. Technology threatens to destroy man, either through orbiting nuclear weapon satellites or AI such as HAL. Thus, the monolith aliens again evolve man to a post-technological status as a Star Child.
@@gordondavis6168 The Evolution of technology is neutral. What mankind does of it and if mankind is evolved enough to use it stands on another page.
@@stell4you The funny thing is, on analysis, it was the HIDING of information and secrecy that caused destruction, not the technology on it's own.
The need to keep that secret hidden leads to conflict and then creates more conflict to avoid it getting out.
Look what we've gone through with this China Lab virus and Dr Fauci (Doing 'Gain of Function' testing with a known oppressive enemy country or anywhere for that matter) wanting to say it came from animals (When all the sequence data shows it's man made) and all the lies and ties to China, Russia, Ukraine by the Bidens, Clintons, Obamas and others.
They are keeping secrets and trying to do things without telling the general public out of greed and corruption.
Now we are on the brink of releasing terrible weapons of technology over these humans HIDING all what they are doing.
Putin is the last problem, in the chain of problems, leading up to the current war.
"What mankind does of it" yes correct.
We are nowhere near a "Star Trek Federation" society.
We are still warring over territory and resources like primates.
Be sure to react to the awesome sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact" (1984), and despite what some say it is a very excellent movie written by the same Arthur C. Clarke, and has a mind-blowing ending. 🖖😎
Rubbish.
Fun fact: to get the one set of Zero-G toilet instructions, they had to order something like 100 sets from Letraset. Ten years later, when Alien was filming at the same studio, the set builders found the 98 unused sets forgotten about in storage and decided to make use of them, so yep, most of the too-small-to-read stencilling on the bridge of the Nostromo is actually zero-G toilet instructions... ;-)
Kazzy, you keep mentioning how so many of the shots/scenes remind you of other movies. You're absolutely right! Someone else mentioned that this more than a movie, it is an experience. So much so, it influenced a whole generation of filmmakers.
It is simply "the father" of space-sci-fi as we know it today.
Omg Kazzy. You said the ship looked like it had a face. I’ve thought that every time I have watched this movie! I thought I was crazy lol. Glad to see you are at least as crazy as me!! Lol. Thank you!
Me too: before I saw the movie, my dad had the soundtrack album, with pictures in it, so I even thought that before I saw the film (I spent hours listening to the soundtrack and looking at the liner notes).
You’re not crazy! The phenomenon even has a name: pareidolia.
I always thought the ship resembled a sperm which would be a fitting metaphor.
Spielberg did that in Close Encounters with the ships at the end. It makes them friendlier or more relatable to the audience.
It was an EMoji face.😮 LOL
The blank screens at the beginning and after the intermission (yes, an actual intermission.) were meant to be for a closed curtain. Stage protocols lingered. I also saw this with _Lawrence of Arabia_ and _West Side Story_ when they were screened at a London Ontario cinema in the 90s.
Yes it was common ( intermission ) when the average running time of a film was much longer than today 3 and 4 hour movies where normal. Kind of like in a play they still have intermissions like with a Shakespeare production, hamlet is a four hour play
Back then they still used the curtain in movie theatres. I miss that lol. We also still clapped at the end of a film.
Last two films with an overture are Walt Disney's The Black Hole, and Star Trek: The Motion Picture, both 1979.
@@AlanCanon2222 motion picture was 79 interesting. I remember going to a very old theater a n old cinema palace and they still did intermissions although the film didn't have one in it , it was just a tradition they wanted to maintain this was in 1990 , sadly its a department store today , but the Beatles once played there .
@@AlanCanon2222 Funnily, I loved both films.
"Wow, this is so ahead of its time, this movie... unbelievable". Nailed it after 10 minutes, Kazzy !
Awe im so glad gou watched this! One of my favs :)
Oh and the opening black screen is supposed to be you staring at the Monolith
Never thought of that!
Stuart Freeborn, who created the ape costumes, also made Chewbacca’s costume, Yoda, and Jabba The Hutt.
I was 7 years old when I saw this, and it was completely unbelievable. In many ways, it still is. And Pan-Am is no longer a company!
Are you sure you were 7? How can a 7-year-old gt this film?
@@binghamguevara6814 The title of this video literally states that the movie used to have a G rating when it originally played.
I was 8 when I first saw it (in 1968), then saw it again as a teenager and then again when I was at University helping to run the film club. By then I'd read the book many times but I still was in awe and empathised with all the other students muttering questions to themselves as they left the screening.
Even reading the book, plus the sequels, the 2001 movie retains some mystery because it's a glimpse into Kubrick's mind; even Arthur C Clarke himself, after writing the book and working closely with Kubrick, was surprised when he saw the movie for the first time.
@@PaulMDove2 Have you seen Koyaanisqatsi (1982)?
@@binghamguevara6814 No I haven't. Big fan of Philip Glass's music so definitely a film I'd like to see.
Rumor has it that the Oscar for best costume design in 1968 went to Planet of the Apes, because the jury thought that the apes in 2001: A Space Odyssey were real apes...
It's a cute story, but I think more likely, it's because Planet of the Apes needed and used the makeup more. Although the realism of the 2001 apes is astonishing and probably the better makeup job, it's also a very small part in a much longer movie. Planet of the Apes needed great, ape-like makeup that let actors with speaking roles emote and give dialogue throughout the runtime. If the apes in 2001 were bad, it'd be an awkward start and then once the space stuff started, people would say "Ah, this is where they spent the money!" If PotA's makeup was bad, the film doesn't work.
There is an interesting story behind the music score. They hired someone to write original music for the movie, but because of various issues it got delayed. Meanwhile the studio was getting impatient and wanted to see what Kubrick had done. So Kubrick sent them a print with a "stand in" score made of different musical selections. In the end, that cobbled together score ended up being the final movie score.
My understanding about the classical music throughout the film is that it was originally a placeholder but when Kubrick saw the chunks of the film with the classical score he far preferred it to the score they were working on. He wanted grand, big, gigantic, timeless feelings to go throughout the film.
Alex North wrote the rejected score. There was a CD of it once. Apparently, Kubrick didn't ask permission to use Ligeti's music and there was a bit of bother about it.
One special effect everyone misses if they don't know about it is that all the ape shots (except for one or two close shots against a real sky background) were shot on a sound stage in the studio using a process called front projection.
The people seen in windows in the spacecraft were put there by the same process - projected onto tiny front projection screens pasted onto the miniatures.
Incidentally, the pit on the moon was shot on the largest stage at Shepperton Studios as MGM Borehamwood didn't have a stage that big.
The newborn baby at the end represents a new beginning.
2010 is worth watching as you get insight into why HAL acted as he did
HAL is a take off of IBM. In the alphabet sequence H, I .... A, B .... L, M .....
Watch the sequel "2010, the Year We make Contact" to continue the journey.
Clarke always maintained that the HAL / IBM thing was purely coincidental.
Clarke actually made his *characters* deny it in the book 2010, but that piece of dialogue did not carry over to the movie.
Nice to meet you, too! I could spend days answering your questions about this movie (which is my all-time personal favorite), but I'll just tell you about the black screen with the music at the very beginning before the studio logo and opening titles. That's called the "entr'acte" which many movies used at the time. Essentially it was a way for the theatre audience to know the movie was about to begin, so people could make their way to their seats if they were coming back from the bathroom, snack bar, etc. And a theatre with a (very) big screen is really the best way to appreciate this particular film; if it ever plays in one of your local theatres as a classic revival, by all means see it again there - a totally different experience!
On Apollo 16, one of the astronauts, fell on his back and afterwards listened for the sound of his EVA backpack to make sure he was okay. In space all you can hear is the sounds of your environmental suit. If Kubrick has done this without sound, we would not get the same effect that we would if everything was silent.
I can't wait for your reactions to Dr. Strangelove, Paths of Glory, and Lolita.
And Spartacus.
A Clockwork Orange.
@@richardb6260 - I'm not sure that I can really call Spartacus a Kubrick movie. He did not have creative control. Kirk Douglas and his Bryna company had. He was only hired as a replacement when the original director, Anthony Mann, was fired.
@@Yngvarfo Most Kubrick fans do not consider “Spartacus” a true Kubrick movie. There’s a few, but most don’t.
@@reving19 - Still, Kubrick did put in a little Spartacus reference in Lolita, when Quilty said "I'm Spartacus." Much like he had a little 2001 reference in A Clockwork Orange, with the 2001 album in the record shop.
The fade from the thigh bone to the spaceship was one of the most amazing edits ever
That spaceship is a missile platform, so the bone/club weapon has also 'evolved'
As a kid, I watched it on our black & white TV and it creeped me out. I really should watch it again.
LOVED HOW YOU SHOWED OR PLAYED THE OPENING BLACK SCREEN MUSIC INTRO and silence --- a really a cool way of presenting this film's opening.
I've been watching 2001 for nearly 40yrs and find different meanings every time I watch it.
There are some really good books about the making of this film. 2010: The Year We Make Contact is really good as well, but is not a landmark film, like 2001 was. The thrown bone to orbiting satellite is considered by many to be the greatest jump cut in the history of cinema.
Loved your reaction to this... 2001 is an absolute gem.
At age 16 in 1969, I was fortunate to have read Clarke’s 2001 book shortly before seeing Kubrick’s film on the theatre big screen.
The movie wasn't based on Clarke's book. Rather, Clarke wrote it as a kind of companion piece to the movie. It does help to explain a number of things which the movie doesn't reveal.
The Ending: the entity/entities behind the Monolith are seemingly curious about life and its nature, it perhaps being a new phenom. Thus they reach out to life, first inspiring it, then setting markers for it, so it might find its way to them. Upon his arrival, the entity/s thoroughly examine Dave, providing him a comfortable setting and environment- even a last meal as they explore what really mystifies them about life- mortality. They hasten him along to and observe his death, contemplate it, and then decide to try living: creating their own version of life, the 'Star Child' in the end, perhaps Dave himself reborn in a way.
A more complete version of this is in Arthur C. Clarke's "Rama" series. The first book "Rendezvous with Rama" is my favorite but many find it a bit dry. The sequels explore the same themes 2001 does but in far more detail. Very fun books.
I always saw it as a new beginning but maybe I'm wrong.
@@Kilotile That's how I see it. The movie starts with the dawn of man --- ends with a new dawn for mankind. I read it as a visual metaphor.
Oh my gosh, you did a GREAT job on this one, Kazzy! I'm subscribing right....now! Oh my god, PLEASE do more classic movies! I don't even know where to begin! The fact that you immediately spotted the exact shots that so many directors ripped off (or paid homage to) - and then you show us! - thank you. For Stanley! :) Wow. You never know how someone is going to take this movie. This is obviously right in your scope. I know you know from your previous Kubrick movie experiences: his endings always leave you with questions! Is it God? Is it alien intelligence? Is God an alien? These are all legitimate paths. Is the baby at the end literally a superbaby, the size of a planet? Is it symbolic of man's next leap in intelligence? People have been debating these questions since 1968, when it came out at the height of "flower power" with the youth culture at the time showing up in droves, usually under the influence of hallucinongens, lol.
Miss Kazzy! Ten years later, the next best alien-contact movie came out: CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND! Have you seen that? You must have! Spielberg's amazing follow-up to Jaws, it's about UFO sightings, a huge blockbuster and one of the most dazzling movies you'll ever see. The effects were done by the same guy who worked on "2001", Douglas Trumball. HIGHLY recommended if you haven't seen it already. It's his best movie, hands down.
Also regarding Kubrick: you mention "Full Metal Jacket". Definitely see "Paths Of Glory", which is another one of his greatest films, and (with all due respect to "Full Metal") his greatest war film. "Dr. Strangelove" is a satire of nuclear warfare, that's also great. "The Killing" you'll see where Tarantino gets his whole story structure. And "Lolita" is a forgotten, super weird gem. "Barry Lyndon" is a period piece that takes place in the early 1800s and literally looks like moving paintings. (it came out between "Clockwork Orange" and "The Shining").
Sorry for writing so much! Just excited to find your channel! This was GREAT! As I said, I subscribed!
PS: If you want to see what space effects otherwise looked like in 1968, you can check out the original "Planet Of The Apes" which came out the same day as "2001: A Space Odyssey"! That's a fantastic movie in it's own right, although I'm sure you've seen it. Anyways, that movie opens with space travel.
Unlike Most filmmakers, Stanley Kubrick never likes to tell the audience what his films are about or their meaning. His thinking is to let the film impact the viewers, and let them decide, discuss, come to their own conclusions. Now you definitely need to watch 2010: Odyssey Two.
The Greatest Movie Of All Time...IMHO as a 40-year-long 2001 fan. I have had my SONY BRAVIA 65 Inch OLED TV for three months now, and the recent 4KUHD and Blu-Ray releases look incredibly beautiful.
The greatest science fiction film ever made! And the most intelligent. 53 years old and still looks great. A masterpiece of filmmaking!
13:27 Well on the ISS the toilets use suction. like peeing into a vacuum cleaner. LOL
This was also true for the space shuttles when they were still active.
watched it back in '88 when I was 7. my mom tried to convince me not to, but I wouldn't obey. I do remember her saying something like "this film isn't for kids". she was right, as I find it to be the epitome of "cosmic horror". still, I am grateful that I've seen it. it changed me in ways that I am still unraveling.
Hi Kazzy,. Great reaction! Very thoughtful! And I agree about the G rating.... except for a crucial fact. Ratings were and are supposed to account for the artistic importance of works, so that young people could have their minds blown by _great_ art. And so it was that in 1969 when I was eleven and my brother thirteen, we were taken to watch the movie by my blessed grandmother. Word was that this film was powerful like no other film in history, and there was agreement that great art should get the earliest possible exposure. And so we came, we saw, we learned. It changed my life, and I will always be grateful for the wisdom of that enlightened policy. Cheers!
I preemptively gave you a thumbs up because I already know you’re gonna do an excellent job!!
Thank you so much, Ralph!! 🤗✌🏼💜
When the ape throws the bone into the air... The shot represent the big jump from that point to the actual time. Bone and spaceship equalize in vision that perspective period of time with unspoken words. In nutshell, "look where we were millions of years ago to where we are now".
Also is that spaceship actually a weapon?
@@Marginwalker1972 Yes it is an orbiting nuclear weapon platform.
In 1961, an IBM 704 at Bell Labs was programmed to sing "Daisy Bell" in the earliest demonstration of computer speech synthesis. This recording has been included in the United States National Recording Registry.
This was Snazzy and your voice is Jazzy, Kazzy. Subbed!
The novel released after the film came out adds in some nice details. Like when the wormhole (?) opens and Bowman's last words are "My god, it's full of stars." The film is a long homage to Nietzschean philosophy: ape-man-overman. The "star-child" is the next stage of humanity, one that is "more than human" and beyond our conventional morality. "He didn't know what he would do - but he would *think* of something" is another important line in the book that is only implied in the film. It appears twice in the book, when the ape becomes reasoning, and when the star-child has wiped out the Earth's nuclear weapons at the very end of the novel.
It's funny, I read the novel way before I saw the movie for the first time, so everything in the movie just made perfect sense to me. :) I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that so many people have trouble understanding what's going on. I do *know* why that is, I just don't *feel* it.
Thank God Kubrick didn't put any of that in the movie, lol. (The book also goes to Saturn, not Jupiter.)
"My God! It's full of stars!" I highly recommend you watch _2010: The Year We Make Contact._ As sequels go it is actually very good. And it showcases just what a phenomenal actor Roy Scheider really was. The sequel doesn't try to explain everything but it does offer some answers that enhance ones appreciation of 2001. I found the explanation for Hal's behavior most satisfying. And the whole cast puts in some stellar performances.
It's like a dumbed down 2001, but halfway decent as far as sequels go.
@@dan_hitchman007 I'm not sure it is fair to call it "dumbed down" anymore than it would be fair to describe _Aliens (1986)_ less of a sci-fi horror thriller than the original _Alien (1979)_ Like the two _Alien_ movies, _2001_ and its sequel are two entirely different types of films. _2001_ was a groundbreaking Sci-Fi masterpiece which inspired a generation of film makers like Lucas, Speilberg, Scott, Cameron and Hyams. I don't think Peter Hyams was trying to make the same type of cerebral science fiction film. For that you would need to see something like Andrei Tarkovsky's _Solaris. (1972)_ Hyams was trying to make a sequel to one of the best movies ever made. Had he tried to replicate the style and tone of the original he would undoubtedly failed and been accused of creating a derivative work. Instead I think he did a yeoman's job of adapting Clarke's story and focusing on explaining Hal's betrayal rather than trying to explain the mystery of the monolith. This is why I enjoy the sequel as much if not more than the original. It is because it makes the original movie better for the answers it does provide much as _The Empire Strikes Back_ makes _Star Wars_ a better film by providing motivation and depth to the characters introduced in the first film. Making a successful sequel is not an easy job. Just ask Rian Johnson.
@@robertanderson6929 2001 does not need to be explained. That's the beauty of it. Even Kubrick made it more open to interpretation than Arthur C. Clarke wanted. His short story made the builders unmistakably alien in nature, but Kubrick wanted these beings to stay mysterious and have the audience challenged. It was already hinted at as to HAL's motivation (during his deactivation) and it correlated back to the Dawn of Man sequence and his desire for survival using evolutionary methods (tool use turned into a club of death in this case), often leading to violence to make it happen. HAL was the next stage in man's evolutionary process and it wanted to survive and complete its mission (its reason for being). It felt it must kill to do both.
I highly recommend that you don't watch 2010 or read the book. Clarke ruins the impact and purpose of 2001 by over-explaining everything. Decide for yourself what the meaning of this masterpiece is.
@@dan_hitchman007 I didn't say that _2001_ needed to be explained. In fact, I praised Peter Hyams for not trying to explain the monoliths or their origin. I said that I appreciated that Hyams chose to focus on the reason for HAL's betrayal. HAL was created by man. The reason for his betrayal is of interest to the audience and ultimately the reveal is rational and easily believed. Hyams couples the very grounded mystery plot with just enough interaction between HAL and Bowman to provide the viewer with a confirmation that the monolith did influence the proto-humans as well as HAL. I thought it was expertly done. And again, if you think it is easy to pull off a successful sequel to a beloved movie, I would offer Rian Johnson and _The Last Jedi_ as evidence to the contrary.
Very good assesment Amada (Kazzy). I saw it when it came out in London, widescreen. Yes, it still looks amazing.
Hey Kazzy, what a amazing experience!!! An when I it back in the day, iam 66 I was thinking the same thing your thinking now..... What does it all mean??????? An I think that was one of the main reasons he filmed it the way he did, to get everyone's mind thinking of different ways to interrupt it. To go beyond what we were used to, to go where no one has gone before, ( pardon the pun) I for one was at a lost. Being 14 years old at the time. An all ready a syfy nut, anything to do with space that was me!! Until I saw 2010, the sequel to this one, an it all made sense to me. I really hope you do a reaction to that one too, it's one of my all time favorites also. Great reaction, thanks for the Flash Back!! Lv ya mean it ❤️❤️❤️😎
Kubrick never intended 2001 to have an "explanation." What it means is whatever it means to you.
I LOVE that. However, many people here are telling me "what it all means" 😁💜
This is a piece of art. Carl Sagan (in «The cosmic connection») tells how he advised Kubrick on the poetic ending. Beautiful. If this is your thing, I strongly recommend «Solaris» by Andrei Tarkovski.
Seconding the recommend for Solaris (Tarkovsky, 1972).
Excellent recommendation. It was billed as Russia's answer to 2001 - which it wasn't - but is a terrific film which poses similarly deep philosophical questions.
Yes the original Russian one, not the remake.
What’s very interesting about this movie is the fact that he talked with scientists about future technology and they suggested to him where we would be tech wise in 2001. There is a scene where they are eating and watching the news on tablets. They were off by 10 years on tablets . But it was close.
Principal photography began on 29 December 1965. Filming of actors was completed in September 1967. From June 1966 until March 1968, Kubrick spent most of his time working on the 205 special-effects shots in the film. The film's world premiere was on 2 April 1968. Wiki.
I don't know if I'd call this an art film but it definitely is full, full of art and has sections that let the audience decide what it all means.
I have read it being described as a cinematic Rorschach Test.
For me, still the best SF film ever. Close Encounters of the third kind, is another Classic.
I'm one of those people who saw this in the theater when it premiered. I was 8 years old, my father took me to see it. I cannot describe how stunning this was. Everyone talked about this movie for years after, have you seen 2001? No? Go see it! LOL
I did not fully understand this movie, despite seeing it multiple times, until I read the book. That's when all these scenes clicked, and I finally got it all.
Keep in mind, this was made between 1966-1968, and avant-garde art was in the air and water. You breathed it every day. Lots of artistic experimentation going on. Kubrick challenged himself (and his audience) to see how much story he could tell with visuals only, no explanations, minimal dialogue.
I finally read the book to see if that helped, and it's actually a beautiful and elegant little story. Read it, then watch this again, you'll have a whole new appreciation.
Being 1969 when this came out, there were typically three reactions: people who walked out because they were so confused; people who were amazed by how well done it was that they embraced the confusion; and people who said, "whoa, that was a hell of an acid trip, man!" My mother was one of the folks who saw it while tripping.
Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh I don't think that I'd agree that the visuals in THIS movie look like they were "made today" as you put it. Because if they were "made today" then they would resemble stupid computer simulations, which they don't.
To me, 2001 is like a spiritual journey, I am not particularly a spiritual person but this film puts me in a trance-like state. I feel like the journey you take is more important to the 'meaning' of the film. Also a few years ago I had the privilege to watch 2001 on 70mm film at the Cinerama followed by a Q&A with Douglas Trumbull, the visual effects director for this film, and that was something else.
The way I interpret it is that every time someone comes into contact with the Monolith is that they receive an increase in intelligence.
I saw this movie when I was three years old. My mom said that I just stood on the seat for the duration of the movie and just stared at the screen. :)
Regarding HAL's behavior, below is a very slight spoiler for the sequel 2010, which is another very cool movie by the way.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I think the reason that HAL went crazy was that two orders came into conflict. On the one hand he is compelled to always tell the truth, but then he was told by the higher ups to lie to the crew about their mission (which was kept secret), and he couldn't deal with the conflict.
☝️
That is a beautiful story.
The Scene where HAL refused to let Dave inside the ship was on Bravo's 100 Scariest Movie Moments. It's implied that a Machine no matter how intelligent, is capable of murder.
Self defense ... HAL 9000 could not let them disconnect it ... its still illogical for HAL 9000 to kill the people in hibernation , those were not part of the plan .
What make HAL 9000 scary , its always the same monotone voice and there is nothing you can say to it to get it to change its mind .
Also reminder , dont have everything controlled by one computer , when peoples life depend on it .
@@pete_lind Hal "had" to kill the scientists in hibernation. What do you think would have happened when they woke up and found Poole and Bowman dead/missing? Disconnection. But the reality (as explained more clearly in the books and the sequel film) was while HAL was advanced, he was given two contradictory mission goals, so what he does in this movie was his belief in carrying out what his human programmers told him to do.
@@mikechmielewski386 Seen the sequel movie 2010 from 1984 , with big name US and Russian actors , but director Peter Hyams a bit failed with that movie and i have liked his other movies , Capricorn one , Outland , Running Scared .
2010 budget ($28 mil) was 2/3 what 2001 had costed ($12 mil) , if we consider inflation .
Thanks so much Kazzy for your thoughtful viewing of this work by Genius Stanley......and embracing those infamous looooong shots. Many of your contemporaries think it a bore due to those very long shots. They think it's a generational thing, but it ain't !! I saw this opening week in 1968 (not 69) and yes some older folks simply walked out of the theater. Most people stayed. I was 19 and LOVED it. ....but even some of my friends got restless with those long studies. I could appreciate what Kubrick was doing with all that. Anything done in space is slow and hearing one's breathing is what one hears when fully strapped into a suit and helmet ....not words....no music etc etc........ Your interpretation of the film is as valid as anyone else....congratulations !
Thank you so much, Tom! I really appreciate you watching and commenting 🤗✌🏼💜
Appreciate that you treat this film seriously.
Definitely recommend you watch 'Forbidden Planet' 1956. Very fun movie that really holds up very well. Leslie Nielsen (Naked Gun) is great as the leading man.
The ending of the movie is much more cryptic than the novel, which explains a lot. And HAL wasn't really a bad computer, at least at first, also explained in the novel.
The sequel 2010 also explains some of this. 2010 is not the masterpiece that 2001 is, but it's still good and worth a watch.
I don't remember the details now: is HAL affected by the monolith and thus gaining consciousness, is he following his directives and came to the conclusions that humans would only obstacle the mission's goals, or both?
@@HaganeNoGijutsushi Uhh! Not exactly, If I remmember correctly, in the film 2010 It's actually explained that HAL was given badly written instructions, that caused him to develop paranoia.
I think the beauty of 2001: A Space Odyssey is that it lets the audience find their own meaning within the film. :D
Kubrick won an Oscar for this film's special fx. All the scenes were shot indoors, including the Dawn of Man sequence. The galactic voyage at the end was shot on a bathtub with drops of milk or some such made to look like galaxies.
Now you have to watch also part 2: "2010 - The year we make contact" ;)
I still maintain that Kubrick is the greatest director in cinematic history.
I can think of many great directors. I can't think of one better than Kubrick.
Jobs, Lucas, Spielberg, Gates and many other young creatives saw this in their youth. BUT, Cameron saw their work and then got into it… he was a Truck Driver sitting in a theatre watching Star Wars.
This film would have been ahead of it’s time in the 70’s BUT it was Hopeful in the 60’s… we were about to land on the moon.
Thanks for enjoying.
In honor of your very respectful reaction to Kubrick's masterpiece, 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Thank you SO MUCH! That really means a lot to me ❤️. That film is definitely a masterpiece ❤️
I need to sit back down and rewatch this film. It was always a bit TOO cerebral for my limited mind.
I think the next step for you, Kazzy, is "2010: The Year We Make Contact". It kinda wraps the two films up with a nice little bow. HAL's actions make so much more sense after seeing "2010".
Arthur C Clarke wrote more novels in the series: 2061 Odyssey Three & 3001 The Final Odyssey. But these novels were never made into movies. Tom Hanks was thinking about making them into movies. No development since 2001. But recently, there was discussions of a miniseries on SyFy. Both estates of Clarke and Kubkrick give full support.
I agree. 2010 is often overlooked but it is a great follow up to this movie.
Parents are too protective of their children now. The relaxed attitudes of the 1960s are why I grew up normal.
there is also this misconception that a G-rating means the film is aimed at children, which was incorrect. It simply meant there was little (if any) objectional content. The PG rating was more a warning for parents that there may be stuff they need to be aware of before considering taking their children to see this film. In that, no they are not "too protective" now, they were even more protective back then, where even PG-rated movies they had to "protect" their children from.
Somewhere along the way, PG became the general audience rating, while the G-rating became the "kids only" rating, both of which essentially betray the purpose of the rating system. What would eventually become the PG-13 rating is what the PG rating was originally supposed to be, because nobody by that time drew any concern from PG anymore. ... and today, PG-13 has become the general audience rating, while PG-rated movies are seen as something to take your kids to... so now the whole thing has become absolutely meaningless.
We were blown away, indeed, in 1968/69. Also note that this film was made before the first moon landing.
Also seeing it on the big screen easily surpasses the experience of seeing it in the living room. A few years ago I went to see this movie on an IMAX screen, and it was still amazing.
Omg your reactions to the opening music were hilarious ! That music is part of an orchestral work called “Atmosphères” by one of my all time favorite composers, György Ligeti. It was his first breakout work as an avant-garde composer, written shortly after he fled from Soviet-occupied Hungary to Vienna and discovered the avant-garde music of Western Europe that would influence his works from “Atmosphères” to the end of his life. It is one of my favorite pieces of music ever; and this movie also uses other later works of his in much of the film, such as his “Requiem”, “Lux Aeterna”, “Aventures.”
Also wanted to say it was interesting to hear you mention that life was superior to AI. But oddly enough, HAL seemed more human and the astronauts more artificial. Blade Runner felt the same years later.
And HAL went crazy because he was given conflicting orders by men. There was nothing inherently evil about him.
The astronauts were so professional it was like the humanity was drummed out of them.
Peter Hyams (Also a great director but not quite Kubrick level) made a really good sequel to this in the 80s called 2010. It's got Roy Schieder and Helen Mirren in it, and while it's not as metaphysical as this film it is pretty good. I recommend it.
It’s worth noting that Kubrick was vehemently opposed to the sequel.
I personally find 2010 more enjoyable to watch., but it is a different type of film. Not a bad sequel.
@@wackyvorlon It's also worth noting that Kubrick was in the early stages of development for 3001: The Final Odyssey (which he planned to shoot after A.I.) when he died.
2010 is the movie that really made me appreciate just how many movies Roy Schieder has been in that I count among my favorites. From Jaws and The French Connection to The Russia House to 52 Pick Up and 2010 Schieder proved that he was just a great actor. In 2010 he really hits his stride. The scene with him and the Russian girl as they are performing the aerobreaking maneuver is just priceless. He really sells the idea that they are both just terrified and completely helpless as they have nothing to do but to cling to one another without ever being able to understand a single word.
oh, young Helen Mirren?
The sterile 18th century room at the end is the unseen alien's equivalent of a zoo. They tried to make him comfortable, give him what he needs. You hear a weird unexplained sound when Dave is in the room. It's the sound of aliens giggling at him.
Giggling at him or making remarks about him. In the pre-production stage, Kubrick and his art team tried coming up with various alien renditions, with the idea being that the aliens would actually be physical beings on screen. But when Carl Sagan was brought on as a consultant, he suggested it would be better to not show the aliens at all. This proved to be a brilliant solution.
One of my favorite things about the book is the funny little bit where Dave checks out the kitchen in the hotel room and finds normal looking cereal boxes, soda cans, etc. but the only thing inside of all the containers is weird blue goop. So I mentally picture this exchange
Aliens: Eat your goop it's good for you
Dave: I wanted cereal >:(
I was 11 years old when my family and I first saw this film in 1968. A few weeks later I finally convinced my brother to take me to a matinee showing so I could see it again. I doubt there are many 11 year olds now who would sit through such a film.
When folks used to ask Arthur C Clark what the movie means, he told them,
"Read the book, watch the movie, and repeat the dose as often as necessary."