Every time I watch this I am in awe. Apparently we aren't supposed to understand the ending because it's beyond the concept of mere humans. He does meet aliens and they help him transcend into a higher being.
Same here!! When I was editing, I was in even more awe re-watching scenes etc. So good! Ah yes, apparently so. I am glad I came to a relatively good understanding of what some of it meant, if not all of it. I quite like that it's left unknown though, left to the imagination and allows the mind to wander.
You may know this already, but the soundtrack was not composed for this movie. Kubrick was a huge classical music aficionado and he curated it from various composers of different eras (in this case both Strausses, Ligeti, and Khachaturian). And 2010 is awful. Don’t bother. It’s not Kubrick.
@@MoviesWithMarty The theme of evolution is also told by the soundtrack. The title music Also sprach Zarathustra is based on the book of the same name name by Friedrich Nietzsche where he introduces the concept of the Übermensch (next step for humanity). The same music is used twice in the film. First when the ape starts using the first tool, and again when Bowman becomes the Star Child.
@@jtt6650 Maybe not, but it _is_ Arthur C. Clarke. A lot of people don't know there were actually three books: 2001, 2010, and 2061. We only got to see the first two in theaters.
In the mid 60s, there was a series hosted by Walter Kronkite called The 21st Century. It looked at new innovations and what they may mean for the future. One episode had an IBM computer that was the first with a simulated voice. As a demonstration, it sang Daisy.
YES! Thank you Michael, I thought as much. I am so pleased I realised this and a few other things before they happened when watching. I was blown away by the artistic styling of the film. It's wonderfully done
@@MoviesWithMarty as a german native it instantly resonated with me when i saw this as a teenager. in german there is a verb "begreifen", which essentially means "to understand". "be" in german is a prefix for giving a verb a direction towards something and "greifen" means "to grasp" or "to touch". So when the apes touched the obelisc they understood, or got a grasp of something. even as a midteen this film instantly spoke to me and all it said was "ask questions"
I generally don't care for sequels but "2010: The Year We Make Contact" (1984) was very well done despite Kubrick not being involved. It treats the original with respect without trying to be "fake Kubrick". It does answer many questions and the cinematography is amazing.
Thank you Eric! I will definitely see it again in cinemas if I can, if it's shown there again. I can imagine it being very impressive! Thank you for watching Eric, what was your initial thoughts to the film when you first saw it?
Yes. This was filmed in Super Panavision, which was what the Cinerama theaters used and they screens were very wide and curved, so the scale of things gave a visual impact that you can't capture even on a large, modern home television.
I don't think you're reading too much into it to say that the astronauts looking at the monolith in wonder was meant to parallel the scene where the apes did the same. In fact, I've always believed that was Kubrick's exact intention.
Fantastic, thank you Asher! It's wonderful to know that others thought the same and that it's not too far fetched of a thought. It may well have been. I wonder if there's any interviews with him regarding it anywhere... I've not looked. Thank you for watching and commenting 😊
- also, the sun comes up and the sunlight falls on the monolith for the first time since it was buried. Based upon the sequel novels, the original site of the first monolith is also underground and discovered by archaeologists.
The first time I saw this it was at an Art House theater, on the 70 mm film, it has an introduction with the music playing before the start of the film, and the intermission. It was a fantastic experience! I wish more people get to experience this film in that way .
I was 16 years old in high school when this film was in the theaters. I went with a group of my friends to see it about 5 times in quick succession (a couple of times on LSD, simply marvelous). The theater was CinemaScope (a curved widescreen) and stereo. The film ran for a year or more. BTW, I am a classically trained musician, with a degree in photography. Needless to say this is one of my favorite films.
This is only one man's (me) interpretation- The monolith gave the apes/hominids the knowledge to use tools. So we see the tools morph from animal bones to some type of nuclear satellite. At that level of human progression, the monolith then appears again on the moon, and beams a signal towards Jupiter. Hence the eventual mission with Dave and Frank. Humans wanted to explore it further, as it was perceived as alien/intelligent life outside of Earth. The alien force, for lack of a better term, placed Dave into some type of 'Human Zoo' cage. To study him further? The scenes of him looking at himself aging, were just a fast way of him aging to the point of his death. At his death bed, they gave Dave a type of rebirth as the 'Star-Child.' Perhaps the next step in human evolutionary history/biology.
3:06 First saw it in 1968, age 13 and the whole movie blew my mind including the artsy scenes, and watched 2001 many time after. The theater had a big wide screen with surround sound and it was awesome! If you ever get a chance to experience it that way, go for it. For reference, 2001 came out about 15 months after the tragic Apollo One fire and around 15 months _before_ the first moon landing by Apollo 11. So it gave audiences then (and now really) a glimpse of what a strong space based economy could look like someday. 4:30 Notice the ones with their new weapons are standing more upright (self-forcing evolution?) than they had earlier, or their rivals. They figured out the clubs work better standing taller! 5:39 In that case Marty, definitely do the sequel someday man! It a very different style than Kubrick's, made a long 16 years later for those of us who had given up on a sequel when it came out. Arthur C. Clarke wrote it and has two cameos in it, and Kubrick one. It will answer a lot of the mysteries. BTW, since you mentioned Star Wars, recommend the release order before any other arrangements, starting with the first one Episode IV. 14:12 In the book, the Monolith activated its signal when the first sliver of sunlight coming up over the lunar mountains touch it in 4 million years. It was the Monolith telling its giant companion orbiting Jupiter: "the humans dug finally me up and they'll be coming there soon." 23:07 Dude, I was thinking the same thing when first seeing this at age 13! "HAL can read your lips, dummies!" LOL! 36:14 I've always thought the "aliens" were showing him the Big Bang and rapid expansion of the universe here, and all the matter, nebulae and weird planets that formed after. 36:26 Sitting two rows in front of my dad and I in 1968 were a group of "hippies" as my dad called them. When Dave's trip thru in Infinite started Marty, I knew right away why they were here! LOL! And I agree the octahedron here 36:41 are the "aliens" escorting him. 38:25 In the book they recreated a hotel he once stayed in, to give him a familiar surrounding. Learned several things in your trivia segment. Thank you. Since you want some non-scifi drama suggestions, hopefully you haven't seen: The Shawshank Redemption The Green Mile The Hunt for Red October Dances With Wolves (the original theatrical release only!) Field of Dreams Close Encounters of the Third Kind (the original theatrical release only!) I know this one's a scifi, but can't help it. Want to emphasize doing the original release _before_ watching the two other versions. The original has a more positive vibe to it and the others a negative one. Besides that, it's the original that impressed us in '77 which held its own going up against the very first and most awesome Star Wars of the same year. That was a great year for scifi Marty as we had two totally cool and awesome movies to watch... CEotTK and Star Wars, both I watched several times that year! These are popular reactor movies I'm sure you'll enjoy too. Watched your Andromeda Strain reaction. Awesome movie and vid you made there too! I love all the older scifis, especially from the 50s and will suggest some of those you'd like on another video. Please do "2010: The Year We Make Contact" (1984) made a _long_ 16 years later and one that even Kubrick said he liked, though he had nothing to do with making it. For fun, I'll tell you that both Kubrick and Clarke had cameos in it; Clarke 2 of them and Kubrick 1, so keep a sharp lookout! Good video you did here Marty and take care. 🖖👽
Also, I agree with you. 2001 is art, not just a movie. You can call it slow, even lumbering at times, but there's a definite atmosphere and depth to it that's mesmerizing. And ,it's Kubrik. I'd recommend a dog food commercial directed by the man
It's "cinema", the point of which is artistic expression and exploration of the human condition. The point of "Movies" ,on the other hand, is to entertain while extracting maximum profit.
The book says it is a wormhole. The footage shows me that all this took place inside the giant monolith, where time and space is different. He's flying by miles of information gathered from across the universe, being shown the beginning of galaxies , including our own. You see our sun being born, and the solar system developing. The fly-bys are our own planet developing. This thing is teaching him where we all came from. That was a lot of stuff to shove into Dave's head all at once.
When it was reissued again in 1970 (at least here), I took my top sixth graders to see it. After the film, I asked if they had any questions. When they said "No", I asked them what the monolith was. My top student tilted his head a moment then said, "It represents God who intervenes at certain stages in human evolution to cause us to advance." I asked no more questions.
Glad you got round to watching what is possibly the greatest SF movie of them all. Its sci fi done as art and push-the-envelope SFX with no CGI whatsoever. Its just great old school, isn't it?. The influence of this movie is nothing short of nuclear...some scenes Mr Lucas liked a lot so to put them in Star Wars (6.26)😉?. The ape stuff was done in London on a movie set that could be spun around to get different angles. The backgrounds were shot by a static camera crew who did go to Africa (Kubrick apparently loathed flying). They were front-projected onto a big screen and for the daytime scenes, the set was very brightly lit to cut down on any shadows cast members may accidentally cast on the screen. Needless to say, the actors got a wee bit hot!. Keir Dullea - David Bowman - said the best scene for him was the moment the ape picked up the bone & figured out it could be a tool or weapon after encountering the monolith. And you're right, the stewardess on the ceiling and the crazy interiors on Discovery were done by the simplest trick in the book - rotating sets with a fixed camera. Bowman & Poole walked around inside what was effectively a big hamster/mouse wheel. And the mega-trippy LSD finale was done by 'slit scan', also employed in the title sequence of Superman (1978) - which you should see BTW. An explanation is here : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slit-scan_photography I think back in the 90's the Museum Of Film & Photography in Bradford did screen it in Cinerama - very widescreen. 2010 is a decent-ish sequel, not up to Kubrick but still enjoyable in its own way, Roy Scheider is always great to watch. It explains a bit more. Now that you've seen this one, I thoroughly recommend going back to the 50's (not in a DeLorean unfortunately) and check out Forbidden Planet which is to that decade, what 2001 is to the 60's. Both are big milestones in the history of SF and should be in your blu-ray collection if you do physical media. The both have a place on my shelf...only the classics👍. Speaking of one gem of a classic...is Journey to the Centre of the Earth (1959) on the horizon?.
I saw this when it was released in 1968 in Cinerama. Our high school drama class took a field trip to Hollywood to see it. We were all blown away as it was something we had never seen before. Ten years later, Star Wars would do the same thing. You can Google Kubrick's explanation of what the ending means.
Oh wow, Gary! That must have been a blast with the field trip too, to be able to watch it with others who were learning around you and getting to see/hear their reactions to certain scenes. It's stunning, isn't it! Oh really, wow I need to get on watching Star Wars sometime soon. I'm planning on watching in release order and do plan on watching the original theatrical version too, if I can. I did love 2001 so much, I'd looked up the ending but hadn't seen Kubrick's explanation, just that people had said that it was open to explanation. Thank you for that though, I will check out what he's said! Thank you for watching/commenting
I saw/experienced "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968) in an Cinerama theater back in the day. Previous Science Fiction movies featured cardboard sets, fading/about-to-rise actors, and pulp novel plots for this sub B-movie genre. Stanley Kubrick raised the bar to the Moon before Apollo 11, which is how "Star Wars"/Space Operas came to be. 3:24 What is The Monolith? That question has been debated/argued for decades. 4:00 The Killer Ape of then-recent theories about early Hominids was shown in graphic detail. Speaking of Early Men, it is unfortunate that the actors didn't get AMPAS attention. (Did they think that Kubrick had a troop of trained Apes on tap?) 4:55 The "place holder" Classical music pieces were kept, instead of the commissioned soundtrack music, which even made the Pop music charts! 6:52 This is the antiseptically clean world of The Future, so "Star Wars" went "worn and dirty," in 1977. 15:35 Actor Douglas Rain's "HAL 9000" set the bar for other computers, such as "MU/TH/UR" of "Alien" (1979). Did you notice that the HAL 9000 has more personality than Dave Bowman or Frank Poole? 22:17 HAL is in conflict. 33:17 HAL was told to do things that contradicted his basic programming and "he went a little funny in the head." 35:09 Time to take The Trip. 36:40 To misquote a fictional movie character: "What you perceive/conclude is a reflection of what you bring/have with you." The influence of "2001" leaked into the real world. For years, there was a Monolith behind the University of Hawaii Chemistry building that emitted a low hum. "Also Sprach Zarathustra" became a "something BIG is about to happen" musical cue in later movies. Discussions/arguments/musings on this film have gone on for decades. On to "2010" (1984)!
Try "Silent Running" _Silent Running was given a $1,000,000 budget and a guarantee of final cut to first-time director Douglas Trumbull, who had previously worked on the special and visual effects for films such as the 1968 release 2001: A Space Odyssey_
12:07 I think it would be difficult without CGI to show pouring a liquid at one-sixth Earth gravity. The recent SF series "The Expanse" had a neat scene pouring a beverage into a cup that showed the Coriolis effect from being inside a rotating space station. 14:23 The elongated ship design is to keep the spherical crew quarters well away from the nuclear powered engines. The pods along the spine I believe are some kind of storage. 16:40 No, this wouldn't be a live call - too much time lag due to distance, the ship being somewhere out near Jupiter. 17:46 I've just noticed the key light shining on HAL's "eye". 43:59 There was no virus, that was just a cover story. The events of this film really aren't that hard to describe or comprehend, but Kubrick went out of his way to leave the audience in the dark, which I found quite irritating. Even so, as a lifelong SF reader, I had no problem understanding everything when I first saw this in 1968, with one exception - exactly why HAL went crazy (that is finally explained in the sequel, "2010: the year we make contact", which is a decent movie in it's own right). At the end, Dave is reborn, transcending his humanity, and returns to his origin to straighten some things out. Yes, "2001" is an amazing piece of cinema, but the endless debates over what it all means are mostly just Kubrick jacking off. The movie was originally inspired by Arthur Clarke's short story "The Sentinel", which described humans finding on the Moon a mysterious structure which then fires off a signal to its unknown extraterrestrial builders.
There was a terrific book about the making of this film that came out not too long ago. In that book, effects supervisor Douglas Trumbull revealed that there were several attempts to depict the aliens behind the monoliths. But none were satisfactory. So, Kubrick decided to let the monolith stand in for the aliens. Trumbull goes into detail on the many techniques they tried to creat the aliens.
Hi Majoofi! Thank you so much for watching this with me and suggesting those. Great taste as I've seen the latter, Days Of Heaven and it's beautifully made in every way! Sublime acting too by Gere, Manz and the other cast members. I've not seen Slaughterhouse one though (briefly saw the summary of it, but don't want to spoil it), so that's being added to the list! Thank you for the suggestions!
"I'm just in awe... in disbelief that they've made something so beautiful..." Yes, I agree 100%. I first saw this in 1968 on one of the gigantic curved 70mm Cinerama screens in use at the time. THAT was a stunning experience. But what's most incredible to me about Kubrick's (and Clarke's and Trumbull's) achievement is that still today, 55 years later, no has has ever made a better, more convincing, or more awe-inspiring science fiction film than 2001.
It is truly a masterpiece Michael! Thank you so much! I'm glad you agree. Now that I'm back in my own place I'm going to get the 4k of this and watch it again in all it's glory. I can't wait to be in even more awe at the gorgeous cinematography. Oh wow, that really would have been an *experience*! I'm also going to watch this in VR, which will be the curved IMAX style screening, so I'm hoping it will be as near to what it originally looked as possible. I can't wait! Most definitely! Although I think a close second for me is Interstellar. I'm sure you've seen it, but if you've not it's stunning. A lot of the visual effects were done using correct (as of the time) mathematics etc. Nolan is brilliant in that respect, just like Kubrick. Thank you so much for watching, I really appreciate it
Nobody (I'm sure not even Kubrick) understands the ending. But it evokes such a deep sense of awe, this was never done after this... To me, it's the next step in human evolution. And how could we ever understand that?
2010 is a worthwhile film to watch but don’t expect quite the same standard as 2001. It does a reasonable job of expanding and explaining some of the things in 2001 but hasn’t aged quite as well. With your obvious appreciation of cinematography you need to watch more Kubrick films if you haven’t already. Each one is somewhat different and unique while still carrying the characteristics that made Kubrick special. I have a fondness for all of them but Dr.Stranglelove is probably my next favourite followed by A Clockwork Orange and then the rest. Oddly, as a huge Kubrick fanboy I have yet to see Lolita.
For the first sequence on the Discovery shot where Bowman(Keir Dullea) was descending down the ladder to the centrifuge room on one side of the screen and Poole(Gary Lockwood) was sitting on the other side, Poole was literally strapped to his seat while the room was upside down so Bowman could come down the ladder naturally. The entire room set was on a mammoth powered wheel that could rotate the whole room to any degree at speed.
And in that scene, Poole's food kept "falling UP" off his spork, and splattering down across the set XD. Kubrick later ordered the set Dismantled, to prevent someone else from using it to produce a sub-par sequel. That's why you don't see it in Peter Hyams "2010: The Year We Make Contact". A decent film in its own right, but more prosaic/voice-over expositional, and dependent on CGI.
Great reaction! Very astute commentary. This really dates me, but I saw this at age 13 in 1968 in its original release. Mind blown. The way it still holds up today- a testament to Kubrick's genius.
I love Kubrick's movies, and this was his first with layered narratives, visual and dialogue idiosyncrasies that shift context of the story presented. You spotted the silk screen back projections for the earth scenes, and if you watch the space sequences there are very blatant lighting errors and motion errors that seem very deliberate, given the attention to detail with everything else Kubrick filmed. The monolith itself, if you rotate it 90 degrees, you might get a better understanding of what it represents...the long sections of black screen at the start, middle and end of the film tie into that as well. (this theme of shifting perspective by 90 degrees is repeated throughout the film, along with graphical displays showing a rectangle intersecting a circle or eye). A version of the monolith appears in each subsequent film he made. I think you missed the opening dialogue of the conference, there's no outbreak on the moon, it's a false flag cover story that NASA are trying to spread, so they can conceal the discovery of the monolith from the public. Thanks for the reaction, it was an enjoyable watch
Best reaction to this film I've seen on TH-cam. It reminds me of my reaction when I saw it in 1971 on a full cinema screen while in college. Quite an awesome experience. Well done!
Yes, definitely watch 2010! While it is a COMPLETELY different feeling film, It answers most of the questions you have, and also explains HAL's actions in an understandable way...
One of the best forgotten films of the 80’s is 1984’s “2010: The Year We Make Contact.” It is not as artsy and complicated, but continues the story in a more traditional sci-fi movie. Like “Alien,” it holds up very well, even after 40 years. The cast is stellar with Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, Bob Balaban and Helen Mirren. It is a must. “2001: A Space Odessey,” came out eight years before “Star Wars.” The crew compartment set of Discovery was a huge rotating carousel, thus allowing Bowman to jog around without cutting. The birthday message was a recording. While it isn’t mentioned, when that message was received, Discovery was beyond the orbit of Mars so transmission time from Earth to ship was over 20 minutes. The opening scene of the John Landis movie, “Dark Star,” begins with a transmission where an official talks with the same inflection and lack of emotion of mission control. I’m positive that it was inspired by 2001. The novel and movie were written concurrently. There were changes though, due to budget. In the novel, Discovery goes to Saturn. In the movie it’s Jupiter. There was effects work done of Saturn which was later used in the movie, “Silent Running.” The score of the film is all existing classical music. The main theme is “Thus Spoke Zarathustra.” The men’s choral piece played during the moon bus scene was also used during the HALO jump in “Godzilla (2014.)”
great film , saw it on the big screen in 1968 , class field trip , if you like this , you`ll also like the sequel , 2010 ,the year we make contact ! two of my favorite sci fi films !, you have to watch 2010 , to get the rest of the story , it has an absolutely amazing ending !
A great, appropriate reaction to my favorite film. This movie has a deep personal connection. I first saw it at 6 years old in 1968 from the back seat of our family car at a Texas drive-in theater. The final image of the Starchild completely haunted and unsettled me... I could not look at a movie poster or image of that shot again as a child. It was not until my first year of college I finally went to see the movie again and fell madly in love. 2010 is like entertaining prose compaired to the cinematic poetry of 2001. Don't go in with any expectations and you'll enjoy it on its own merits. Interestingly, the special effects are much more believable in the original. The 4K UHD blu-ray of this film is generally acknowledged to be one of the best titles on physical media... the remastered picture quality is stunning and it does eliminate that brick-like mottling in the Dawn of Man sequence that was unfortunately captured in the 1080p version and previous blu-ray. However, the best way to view this film is on a curved Cinerama screen. I approximated this effect on my VR headset using the Skybox video player, but the resolution isn't high enough on the Quest 2 headset to catch all the details. Someday, I suppose. Also, after you see the first Star Wars (episode IV, A New Hope from 1977 - watch the films in release order) you will see the huge influence 2001 had on the look of the film, and you might enjoy (just for fun, not a reaction) a cute film called 5-25-77, which has many homages to the two movies. Thanks for giving me another channel to subscribe to and enjoy!
Apparently the StarChild was crafted out of wax and then placed in a blacked out room under strong lighting where it was to be filmed. One member of the crew watched over it, left and came back and freaked out as tears were coming from the StarChilds eyes, he ran out the room screaming. But it was the heat from the lamps that were making the wax run like tears. The protagonist in this is us, the human race and its our evolution in the hands of an intelligent life (some folks say God), they put Bowman in a room they thought he would be comfortable in while they studied him, like a zoo. He transforms into the StarChild, the next stage in our evolution, a complete specimen, one that lives at peace with itself. And others.
I was fortunate to see this film in the Cinema during a re-release back in the early 1980's. To say my mind was blown would be an understatement. To this day, I've never seen a film this amazing in production, concept, direction, cinematography or effects(The late, great Douglas Trumbull, Wally Veevers and Stanley Kubrick). I cannot find a single flaw in any of it. Seeing it on the big screen was a spectacle unmatched by any other film I've seen. Easily in my top 10 films of all time.
First seen this in a classic movie theatre with my father at 10 years old in 1982. My mind was blown and at the same time my brain thoroughly scrambled, and guess how many questions a kid can have. "Dad, what was this-and-that?", answers being only "I don't know" and puzzled shrugs from him.
Haha! It appears so, although I feel I "look too deep" sometimes into films. I think it's because I love all angles of films, whether it be stories, the process etc
i saw this with my my dad, a physicicist and rocket scientists turned artist, live in the theeatre at age 9, or 8. i had been exposed to moder n art, my dad did light sculptures like the near end scene. im still living in this world. waiting for the star child. not literally, but this is always going to be my favorite film.
I saw this in an IMAX theater when they brought it back for the 50th anniversary in 2018. It only ran for about a week where I live in PHX, but I went every day. I even saw it in California a couple weeks later. There’s nothing like it. You would freak out, Marty. As you might imagine, you’re getting a tiny fraction of the overall impact watching it on a small screen. If you ever get the chance, drop everything and GO!! 🤓
My husband and I went to see it at the theater when it came out, at the end of the movie people were walking out in absolute silence, everyone was just stunned.
2010 movie was ok and helps to answer a lot of questions but it was a low budget movie so don't expect a lot if you do watch it. I recall as a 10 year old listening to this debate on the transistor radio I had in my room on this movie and remember the reporter calling this a 10 million dollar religious movie. Yes, the beings that created the monolith were highly advanced but they weren't God. To really get a better understanding you may want to read Arthur C. Clark's novel 2001, which is a short novel but helpful.
They didn't learn to assert their dominance. They learned to use tools. It was a leap in evolution. But, of course, it did aid them in asserting their dominance.
Really great (confused) reaction! lol PLEASE react to the sequel: "2010", which was made in the '80s...not directed by Kubrick, but he gave it his seal of approval. It's a more conventional movie (with some genuine Hollywood stars) but it has a good and very satisfying story which will answer most of the questions! Go on, you know you want to! :)
Thank you Garry, haha yeah I was pretty confused for some parts! To be fair, many probably would be haha. Thanks for watching and yeah! I will definitely be watching the sequel. It'll be different, but I'm sure it's still an amazing watch. The fact he gave the seal of approval too is wonderful. He's a director I could see probably not giving permission. Amazing, thank you for that. I'm glad it answer some of the questions too. Haha! YES!! I really want to, thanks for the suggestion
One of my favorite films of all time. I saw it in the theater in 1968 when I was 12. I went on to see it 13 times on the big screen thanks to near yearly rereleases. It's such a turning point in the look of Science Fiction. Look at what came before and what came after. It's influence on the model work and ship design is obvious in films like Star Wars (the effects supervisor of Star Wars John Dykstra, worked on 2001). Another 2001 effects artist, Brian Johnson, went on to work on Space 1999 and Alien, which were clearly influenced by 2001. While the sequel, 2010:The Year We Make Contact, is more conventional and less artistically made, it's still a solid film that answers a lot of questions from the first film. It's a pretty faithful adaptation of Arthur C Clarke's sequel. In fact, Clarke was in daily contact with the director with one if the first dedicated computer links.
You may be surprised to learn that some of the zero gravity effects were first done in Doctor Who. Kubrick saw an episode (possibly the one in "The Daleks' Master Plan" with Katarina in the airlock), and had someone in his production company contact the BBC to find out how it was done. The reason HAL went crazy and killed the other crewmen was that he was required to lie to them about the mission in order to keep it a secret until they arrived at Jupiter. He even had to lie about lying to them. As you may have noticed from modern AI programs, it doesn't take much to set them off.
There are many reasons to appreciate this movie. One in particular detail are the computer graphics shown on screens throughout the movie. The different screens showing status of different ship functions, the approach of the shuttle to the rotating space station can be seen on a computer screen in the cockpit. The different screens in the little space pod. All of those had to be animated because the level of actual computer graphics were at such an infancy in the late 60s. Real graphics of the time where they were used at all were simple line graphics due to the lack of computing power. This movie doesn't miss a beat. I've loved it since the first time I saw it back in the mid-70s.
2001 is among the great 20th century works of art. It inspires philosophical thought but I love that a lot of it's majesty is how mysterious it is. Another very original and influential film worth reacting to is Fellini's '8 1/2' (1963).
I saw it for the first time when I was just 13. Although I was beginning to think abstractly about life and the universe at that time, it was almost traumatic. And sadly, I had no one to discuss the movie with. I am now revisiting it, as a work of art and in relationship to its sequel (quite a good movie, actually) and Clarke's 4 novel series. I am grateful that now, so many years later, I have other thoughtful folks here, courtesy of TH-cam, to share their thoughts with me about this monumental film. Thank you, dude.
20:10. there is a pair of buttons on the suit forearm to darken or lighten the visor. Dave presses the 'dark' button right before he reaches the brightly lit antenna dish.
Hi Sasha! Oh yes, 2010 is definitely on the list! Thank you for suggesting it too. Oh brilliant, I didn't realise it answered questions, in which case I really cannot wait to watch it even more! I've seen the trailer and yeah, despite it looking a little different style wise, it's still pretty similar. Thank you and hopefully I'll get around to it soon!
2010 is a great movie. Much more literal and traditional, but still great on its own terms. Trying to replicate 2001 would have been impossible and a huge error. Just like trying to replicate Alien.
"It answers allot of the questions" precisely why it's an inferior movie. Agree though its Still a very entertaining sci-fi movie worth watching even if it lacks the awe and wonder of 2001
A note on the cockpit or control color red - it’s actually scientific, and is used in astronomical observatories and other night/dark situations where you need to be able to view or document paper print, but not destroy your acclimated dark vision. Red wavelength light allows for this. So cockpits will be using it to allow the pilots to read yet see the darkness of space or the moon
I would have thought that a lot of audience members who saw this when it came out sat staring at the screen right through the credits trying to work out what the ending means. IMO the effects still look better than a lot of more recent efforts. You mentioned that you've never seen Star Wars. If you are going to watch it, I'd recommend watching THX 1138 before you do, Star Wars and other George Lucas films contain more than one easter egg.
It was such a mind boggling film. I think they must have. It really made me think. After I'd finished recording that day, I'd sat there stunned for ages trying to figure everything out, life, the film and what it all meant haha. The effects are definitely much better than most modern films, yeah. They managed to achieve so much more with practical effects (which are better IMO). Like the intro with the apes, the monitor screens, even the stargate scene (how they did this one blew my mind!). Ooh yes! Thank you for that, someone mentioned that THX film and I'm hoping to watch that one and will make sure to watch that one and then American Graffiti before I watch Star Wars. It's wonderful that they included easter eggs! It'll be interesting to see if I can spot them. I may miss some!
@@miggyluv Hi Michael! I completely forgot about American Graffiti being a George Lucas film, until I saw your comment earlier. I've been meaning to watch it as I love the style of the film having seen the trailer. It's one of my Dad's favourites and we keep meaning to watch it. I shall watch it here at some point for the very first time though! Wait... Harrison Ford is in American Graffiti?! How did I not realise! Also, I have yet to watch ANY Indiana Jones, which is another crime against movies on my behalf. I have between now and June to watch ALL of them haha (the new one comes out)
This film was the firsrt to show video phones and tablets. However the first film to show A.I. was Metropolis 1927. This film was a game-changer when it came out -- nobody had ever seen anything like it previously. Kubrick was literally creating cinematic alchemy -- along the same genius as Shakespeare and Leonardo Divinci. Thankyou for doing a reaction to this amazing movie -- much respect !!!
Can you please please watch "2010: The Year We Made Contact"? It's not as beautifully aesthetically pleasing as "2001" but it's still just as interesting imo and the monoliths/Dave are back.
This is one of the movies that really should be seen as it was filmed, which is on a large, curved Super Panavision screen. The scale of things simply can't be appreciated by viewing it on anything short of the Cinerama theater screen, which it was filmed for. The screen had a 2.2:1 ratio, which at the time, was quite spectacular.
Built little sets when they could have used art. Many of the shots in this film used large-format photographs, lit from behind: transparencies. The Africa shots (and many of the projected backgrounds of Africa, too) were still photos, and the moon seen from space was art based upon photos (no Apollo mission had been there yet, which is why the moon's surface has sharp features on it, which are vanishingly few in actual fact. Many shots of spaceships are also still photos, most often the Moon bus and the nuclear platforms early on, but there were also models used, some quite large.
I thinK I read somewhere that the famous jump cut was inspired by a similar effect at the beginning of the 1944 'Powell and Pressburger' film - 'A Canterbury Tale'. This duo made many great films that would be worth watching if you haven't already. This is one of their smaller offerings - it has a minimal plot but it is so evocative of the way we would like to remember living in a English country village that it has become one of my favourites! Anyway - worth checking the jump cut!
I was in my third year of college when I first watched this film in a theater. It was absolutely stunning!!! You must understand that at that time, the Space Race with the Soviet Union was in full swing. Almost every day was some new discovery in astrophysics, materials, and everything needed for space travel. We were on the cusp of lading on the moon. The budget for all of this was, pardon the pun, astronomical! Folks nowadays cannot fathom how much "space" consumed our attention. At the rate of invention and discovery, it was entirely reasonable for us in 1968 to assume that such a plot could be fulfilled by 2001. However, as events proved, the economics of the Space Race were simply unsustainable. As I said, though, you just had to have seen this on a wide-screen in a theater with surround-sound.
Oh yes! Great spot. I recall thinking that the red light could signal danger, but didn't quite connect that the light meaning danger could be due to the vacuum. Thanks for watching along with me Steve! I hope you're well, take care (Apologies for the delay, I'm working through the comments)
Hotel room: Louis 14th decor, 1970s style lit dancefloor, mirror is over the bath rather than the washbasin, and a hidden commode in a bench to one side. And no doors, but one doorway, until the monolith appears... Something similar happened in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, a hotel called 'The Royale', created from a book the astronaut had with him.
So glad you truly appreciated the magnificence that is 2001. Are you reading too much into a story written by Arthur C Clarke and directed by Kubrick? lol how bout no! The appearances of the monolith marked big steps in human evolution, sparking it even. There is a sequel that continues the story 2010 The Year We Make Contact (1984). We finally get full answers about the monolith and it's mission in the book (only) 3001: A final Odyssey. You were right in that Bowman essentially became a higher being.. or reborn and actually part of the monolith. 2010 is a great sequel but they made the wise choice and didn't try to be Kubrick.
being such a long movie there is alot to take in, but i think there was a dialogue where they mentioned the pandemic was a cover story so to keep people away from the monolith on the moon or maybe my imagination took hold and imagined more to the movie (that does happen, and usually that movie in my head is far more interesting)
The straight forward "answer all the questions " approach is precisely why that movie is far inferior. Agreed it's well worth a watch good sci-fi movie even if lacking the awe and wonder of 2001
I like that idea of the end. Since watching the film, it's pretty much what I've been thinking the film ending may have been going for. Thank you focalized!
My favorite all time movie. I first watched it at age 7 in 1968, and saw the 70mm Nolan enhanced version in 2018 (50 year aniv). A masterpiece and fully enjoyed your reaction! We studied the movie in 9th grade Humanities class. Imagine the irony when HAL (the ultimate human "tool") nearly stops our evolutionary ascension because we're flawed and he isn't! Just one of the ironies. Symbolism is throughout. One example" Discovery is shaped as a sperm trying to reach Jupiter (the ovum)... thanks for the great reaction!
I was 12 years old, in 1968. I traveled on a commuter train,(In those days my Mom thought I was old enough to go to a theatre 45 miles away)from Suburban Chicago to Downtown Chicago to watch 2001 on a curved screen. With the Overtures, and Entr'acte, it was 3 hour event with 4-5 trailers. I loved the colors, but as a 12 yo it was difficult to understand the end.
Several years ago I saw this presented at the University of Kentucky. It was a special cut of the film without a musical score. The music and chorus were performed by the UK symphony orchestra and chorus. It was breath-taking.
Back in 2018, Christopher Nolan's restored version of 2001: A Space Odyssey was released for IMAX screens, and I made sure I got to experience it. BEST. MOVIE. VIEWING. EVER!
Oh WOW! I had no idea he'd done that! Nolan is the MAN! Damn, I wish I'd known. I would have definitely seen it as my first viewing... let's hope in the future there's another experience the same! You are so lucky to have watched it in IMAX
Watching on a normal movie screen or on a television doesn't do this film justice. I saw it when it came out in 1968 on a Cinerama screen in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The nearest equivalent today would be IMAX In Cinerama there are three angled screens surrounding the audience do you feel like you are IN the movie. Amazing experience.
"I'm looking too deep into it." I've never laughed harder! Frank Poole's birthday call from his parents is a pre-recorded message. It takes a radio signal approximately 40 minutes to reach them so far away from Earth. Real-time communication is impossible, and you have to wait nearly an hour and a half to get a response. You'll see this when the technicians on Earth respond to the failed AE35 unit. When you see Frank and Dave at two different angles, a large mirror was used. The virus was just a cover story. The real story was they found the monolith buried on the moon. It was clearly a created object and had been buried 4 million years previously.
I loved the realism in this film. They actually included a rotating centrifuge to create artificial gravity, which is a very real solution. Then there is the ai and common tech displayed. It's almost as if someone came from the future and told Stanley to make this movie. Or they took a lot of hallucinogens.
The centrifuge rotated so that actors could stand at the bottom of it as it turned, sometimes with someone strapped into a seat up on the ceiling, Arthur Clarke and others made predictions about tech, such as a clip-board like computer that could also play video (in portrait format, which is the standard for devices today), or a computer that could assess human psychological states, for example. He also famously predicted or described the waterbed, something that did come to pass, but couldn't be put on the top floor of most homes. The 'drink peas through a straw' stuff is The Whirlpool Corporation's idea of the future, simply having plastic sachets which you drink from like what we actually use were beyond them, it seems.
Excellent, excellent commentary. As far as interpretation, Kubrick intentionally left it open-ended, but you pretty much nailed the accepted "interpretation". Very good! Not always easy to do on a first watch! "Dazzling" is the word I use for this movie. (Also his next movie, the very different, dystopian "A Clockwork Orange", which you may have seen already) (If not, that's definitely one for your list!). Outstanding reaction video. You pointed out lots and lots of stuff I never noticed, although that's very much the point with "2001"! As the videotape box used to say: "2001: The More You See It, The More You See IN It"! But you did some great zoom-ins on stuff I never noticed, so thank you!!!! The fact that you already knew Kubrick's work and style made this a special reaction. Your sensitive eye and appreciation for (and recognition of) great cinematography also made it great, especially since you had some slight ideas of how they achieved some of these effects. Rather than spoil the effects for you, that seemed to make you appreciate them even more, how "seamlessly" they were executed. GREAT channel, just found you, just subscribed and already I have videos to catch up on. See you on the next one! You're a great reactor!!!! Keep it up! I know it's a long slog for subscribers sometimes, but your reactions are definitely worth it, definitely special, definitely one-of-a-kind.
Thank you for this Happy!! (Unless you prefer a different name) It's funny, as someone else mentioned the EXACT thing to me earlier and it blew my mind. Thank you for that! I've got 2010 on the list to watch sometime, so I will add your name to it too. Much appreciated and thank you for watching/commenting!
@@MoviesWithMarty First of all, a very thorough and entertaining review/reaction, with many pleasant demonstrations of astuteness on your part. And second, I suppose I might as well be the one to confide to you this datum: The fact that HAL's name is IBM back one letter was a complete coincidence and surprise to Arthur C. Clarke, who explained that the name was to have come from the words *H* euristic *AL* gorithmic! 🤓
Dead on about the cinema viewing. First saw this on release. My middle school class walked to the nearby theatre for a specoal matinee....never anything like this, think id heard the blue danube, but not the full in surround sound, that choral piece, mindblowing the visuals from color to technogy to weigjtless every detail imaged as acurately as possible space travel the moon landing on the tv was grainy but exotic, here its reality.. walked back to the school in a mindfilled daze of confusion and awe. If your looking for more spatial realism, have you ever seen space 1999, takes a lot of cues from this movie. From the Gerry Anderson team...ufo, captain scarlet etc.
The theater wasn't pitch black as the music was playing at the beginning; it played with the house lights up as the audience seated. It was in effect an overture. A few other films have done this, but it's uncommon (Star Trek: The Motion Picture was one example.).
A film about aliens that had no aliens in it. The monolith (monoliths) is the ultimate utility tool. I think it was A. C. Clarke who said that when you create a piece of technology that can do and be anything you want it doesn’t matter what shape it is or what it looks like. Another thing to notice are the repeated references to birth, death and transformation. The last scenes of the movie were a very clever and artistic way of depicting many years of life inside an artificial environment created from memories in Bowman’s mind while he ages normally. I should mention that it’s my favourite movie of all time since seeing it in 1968.
The call to the daughter was a live call because they were in close proximity to the Earth. The call from his parents was recorded because they were way out, headed to Jupiter, and the time lag would be far too long to have a conversation.
Age 15 I watched this film 14 times, 10 of which were Cinerama. My closest friend gave up after the fifth viewing. I just ate this up, and at some points was explaining bits of the film to adults watching nearby. Could not get enough. Built the models of the Bus and the Shuttle.
I skimmed the comments and I didn't see anyone mention the reason HAL was killing everyone. This is explained in the books and the second movie: he was designed to be very accurate and truthful, but then he was also given orders to lie to the (awake) crew about the real reason they went out to Jupiter. He couldn't handle these conflicting instructions and tried to resolve them by killing the crew: if there's nobody to lie to, he could just go on with the mission on his own.
Legend! Thank you so much for this. It's funny you comment this now, as I'm about to rewatch 2001 (in my own time) before I watch 2010 sometime soon. That's actually a pretty good reason for HAL doing what he did. Thanks for letting me know! I haven't read the book yet, but I will do eventually as it seems like it would give some extra detail to the story. Yeah, if you'd be interested though, I'll be watching 2010 on the channel
I can understand that, as it's pretty confusing and although I thought maybe I understood moments, I was probably way off. Thanks for letting me know, I'll have to check the book out. Much appreciated!
This was nine (9) years before Star Wars. Still better than most movies today. This was also one year before the first moon landing. So this was pure (and precious) science *_fiction._*
Hi Franke! Most definitely better than most movies today! Ah yes, Star Wars will be something I'll be watching too, as I've yet to see any of them... I know haha. Thank you for watching and commenting
Yeah just imagine trying to figure out what this meant in the 70s. 😂. The end is a zoo type setting for Dave as he is now on display. There are sounds of laughter. That Attenborough bit was so funny.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
Every time I watch this I am in awe. Apparently we aren't supposed to understand the ending because it's beyond the concept of mere humans. He does meet aliens and they help him transcend into a higher being.
Same here!! When I was editing, I was in even more awe re-watching scenes etc. So good! Ah yes, apparently so. I am glad I came to a relatively good understanding of what some of it meant, if not all of it. I quite like that it's left unknown though, left to the imagination and allows the mind to wander.
You may know this already, but the soundtrack was not composed for this movie. Kubrick was a huge classical music aficionado and he curated it from various composers of different eras (in this case both Strausses, Ligeti, and Khachaturian). And 2010 is awful. Don’t bother. It’s not Kubrick.
@@MoviesWithMarty The theme of evolution is also told by the soundtrack. The title music Also sprach Zarathustra is based on the book of the same name name by Friedrich Nietzsche where he introduces the concept of the Übermensch (next step for humanity). The same music is used twice in the film. First when the ape starts using the first tool, and again when Bowman becomes the Star Child.
@@jtt6650disagree. 2010 was well done
@@jtt6650 Maybe not, but it _is_ Arthur C. Clarke. A lot of people don't know there were actually three books: 2001, 2010, and 2061. We only got to see the first two in theaters.
In the mid 60s, there was a series hosted by Walter Kronkite called The 21st Century. It looked at new innovations and what they may mean for the future. One episode had an IBM computer that was the first with a simulated voice. As a demonstration, it sang Daisy.
IBM 7094, 1961.
The monolith appears and humankind evolves each time they interact with it.
YES! Thank you Michael, I thought as much. I am so pleased I realised this and a few other things before they happened when watching. I was blown away by the artistic styling of the film. It's wonderfully done
@@MoviesWithMarty as a german native it instantly resonated with me when i saw this as a teenager. in german there is a verb "begreifen", which essentially means "to understand". "be" in german is a prefix for giving a verb a direction towards something and "greifen" means "to grasp" or "to touch".
So when the apes touched the obelisc they understood, or got a grasp of something. even as a midteen this film instantly spoke to me and all it said was "ask questions"
I generally don't care for sequels but "2010: The Year We Make Contact" (1984) was very well done despite Kubrick not being involved. It treats the original with respect without trying to be "fake Kubrick". It does answer many questions and the cinematography is amazing.
If you get a chance to rewatch it at a theater screening in full restored 70mm, then do consider it - truly an epic experience.
Thank you Eric! I will definitely see it again in cinemas if I can, if it's shown there again. I can imagine it being very impressive! Thank you for watching Eric, what was your initial thoughts to the film when you first saw it?
I did in NYC in 2018, The 50th Anniversary. It was epic.
@@barrycohen311 I saw it in IMAX in 2018--brilliant!
Yes. This was filmed in Super Panavision, which was what the Cinerama theaters used and they screens were very wide and curved, so the scale of things gave a visual impact that you can't capture even on a large, modern home television.
I don't think you're reading too much into it to say that the astronauts looking at the monolith in wonder was meant to parallel the scene where the apes did the same. In fact, I've always believed that was Kubrick's exact intention.
Fantastic, thank you Asher! It's wonderful to know that others thought the same and that it's not too far fetched of a thought. It may well have been. I wonder if there's any interviews with him regarding it anywhere... I've not looked. Thank you for watching and commenting 😊
- also, the sun comes up and the sunlight falls on the monolith for the first time since it was buried.
Based upon the sequel novels, the original site of the first monolith is also underground and discovered by archaeologists.
The first time I saw this it was at an Art House theater, on the 70 mm film, it has an introduction with the music playing before the start of the film, and the intermission. It was a fantastic experience! I wish more people get to experience this film in that way .
I was 16 years old in high school when this film was in the theaters. I went with a group of my friends to see it about 5 times in quick succession (a couple of times on LSD, simply marvelous). The theater was CinemaScope (a curved widescreen) and stereo. The film ran for a year or more. BTW, I am a classically trained musician, with a degree in photography. Needless to say this is one of my favorite films.
This is only one man's (me) interpretation- The monolith gave the apes/hominids the knowledge to use tools. So we see the tools morph from animal bones to some type of nuclear satellite. At that level of human progression, the monolith then appears again on the moon, and beams a signal towards Jupiter. Hence the eventual mission with Dave and Frank. Humans wanted to explore it further, as it was perceived as alien/intelligent life outside of Earth. The alien force, for lack of a better term, placed Dave into some type of 'Human Zoo' cage. To study him further? The scenes of him looking at himself aging, were just a fast way of him aging to the point of his death. At his death bed, they gave Dave a type of rebirth as the 'Star-Child.' Perhaps the next step in human evolutionary history/biology.
3:06 First saw it in 1968, age 13 and the whole movie blew my mind including the artsy scenes, and watched 2001 many time after. The theater had a big wide screen with surround sound and it was awesome! If you ever get a chance to experience it that way, go for it. For reference, 2001 came out about 15 months after the tragic Apollo One fire and around 15 months _before_ the first moon landing by Apollo 11. So it gave audiences then (and now really) a glimpse of what a strong space based economy could look like someday.
4:30 Notice the ones with their new weapons are standing more upright (self-forcing evolution?) than they had earlier, or their rivals. They figured out the clubs work better standing taller!
5:39 In that case Marty, definitely do the sequel someday man! It a very different style than Kubrick's, made a long 16 years later for those of us who had given up on a sequel when it came out. Arthur C. Clarke wrote it and has two cameos in it, and Kubrick one. It will answer a lot of the mysteries. BTW, since you mentioned Star Wars, recommend the release order before any other arrangements, starting with the first one Episode IV.
14:12 In the book, the Monolith activated its signal when the first sliver of sunlight coming up over the lunar mountains touch it in 4 million years. It was the Monolith telling its giant companion orbiting Jupiter: "the humans dug finally me up and they'll be coming there soon."
23:07 Dude, I was thinking the same thing when first seeing this at age 13! "HAL can read your lips, dummies!" LOL!
36:14 I've always thought the "aliens" were showing him the Big Bang and rapid expansion of the universe here, and all the matter, nebulae and weird planets that formed after.
36:26 Sitting two rows in front of my dad and I in 1968 were a group of "hippies" as my dad called them. When Dave's trip thru in Infinite started Marty, I knew right away why they were here! LOL! And I agree the octahedron here 36:41 are the "aliens" escorting him.
38:25 In the book they recreated a hotel he once stayed in, to give him a familiar surrounding.
Learned several things in your trivia segment. Thank you. Since you want some non-scifi drama suggestions, hopefully you haven't seen:
The Shawshank Redemption
The Green Mile
The Hunt for Red October
Dances With Wolves (the original theatrical release only!)
Field of Dreams
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (the original theatrical release only!) I know this one's a scifi, but can't help it. Want to emphasize doing the original release _before_ watching the two other versions. The original has a more positive vibe to it and the others a negative one. Besides that, it's the original that impressed us in '77 which held its own going up against the very first and most awesome Star Wars of the same year. That was a great year for scifi Marty as we had two totally cool and awesome movies to watch... CEotTK and Star Wars, both I watched several times that year!
These are popular reactor movies I'm sure you'll enjoy too. Watched your Andromeda Strain reaction. Awesome movie and vid you made there too! I love all the older scifis, especially from the 50s and will suggest some of those you'd like on another video. Please do "2010: The Year We Make Contact" (1984) made a _long_ 16 years later and one that even Kubrick said he liked, though he had nothing to do with making it. For fun, I'll tell you that both Kubrick and Clarke had cameos in it; Clarke 2 of them and Kubrick 1, so keep a sharp lookout! Good video you did here Marty and take care. 🖖👽
Also, I agree with you. 2001 is art, not just a movie. You can call it slow, even lumbering at times, but there's a definite atmosphere and depth to it that's mesmerizing. And ,it's Kubrik. I'd recommend a dog food commercial directed by the man
Yes, a one-of-a-kind experience.
It's "cinema", the point of which is artistic expression and exploration of the human condition.
The point of "Movies" ,on the other hand, is to entertain while extracting maximum profit.
The reason for the distance between the engines and the ship is they’re nuclear powered
Ooh! Thank you for this, handy to know. I'd not realised those suckers were nuclear!
The book says it is a wormhole. The footage shows me that all this took place inside the giant monolith, where time and space is different. He's flying by miles of information gathered from across the universe, being shown the beginning of galaxies , including our own. You see our sun being born, and the solar system developing. The fly-bys are our own planet developing. This thing is teaching him where we all came from. That was a lot of stuff to shove into Dave's head all at once.
When it was reissued again in 1970 (at least here), I took my top sixth graders to see it. After the film, I asked if they had any questions. When they said "No", I asked them what the monolith was. My top student tilted his head a moment then said, "It represents God who intervenes at certain stages in human evolution to cause us to advance." I asked no more questions.
Glad you got round to watching what is possibly the greatest SF movie of them all. Its sci fi done as art and push-the-envelope SFX with no CGI whatsoever. Its just great old school, isn't it?. The influence of this movie is nothing short of nuclear...some scenes Mr Lucas liked a lot so to put them in Star Wars (6.26)😉?. The ape stuff was done in London on a movie set that could be spun around to get different angles. The backgrounds were shot by a static camera crew who did go to Africa (Kubrick apparently loathed flying). They were front-projected onto a big screen and for the daytime scenes, the set was very brightly lit to cut down on any shadows cast members may accidentally cast on the screen. Needless to say, the actors got a wee bit hot!.
Keir Dullea - David Bowman - said the best scene for him was the moment the ape picked up the bone & figured out it could be a tool or weapon after encountering the monolith.
And you're right, the stewardess on the ceiling and the crazy interiors on Discovery were done by the simplest trick in the book - rotating sets with a fixed camera. Bowman & Poole walked around inside what was effectively a big hamster/mouse wheel. And the mega-trippy LSD finale was done by 'slit scan', also employed in the title sequence of Superman (1978) - which you should see BTW.
An explanation is here : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slit-scan_photography
I think back in the 90's the Museum Of Film & Photography in Bradford did screen it in Cinerama - very widescreen.
2010 is a decent-ish sequel, not up to Kubrick but still enjoyable in its own way, Roy Scheider is always great to watch. It explains a bit more.
Now that you've seen this one, I thoroughly recommend going back to the 50's (not in a DeLorean unfortunately) and check out Forbidden Planet which is to that decade, what 2001 is to the 60's. Both are big milestones in the history of SF and should be in your blu-ray collection if you do physical media. The both have a place on my shelf...only the classics👍. Speaking of one gem of a classic...is Journey to the Centre of the Earth (1959) on the horizon?.
I saw this when it was released in 1968 in Cinerama. Our high school drama class took a field trip to Hollywood to see it. We were all blown away as it was something we had never seen before. Ten years later, Star Wars would do the same thing. You can Google Kubrick's explanation of what the ending means.
Oh wow, Gary! That must have been a blast with the field trip too, to be able to watch it with others who were learning around you and getting to see/hear their reactions to certain scenes. It's stunning, isn't it! Oh really, wow I need to get on watching Star Wars sometime soon. I'm planning on watching in release order and do plan on watching the original theatrical version too, if I can. I did love 2001 so much, I'd looked up the ending but hadn't seen Kubrick's explanation, just that people had said that it was open to explanation. Thank you for that though, I will check out what he's said! Thank you for watching/commenting
9 years later
@@dolphinsrr I'm sorry, I'm old!
@@garybassin1651 I'm old too. I'm 65. 😂
@@dolphinsrr 70
I saw/experienced "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968) in an Cinerama theater back in the day. Previous Science Fiction movies featured cardboard sets, fading/about-to-rise actors, and pulp novel plots for this sub B-movie genre. Stanley Kubrick raised the bar to the Moon before Apollo 11, which is how "Star Wars"/Space Operas came to be. 3:24 What is The Monolith? That question has been debated/argued for decades. 4:00 The Killer Ape of then-recent theories about early Hominids was shown in graphic detail. Speaking of Early Men, it is unfortunate that the actors didn't get AMPAS attention. (Did they think that Kubrick had a troop of trained Apes on tap?) 4:55 The "place holder" Classical music pieces were kept, instead of the commissioned soundtrack music, which even made the Pop music charts! 6:52 This is the antiseptically clean world of The Future, so "Star Wars" went "worn and dirty," in 1977. 15:35 Actor Douglas Rain's "HAL 9000" set the bar for other computers, such as "MU/TH/UR" of "Alien" (1979). Did you notice that the HAL 9000 has more personality than Dave Bowman or Frank Poole? 22:17 HAL is in conflict. 33:17 HAL was told to do things that contradicted his basic programming and "he went a little funny in the head." 35:09 Time to take The Trip. 36:40 To misquote a fictional movie character: "What you perceive/conclude is a reflection of what you bring/have with you." The influence of "2001" leaked into the real world. For years, there was a Monolith behind the University of Hawaii Chemistry building that emitted a low hum. "Also Sprach Zarathustra" became a "something BIG is about to happen" musical cue in later movies. Discussions/arguments/musings on this film have gone on for decades. On to "2010" (1984)!
Try "Silent Running"
_Silent Running was given a $1,000,000 budget and a guarantee of final cut to first-time director Douglas Trumbull, who had previously worked on the special and visual effects for films such as the 1968 release 2001: A Space Odyssey_
12:07 I think it would be difficult without CGI to show pouring a liquid at one-sixth Earth gravity. The recent SF series "The Expanse" had a neat scene pouring a beverage into a cup that showed the Coriolis effect from being inside a rotating space station.
14:23 The elongated ship design is to keep the spherical crew quarters well away from the nuclear powered engines. The pods along the spine I believe are some kind of storage.
16:40 No, this wouldn't be a live call - too much time lag due to distance, the ship being somewhere out near Jupiter.
17:46 I've just noticed the key light shining on HAL's "eye".
43:59 There was no virus, that was just a cover story.
The events of this film really aren't that hard to describe or comprehend, but Kubrick went out of his way to leave the audience in the dark, which I found quite irritating. Even so, as a lifelong SF reader, I had no problem understanding everything when I first saw this in 1968, with one exception - exactly why HAL went crazy (that is finally explained in the sequel, "2010: the year we make contact", which is a decent movie in it's own right). At the end, Dave is reborn, transcending his humanity, and returns to his origin to straighten some things out. Yes, "2001" is an amazing piece of cinema, but the endless debates over what it all means are mostly just Kubrick jacking off. The movie was originally inspired by Arthur Clarke's short story "The Sentinel", which described humans finding on the Moon a mysterious structure which then fires off a signal to its unknown extraterrestrial builders.
There was a terrific book about the making of this film that came out not too long ago. In that book, effects supervisor Douglas Trumbull revealed that there were several attempts to depict the aliens behind the monoliths. But none were satisfactory. So, Kubrick decided to let the monolith stand in for the aliens. Trumbull goes into detail on the many techniques they tried to creat the aliens.
The two movies I though of for you during this were Slaughterhouse-Five 1972, and Days of Heaven 1978
Hi Majoofi! Thank you so much for watching this with me and suggesting those. Great taste as I've seen the latter, Days Of Heaven and it's beautifully made in every way! Sublime acting too by Gere, Manz and the other cast members. I've not seen Slaughterhouse one though (briefly saw the summary of it, but don't want to spoil it), so that's being added to the list! Thank you for the suggestions!
"I'm just in awe... in disbelief that they've made something so beautiful..." Yes, I agree 100%. I first saw this in 1968 on one of the gigantic curved 70mm Cinerama screens in use at the time. THAT was a stunning experience. But what's most incredible to me about Kubrick's (and Clarke's and Trumbull's) achievement is that still today, 55 years later, no has has ever made a better, more convincing, or more awe-inspiring science fiction film than 2001.
It is truly a masterpiece Michael! Thank you so much! I'm glad you agree. Now that I'm back in my own place I'm going to get the 4k of this and watch it again in all it's glory. I can't wait to be in even more awe at the gorgeous cinematography.
Oh wow, that really would have been an *experience*! I'm also going to watch this in VR, which will be the curved IMAX style screening, so I'm hoping it will be as near to what it originally looked as possible. I can't wait!
Most definitely! Although I think a close second for me is Interstellar. I'm sure you've seen it, but if you've not it's stunning. A lot of the visual effects were done using correct (as of the time) mathematics etc. Nolan is brilliant in that respect, just like Kubrick.
Thank you so much for watching, I really appreciate it
Nobody (I'm sure not even Kubrick) understands the ending. But it evokes such a deep sense of awe, this was never done after this...
To me, it's the next step in human evolution. And how could we ever understand that?
2010 is a worthwhile film to watch but don’t expect quite the same standard as 2001. It does a reasonable job of expanding and explaining some of the things in 2001 but hasn’t aged quite as well. With your obvious appreciation of cinematography you need to watch more Kubrick films if you haven’t already. Each one is somewhat different and unique while still carrying the characteristics that made Kubrick special. I have a fondness for all of them but Dr.Stranglelove is probably my next favourite followed by A Clockwork Orange and then the rest. Oddly, as a huge Kubrick fanboy I have yet to see Lolita.
For the first sequence on the Discovery shot where Bowman(Keir Dullea) was descending down the ladder to the centrifuge room on one side of the screen and Poole(Gary Lockwood) was sitting on the other side, Poole was literally strapped to his seat while the room was upside down so Bowman could come down the ladder naturally. The entire room set was on a mammoth powered wheel that could rotate the whole room to any degree at speed.
And in that scene, Poole's food kept "falling UP" off his spork, and splattering down across the set XD.
Kubrick later ordered the set Dismantled, to prevent someone else from using it to produce a sub-par sequel.
That's why you don't see it in Peter Hyams "2010: The Year We Make Contact".
A decent film in its own right, but more prosaic/voice-over expositional, and dependent on CGI.
Great reaction! Very astute commentary. This really dates me, but I saw this at age 13 in 1968 in its original release. Mind blown. The way it still holds up today- a testament to Kubrick's genius.
I love Kubrick's movies, and this was his first with layered narratives, visual and dialogue idiosyncrasies that shift context of the story presented. You spotted the silk screen back projections for the earth scenes, and if you watch the space sequences there are very blatant lighting errors and motion errors that seem very deliberate, given the attention to detail with everything else Kubrick filmed. The monolith itself, if you rotate it 90 degrees, you might get a better understanding of what it represents...the long sections of black screen at the start, middle and end of the film tie into that as well. (this theme of shifting perspective by 90 degrees is repeated throughout the film, along with graphical displays showing a rectangle intersecting a circle or eye). A version of the monolith appears in each subsequent film he made.
I think you missed the opening dialogue of the conference, there's no outbreak on the moon, it's a false flag cover story that NASA are trying to spread, so they can conceal the discovery of the monolith from the public.
Thanks for the reaction, it was an enjoyable watch
Best reaction to this film I've seen on TH-cam. It reminds me of my reaction when I saw it in 1971 on a full cinema screen while in college. Quite an awesome experience.
Well done!
Yes, definitely watch 2010! While it is a COMPLETELY different feeling film, It answers most of the questions you have, and also explains HAL's actions in an understandable way...
I never expected to see Buddy Hackett in a 2001 reaction vid. Nice.
One of the best forgotten films of the 80’s is 1984’s “2010: The Year We Make Contact.” It is not as artsy and complicated, but continues the story in a more traditional sci-fi movie. Like “Alien,” it holds up very well, even after 40 years. The cast is stellar with Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, Bob Balaban and Helen Mirren. It is a must. “2001: A Space Odessey,” came out eight years before “Star Wars.”
The crew compartment set of Discovery was a huge rotating carousel, thus allowing Bowman to jog around without cutting. The birthday message was a recording. While it isn’t mentioned, when that message was received, Discovery was beyond the orbit of Mars so transmission time from Earth to ship was over 20 minutes.
The opening scene of the John Landis movie, “Dark Star,” begins with a transmission where an official talks with the same inflection and lack of emotion of mission control. I’m positive that it was inspired by 2001.
The novel and movie were written concurrently. There were changes though, due to budget. In the novel, Discovery goes to Saturn. In the movie it’s Jupiter. There was effects work done of Saturn which was later used in the movie, “Silent Running.”
The score of the film is all existing classical music. The main theme is “Thus Spoke Zarathustra.” The men’s choral piece played during the moon bus scene was also used during the HALO jump in “Godzilla (2014.)”
great film , saw it on the big screen in 1968 , class field trip , if you like this , you`ll also like the sequel , 2010 ,the year we make contact ! two of my favorite sci fi films !, you have to watch 2010 , to get the rest of the story , it has an absolutely amazing ending !
A great, appropriate reaction to my favorite film. This movie has a deep personal connection. I first saw it at 6 years old in 1968 from the back seat of our family car at a Texas drive-in theater. The final image of the Starchild completely haunted and unsettled me... I could not look at a movie poster or image of that shot again as a child. It was not until my first year of college I finally went to see the movie again and fell madly in love. 2010 is like entertaining prose compaired to the cinematic poetry of 2001. Don't go in with any expectations and you'll enjoy it on its own merits. Interestingly, the special effects are much more believable in the original. The 4K UHD blu-ray of this film is generally acknowledged to be one of the best titles on physical media... the remastered picture quality is stunning and it does eliminate that brick-like mottling in the Dawn of Man sequence that was unfortunately captured in the 1080p version and previous blu-ray. However, the best way to view this film is on a curved Cinerama screen. I approximated this effect on my VR headset using the Skybox video player, but the resolution isn't high enough on the Quest 2 headset to catch all the details. Someday, I suppose. Also, after you see the first Star Wars (episode IV, A New Hope from 1977 - watch the films in release order) you will see the huge influence 2001 had on the look of the film, and you might enjoy (just for fun, not a reaction) a cute film called 5-25-77, which has many homages to the two movies. Thanks for giving me another channel to subscribe to and enjoy!
Apparently the StarChild was crafted out of wax and then placed in a blacked out room under strong lighting where it was to be filmed. One member of the crew watched over it, left and came back and freaked out as tears were coming from the StarChilds eyes, he ran out the room screaming. But it was the heat from the lamps that were making the wax run like tears. The protagonist in this is us, the human race and its our evolution in the hands of an intelligent life (some folks say God), they put Bowman in a room they thought he would be comfortable in while they studied him, like a zoo. He transforms into the StarChild, the next stage in our evolution, a complete specimen, one that lives at peace with itself. And others.
I was fortunate to see this film in the Cinema during a re-release back in the early 1980's. To say my mind was blown would be an understatement. To this day, I've never seen a film this amazing in production, concept, direction, cinematography or effects(The late, great Douglas Trumbull, Wally Veevers and Stanley Kubrick). I cannot find a single flaw in any of it. Seeing it on the big screen was a spectacle unmatched by any other film I've seen. Easily in my top 10 films of all time.
I first watched Fellowship of the Ring on a 16 in computer monitor and wept afterwards realizing the experience I'd missed out on.
First seen this in a classic movie theatre with my father at 10 years old in 1982. My mind was blown and at the same time my brain thoroughly scrambled, and guess how many questions a kid can have. "Dad, what was this-and-that?", answers being only "I don't know" and puzzled shrugs from him.
Now to watch 2010
Most definitely! Thank you Anton, that's on my long list to watch haha ;)
"I'm looking to deep into it, i know..." - not possible ;)
Haha! It appears so, although I feel I "look too deep" sometimes into films. I think it's because I love all angles of films, whether it be stories, the process etc
Interstellar was an homage to this film. Many many easter eggs in it. Can't stop watching it, either.
i saw this with my my dad, a physicicist and rocket scientists turned artist, live in the theeatre at age 9, or 8. i had been exposed to moder n art, my dad did light sculptures like the near end scene. im still living in this world. waiting for the star child. not literally, but this is always going to be my favorite film.
I saw this in an IMAX theater when they brought it back for the 50th anniversary in 2018. It only ran for about a week where I live in PHX, but I went every day. I even saw it in California a couple weeks later. There’s nothing like it. You would freak out, Marty. As you might imagine, you’re getting a tiny fraction of the overall impact watching it on a small screen. If you ever get the chance, drop everything and GO!! 🤓
People are used to having a movie explained… but this one as you see is different. 😊
My husband and I went to see it at the theater when it came out, at the end of the movie people were walking out in absolute silence, everyone was just stunned.
The greatest sci-fi movie ever made? No, simply the greatest motion picture ever made.
2010 movie was ok and helps to answer a lot of questions but it was a low budget movie so don't expect a lot if you do watch it. I recall as a 10 year old listening to this debate on the transistor radio I had in my room on this movie and remember the reporter calling this a 10 million dollar religious movie. Yes, the beings that created the monolith were highly advanced but they weren't God. To really get a better understanding you may want to read Arthur C. Clark's novel 2001, which is a short novel but helpful.
They didn't learn to assert their dominance. They learned to use tools. It was a leap in evolution. But, of course, it did aid them in asserting their dominance.
Really great (confused) reaction! lol PLEASE react to the sequel: "2010", which was made in the '80s...not directed by Kubrick, but he gave
it his seal of approval. It's a more conventional movie (with some genuine Hollywood stars) but it has a good and very satisfying story which
will answer most of the questions! Go on, you know you want to! :)
Thank you Garry, haha yeah I was pretty confused for some parts! To be fair, many probably would be haha. Thanks for watching and yeah! I will definitely be watching the sequel. It'll be different, but I'm sure it's still an amazing watch. The fact he gave the seal of approval too is wonderful. He's a director I could see probably not giving permission. Amazing, thank you for that. I'm glad it answer some of the questions too. Haha! YES!! I really want to, thanks for the suggestion
Love your reaction... This is one of the greatest cinematic achievements ever done. Long live Kubrick!!!
Well… long live his movies😊
One of my favorite films of all time. I saw it in the theater in 1968 when I was 12. I went on to see it 13 times on the big screen thanks to near yearly rereleases. It's such a turning point in the look of Science Fiction. Look at what came before and what came after. It's influence on the model work and ship design is obvious in films like Star Wars (the effects supervisor of Star Wars John Dykstra, worked on 2001). Another 2001 effects artist, Brian Johnson, went on to work on Space 1999 and Alien, which were clearly influenced by 2001.
While the sequel, 2010:The Year We Make Contact, is more conventional and less artistically made, it's still a solid film that answers a lot of questions from the first film. It's a pretty faithful adaptation of Arthur C Clarke's sequel. In fact, Clarke was in daily contact with the director with one if the first dedicated computer links.
You may be surprised to learn that some of the zero gravity effects were first done in Doctor Who. Kubrick saw an episode (possibly the one in "The Daleks' Master Plan" with Katarina in the airlock), and had someone in his production company contact the BBC to find out how it was done.
The reason HAL went crazy and killed the other crewmen was that he was required to lie to them about the mission in order to keep it a secret until they arrived at Jupiter. He even had to lie about lying to them. As you may have noticed from modern AI programs, it doesn't take much to set them off.
There are many reasons to appreciate this movie. One in particular detail are the computer graphics shown on screens throughout the movie. The different screens showing status of different ship functions, the approach of the shuttle to the rotating space station can be seen on a computer screen in the cockpit. The different screens in the little space pod. All of those had to be animated because the level of actual computer graphics were at such an infancy in the late 60s. Real graphics of the time where they were used at all were simple line graphics due to the lack of computing power. This movie doesn't miss a beat. I've loved it since the first time I saw it back in the mid-70s.
2001 is among the great 20th century works of art. It inspires philosophical thought but I love that a lot of it's majesty is how mysterious it is.
Another very original and influential film worth reacting to is Fellini's '8 1/2' (1963).
Speaking of the slow style of the film, I am reminded of what "Mad Magazine" called their satire of the movie: "2001 Minutes of Space Idiocy".
I saw it for the first time when I was just 13. Although I was beginning to think abstractly about life and the universe at that time, it was almost traumatic. And sadly, I had no one to discuss the movie with. I am now revisiting it, as a work of art and in relationship to its sequel (quite a good movie, actually) and Clarke's 4 novel series. I am grateful that now, so many years later, I have other thoughtful folks here, courtesy of TH-cam, to share their thoughts with me about this monumental film. Thank you, dude.
20:10. there is a pair of buttons on the suit forearm to darken or lighten the visor. Dave presses the 'dark' button right before he reaches the brightly lit antenna dish.
I do recommend watching 2010 as well - its not as well directed but is quite underrated and answer a couple of questions.
Hi Sasha! Oh yes, 2010 is definitely on the list! Thank you for suggesting it too. Oh brilliant, I didn't realise it answered questions, in which case I really cannot wait to watch it even more! I've seen the trailer and yeah, despite it looking a little different style wise, it's still pretty similar. Thank you and hopefully I'll get around to it soon!
2010 is a great movie. Much more literal and traditional, but still great on its own terms. Trying to replicate 2001 would have been impossible and a huge error. Just like trying to replicate Alien.
Yeah it had some cool ideas .
The sequel 2010 is worth watching. It answers allot of questions. It's not done the same way. It's more your standard space movie. But well worth it.
"It answers allot of the questions" precisely why it's an inferior movie. Agree though its Still a very entertaining sci-fi movie worth watching even if it lacks the awe and wonder of 2001
A note on the cockpit or control color red - it’s actually scientific, and is used in astronomical observatories and other night/dark situations where you need to be able to view or document paper print, but not destroy your acclimated dark vision. Red wavelength light allows for this.
So cockpits will be using it to allow the pilots to read yet see the darkness of space or the moon
I would have thought that a lot of audience members who saw this when it came out sat staring at the screen right through the credits trying to work out what the ending means.
IMO the effects still look better than a lot of more recent efforts.
You mentioned that you've never seen Star Wars. If you are going to watch it, I'd recommend watching THX 1138 before you do, Star Wars and other George Lucas films contain more than one easter egg.
One of my favourite Lucas films is American Graffiti. That's when George Lucas first met Harrison Ford.
It was such a mind boggling film. I think they must have. It really made me think. After I'd finished recording that day, I'd sat there stunned for ages trying to figure everything out, life, the film and what it all meant haha.
The effects are definitely much better than most modern films, yeah. They managed to achieve so much more with practical effects (which are better IMO). Like the intro with the apes, the monitor screens, even the stargate scene (how they did this one blew my mind!).
Ooh yes! Thank you for that, someone mentioned that THX film and I'm hoping to watch that one and will make sure to watch that one and then American Graffiti before I watch Star Wars. It's wonderful that they included easter eggs! It'll be interesting to see if I can spot them. I may miss some!
@@miggyluv Hi Michael! I completely forgot about American Graffiti being a George Lucas film, until I saw your comment earlier. I've been meaning to watch it as I love the style of the film having seen the trailer. It's one of my Dad's favourites and we keep meaning to watch it. I shall watch it here at some point for the very first time though! Wait... Harrison Ford is in American Graffiti?! How did I not realise! Also, I have yet to watch ANY Indiana Jones, which is another crime against movies on my behalf. I have between now and June to watch ALL of them haha (the new one comes out)
This film was the firsrt to show video phones and tablets. However the first film to show A.I. was Metropolis 1927. This film was a game-changer when it came out -- nobody had ever seen anything like it previously. Kubrick was literally creating cinematic alchemy -- along the same genius as Shakespeare and Leonardo Divinci. Thankyou for doing a reaction to this amazing movie -- much respect !!!
Can you please please watch "2010: The Year We Made Contact"? It's not as beautifully aesthetically pleasing as "2001" but it's still just as interesting imo and the monoliths/Dave are back.
This is one of the movies that really should be seen as it was filmed, which is on a large, curved Super Panavision screen. The scale of things simply can't be appreciated by viewing it on anything short of the Cinerama theater screen, which it was filmed for. The screen had a 2.2:1 ratio, which at the time, was quite spectacular.
Built little sets when they could have used art. Many of the shots in this film used large-format photographs, lit from behind: transparencies.
The Africa shots (and many of the projected backgrounds of Africa, too) were still photos, and the moon seen from space was art based upon photos (no Apollo mission had been there yet, which is why the moon's surface has sharp features on it, which are vanishingly few in actual fact.
Many shots of spaceships are also still photos, most often the Moon bus and the nuclear platforms early on, but there were also models used, some quite large.
I thinK I read somewhere that the famous jump cut was inspired by a similar effect at the beginning of the 1944 'Powell and Pressburger' film - 'A Canterbury Tale'. This duo made many great films that would be worth watching if you haven't already. This is one of their smaller offerings - it has a minimal plot but it is so evocative of the way we would like to remember living in a English country village that it has become one of my favourites! Anyway - worth checking the jump cut!
I was in my third year of college when I first watched this film in a theater. It was absolutely stunning!!! You must understand that at that time, the Space Race with the Soviet Union was in full swing. Almost every day was some new discovery in astrophysics, materials, and everything needed for space travel. We were on the cusp of lading on the moon. The budget for all of this was, pardon the pun, astronomical! Folks nowadays cannot fathom how much "space" consumed our attention. At the rate of invention and discovery, it was entirely reasonable for us in 1968 to assume that such a plot could be fulfilled by 2001. However, as events proved, the economics of the Space Race were simply unsustainable. As I said, though, you just had to have seen this on a wide-screen in a theater with surround-sound.
Light inside the landing bay: red for danger: vacuum, it appears several times in the film.
Oh yes! Great spot. I recall thinking that the red light could signal danger, but didn't quite connect that the light meaning danger could be due to the vacuum. Thanks for watching along with me Steve! I hope you're well, take care (Apologies for the delay, I'm working through the comments)
Hotel room: Louis 14th decor, 1970s style lit dancefloor, mirror is over the bath rather than the washbasin, and a hidden commode in a bench to one side. And no doors, but one doorway, until the monolith appears...
Something similar happened in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, a hotel called 'The Royale', created from a book the astronaut had with him.
So glad you truly appreciated the magnificence that is 2001. Are you reading too much into a story written by Arthur C Clarke and directed by Kubrick? lol how bout no! The appearances of the monolith marked big steps in human evolution, sparking it even. There is a sequel that continues the story 2010 The Year We Make Contact (1984). We finally get full answers about the monolith and it's mission in the book (only) 3001: A final Odyssey. You were right in that Bowman essentially became a higher being.. or reborn and actually part of the monolith. 2010 is a great sequel but they made the wise choice and didn't try to be Kubrick.
“2010” is nowhere near this movie but is a very appropriate sequel.
being such a long movie there is alot to take in, but i think there was a dialogue where they mentioned the pandemic was a cover story so to keep people away from the monolith on the moon or maybe my imagination took hold and imagined more to the movie (that does happen, and usually that movie in my head is far more interesting)
I once got to see this at the Cinerama Dome theater in Los Angeles. The Dome has a huge, curved wrap-around screen. It was spectacular!
Watch the sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact" it answers a lot of your questions.
The straight forward "answer all the questions " approach is precisely why that movie is far inferior. Agreed it's well worth a watch good sci-fi movie even if lacking the awe and wonder of 2001
The ending is the idea of life neverending. Death being part of it. A new creation of life some how.
I like that idea of the end. Since watching the film, it's pretty much what I've been thinking the film ending may have been going for. Thank you focalized!
HOPE THIS SIMPLYFIES THINGS IF YOU FOUND 2001 A DIFFICULT FILM TO UNDERSTAND:- 2001 IS A WORK OF ART THAT IS ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT IT TO BE ABOUT ! ! !👍
My favorite all time movie. I first watched it at age 7 in 1968, and saw the 70mm Nolan enhanced version in 2018 (50 year aniv). A masterpiece and fully enjoyed your reaction! We studied the movie in 9th grade Humanities class. Imagine the irony when HAL (the ultimate human "tool") nearly stops our evolutionary ascension because we're flawed and he isn't! Just one of the ironies. Symbolism is throughout. One example" Discovery is shaped as a sperm trying to reach Jupiter (the ovum)... thanks for the great reaction!
I was 12 years old, in 1968. I traveled on a commuter train,(In those days my Mom thought I was old enough to go to a theatre 45 miles away)from Suburban Chicago to Downtown Chicago to watch 2001 on a curved screen. With the Overtures, and Entr'acte, it was 3 hour event with 4-5 trailers. I loved the colors, but as a 12 yo it was difficult to understand the end.
Several years ago I saw this presented at the University of Kentucky. It was a special cut of the film without a musical score. The music and chorus were performed by the UK symphony orchestra and chorus. It was breath-taking.
Kentucky? Full of evil conservatives. They would never be able to appreciate a masterpiece like this one. All they care about is guns and more guns!
@@trhansen3244 You seem to know little about my state.
@@motodork Oh, I've seen plenty of Mitchel Connel.
@@trhansen3244 you don’t even know how to spell Mitch McConnell’s name.
Back in 2018, Christopher Nolan's restored version of 2001: A Space Odyssey was released for IMAX screens, and I made sure I got to experience it. BEST. MOVIE. VIEWING. EVER!
Oh WOW! I had no idea he'd done that! Nolan is the MAN! Damn, I wish I'd known. I would have definitely seen it as my first viewing... let's hope in the future there's another experience the same! You are so lucky to have watched it in IMAX
Watching on a normal movie screen or on a television doesn't do this film justice. I saw it when it came out in 1968 on a Cinerama screen in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The nearest equivalent today would be IMAX
In Cinerama there are three angled screens surrounding the audience do you feel like you are IN the movie. Amazing experience.
"I'm looking too deep into it."
I've never laughed harder!
Frank Poole's birthday call from his parents is a pre-recorded message. It takes a radio signal approximately 40 minutes to reach them so far away from Earth. Real-time communication is impossible, and you have to wait nearly an hour and a half to get a response. You'll see this when the technicians on Earth respond to the failed AE35 unit.
When you see Frank and Dave at two different angles, a large mirror was used.
The virus was just a cover story. The real story was they found the monolith buried on the moon. It was clearly a created object and had been buried 4 million years previously.
I loved the realism in this film. They actually included a rotating centrifuge to create artificial gravity, which is a very real solution. Then there is the ai and common tech displayed. It's almost as if someone came from the future and told Stanley to make this movie. Or they took a lot of hallucinogens.
The centrifuge rotated so that actors could stand at the bottom of it as it turned, sometimes with someone strapped into a seat up on the ceiling,
Arthur Clarke and others made predictions about tech, such as a clip-board like computer that could also play video (in portrait format, which is the standard for devices today), or a computer that could assess human psychological states, for example.
He also famously predicted or described the waterbed, something that did come to pass, but couldn't be put on the top floor of most homes.
The 'drink peas through a straw' stuff is The Whirlpool Corporation's idea of the future, simply having plastic sachets which you drink from like what we actually use were beyond them, it seems.
Excellent, excellent commentary. As far as interpretation, Kubrick intentionally left it open-ended, but you pretty much nailed the accepted "interpretation". Very good! Not always easy to do on a first watch! "Dazzling" is the word I use for this movie. (Also his next movie, the very different, dystopian "A Clockwork Orange", which you may have seen already) (If not, that's definitely one for your list!). Outstanding reaction video. You pointed out lots and lots of stuff I never noticed, although that's very much the point with "2001"! As the videotape box used to say: "2001: The More You See It, The More You See IN It"! But you did some great zoom-ins on stuff I never noticed, so thank you!!!! The fact that you already knew Kubrick's work and style made this a special reaction. Your sensitive eye and appreciation for (and recognition of) great cinematography also made it great, especially since you had some slight ideas of how they achieved some of these effects. Rather than spoil the effects for you, that seemed to make you appreciate them even more, how "seamlessly" they were executed. GREAT channel, just found you, just subscribed and already I have videos to catch up on. See you on the next one! You're a great reactor!!!! Keep it up! I know it's a long slog for subscribers sometimes, but your reactions are definitely worth it, definitely special, definitely one-of-a-kind.
PS:: Outstanding edit as well!
Good reaction video, now go and watch 2010: Odyssey two. ( if you haven't already done so). Also take the time to read the 4 books in the series.
2010: The Year we make contact is the sequel to 2001 a space Odyssey David says My God it's full of stars a brilliant movie an excellent sequel
Watch 2010 Odyssey 2 for some answers,
HAL is IBM each one letter less
Thank you for this Happy!! (Unless you prefer a different name)
It's funny, as someone else mentioned the EXACT thing to me earlier and it blew my mind. Thank you for that! I've got 2010 on the list to watch sometime, so I will add your name to it too. Much appreciated and thank you for watching/commenting!
@@MoviesWithMarty
First of all, a very thorough and entertaining review/reaction, with many pleasant demonstrations of astuteness on your part. And second, I suppose I might as well be the one to confide to you this datum: The fact that HAL's name is IBM back one letter was a complete coincidence and surprise to Arthur C. Clarke, who explained that the name was to have come from the words *H* euristic *AL* gorithmic! 🤓
Dead on about the cinema viewing. First saw this on release. My middle school class walked to the nearby theatre for a specoal matinee....never anything like this, think id heard the blue danube, but not the full in surround sound, that choral piece, mindblowing the visuals from color to technogy to weigjtless every detail imaged as acurately as possible space travel the moon landing on the tv was grainy but exotic, here its reality.. walked back to the school in a mindfilled daze of confusion and awe.
If your looking for more spatial realism, have you ever seen space 1999, takes a lot of cues from this movie. From the Gerry Anderson team...ufo, captain scarlet etc.
Don't forget 2010 the sequel.
That monolith Tars thing! Actually Nolan designed Tars to look as it did as a nod to 2001 and Kubrick!
The theater wasn't pitch black as the music was playing at the beginning; it played with the house lights up as the audience seated. It was in effect an overture. A few other films have done this, but it's uncommon (Star Trek: The Motion Picture was one example.).
A film about aliens that had no aliens in it. The monolith (monoliths) is the ultimate utility tool. I think it was A. C. Clarke who said that when you create a piece of technology that can do and be anything you want it doesn’t matter what shape it is or what it looks like. Another thing to notice are the repeated references to birth, death and transformation. The last scenes of the movie were a very clever and artistic way of depicting many years of life inside an artificial environment created from memories in Bowman’s mind while he ages normally. I should mention that it’s my favourite movie of all time since seeing it in 1968.
The call to the daughter was a live call because they were in close proximity to the Earth. The call from his parents was recorded because they were way out, headed to Jupiter, and the time lag would be far too long to have a conversation.
""wait, if the whole thing is rotating , how is that guy sat there constantly ?'' Are you for real !?!
Age 15 I watched this film 14 times, 10 of which were Cinerama. My closest friend gave up after the fifth viewing. I just ate this up, and at some points was explaining bits of the film to adults watching nearby. Could not get enough. Built the models of the Bus and the Shuttle.
Arthur C Clark and Stanley Kubrick left the interpretation of the meaning of the film to the viewing audience.
Please watch the Peter Hyams sequel, 2010. It will answer a lot of your questions and leave you with many more.
Watch the sequel.
I certainly will be at some point! I can't wait to see it. Thank you for watching!
I skimmed the comments and I didn't see anyone mention the reason HAL was killing everyone. This is explained in the books and the second movie: he was designed to be very accurate and truthful, but then he was also given orders to lie to the (awake) crew about the real reason they went out to Jupiter. He couldn't handle these conflicting instructions and tried to resolve them by killing the crew: if there's nobody to lie to, he could just go on with the mission on his own.
Legend! Thank you so much for this. It's funny you comment this now, as I'm about to rewatch 2001 (in my own time) before I watch 2010 sometime soon.
That's actually a pretty good reason for HAL doing what he did. Thanks for letting me know! I haven't read the book yet, but I will do eventually as it seems like it would give some extra detail to the story. Yeah, if you'd be interested though, I'll be watching 2010 on the channel
Arthur C Clarke had to write a book about 2001 A Space Odyssey because nobody understood the picture.
I can understand that, as it's pretty confusing and although I thought maybe I understood moments, I was probably way off. Thanks for letting me know, I'll have to check the book out. Much appreciated!
The novel and movie were created together as a cooperative venture between Clark and Kubrick. As one plot evolved, so did the other.
This was nine (9) years before Star Wars. Still better than most movies today. This was also one year before the first moon landing. So this was pure (and precious) science *_fiction._*
Hi Franke! Most definitely better than most movies today! Ah yes, Star Wars will be something I'll be watching too, as I've yet to see any of them... I know haha. Thank you for watching and commenting
Yeah just imagine trying to figure out what this meant in the 70s. 😂. The end is a zoo type setting for Dave as he is now on display. There are sounds of laughter. That Attenborough bit was so funny.