2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) - From Bone to Satellite Scene (1/6) | Movieclips 

An art almost forgotten today with a few exceptions.

Of course people in this generation would say Interstallar is the best space movie. Because of the dialogues, dramas, and the verbal storytelling. This however is the GOAT.

@@proxkei2266 cry about it

What the picture tells? Especially when bone turns to ''space ship''?

@@qttelescope8363 First it tells us the progression of our species as a whole, switching from a primitive object to let's face it - a fricking spaceship. Second, in case you didn't notice - it's not just any other spaceship, it's a nuclear spaceship, so it's also showing the evolution of weapons

The best cut ever. Three million years, a new reborn of Men

@@azophi yeah but thats like, you know, your opinion.

@@iMORTIsieteVOi hmmmm I see it is VERY good for being a movie that doesn't even have a video editor/is made on literal film But seems like standard sfx for 2020 Just my opinion tho

Don't get me wrong. I love me a really well made match-cut, but this really is not seemless or anything close to that. I understand that it might be seen as creative by some people to cut from a bone to a similarly shaped satellite, but is it that impressive? What is alle the hype about? I don't understand.

@@Mi4o Creative art depends on a creative audience

Yes, and the book makes that clear. It's a satellite carrying nuclear weapons. At the end of the book Dave as the Starchild destroys the weapons satellites. It's a powerful message how even though technology has progressed from bone to hydrogen bomb, we still have primitive tribal instincts to overcome

Well, the cut to seeing the spacecraft over the earth from seeing the bone being thrown in of itself might not be what he's trying to get you to focus on. Rather he wants you to remember that scene for later when the Starchild is over the earth, showing how those weapons that man has made, the bone to the spacecraft, is now meaningless because the Starchild is the next great leap. We have now made the next step and as the child looks on to the earth we have to wonder what the next step is for us. The leap from tools to space to something else that we simply don't understand. However you interpret the film is fine, it's meant to be ambiguous, but the conversation it creates is what I think makes it special. It's so beautiful in it's presentation, score, acting, effects and story that I can't help but get excited over anyone talking about it. Like you said: "wow man"

You are absolutely correct. Kubrick said it is an orbiting nuclear weapons launch platform. So the bone being used as the "first" murder weapon is thrown to the "ultimate" weapon. Originally the "star child" was to detonate this device and all the other devices that were circling the earth. Kubrick decided against the ending as it was too similar to the end of his previous film Dr. Strangelove

And in the 2010 book, one such nuke is launched at the Star Child (Dave Bowman) as he approaches earth going a portion of the speed of light. He blows it up by entering into it and triggering it.

That's just not evident from this scene, though: I read the same thing, but to be honest it just looks like a generic satellite or space station.

YES

Fun fact: Kubrick wanted to speed up the production because he wanted to release the movie before the trip to the Moon so it wouldn't age badly

@@TYTY-T.V Sadly people like you exist.

@@TYTY-T.V4 letters: M.E.S.A. Hope this helps.

@@TYTY-T.V Typical.

@jabba da hutt what are you talking about?

4 milion year jump

Yup correct

It's an allegorical transformation.

The genius isn't the time genius is same/identical object cut and the evolution of ancient weapon and modern weapon Perhaps the greatest cut in history no film can't compete with that cut

return to monke

MartynsSimpson reject humanity

@@ridleyrickmanreduz2196 Embrace Monke

Nope, we can do calculus, though some Republicans are socially monkeys.

@@Hume2012 *liberals

Lol do true.

Man you deserve 👑

Manipulation of Moonwatcher by the magic (advanced tech) of the Monolith. Read Arthur C. Clarke. Anything he ever Wrote. You'll be running to a bookstore for 2001 soon enough.

monkeys and apes also use sticks as weapons and walk on two legs sometimes. the movie needs some revisions based on new knowledge.

I must admit,I did like the book;2001,a Space Odyssey!I read it after I had seen the movie,though!It does do ‘more explaining”than the movie 🍿 ever will!But,that’s how it goes!Art even in a film 🎥 is just that way!😊

2001 was shot in 70mm film, which is twice as large as the standard back in 1968, which was 35mm film. other 70mm movies include west side story and disney's sleeping beauty.

mochi heart Four times

People like to think of the 60s as primative but they are wrong. Quite a few films in the 60s were shot on 70mm. Most quality films from the 60s or 70s look like they have been made yesterday

Kubrick. That's how. Probably the most exacting film director who ever lived.

@@Plathismo yes kubrick deserves praise but the real reason this film looks so good is because it was shot in 70mm and most films from the 60s were shot on 70mm

@Thomas Atwood Yeah you're right.

Idk the problem with slow pacing like this was some action, thriller movie.

What do you mean pacing? The plot just skipped thousands of years through one transition.

@@cameodamaneo 🤣🤣🤣

@@cameodamaneo “thousands”

It’s one of the best movies of all time. In cinematography, the scale of plot, soundtrack, and acting.

@@CoolDrifty One of the best? You're on crack.

@@GoLakers3900 You're saying it isn't?

@@CoolDrifty I can name off 50 better ones in my sleep. You bought into the hype. Don't let the internet tell you what's good.

@@GoLakers3900 WHAT!? ARE YOU SERIOUS!? It is arguably the greatest movie ever made.

But to me this film is the most mysterious movie that i ever seen , I don't even know what is the true meaning of this film but I'm pretty sure that this movie have a very deep and enigmatic meaning .....

It's the most overrated film alongside citizen Kane.

@@moshabraf God damn right it is. It only appealed to white science-fiction nerds & white critics. Sci-Fi atleast around the time when 2001 was released was mostly a eurocentric & white cultural regime. This art-house film is a great example of white mediocrity & dishonest hype gone zealously rampant without being checked or corrected.

@@deadaccount5238 It's very simple. Arthur C Clarke on his end is mostly discussing extra-terrestials and monoliths (civilizing tools for other intelligent species in the universe). Arthur does not discuss anything else beyond those two things. But what Kubrick does is he makes a film seemingly about what Arthur is describing in his books and then slips in a small pinch of jewish mysticism & masonic references. My point is the secret of this movie is that Kubrick is giving you a cryptic confession of a jewish mystical tradition called Qabbalah. Atleast this movie appears to be so for those with the insight to understand. The "mystery" is of this movie is that it is fundamentally about the esoteric side of judaism whilst giving you the cover story of aliens & monoliths.

@@bill775 Not exactly. You're not thinking too hard. You're only peeling it's skin, you know. Not revealing it's mystery

Lmao. Yes it can. I guess in Arthur c Clarke's book (and perspective) these monkeys are experiencing the evolutionary intelligence-enhancing benefits that the alien monolith artifact has bestowed on them. This kinda has that allegorical judeo-christian biblical "forbidden apple fatal discovery" thing going on or the prometheus giving fire to mortal men allegorical routine. The monkeys/apes now use tools & their intellect-power to acquire meat, dominance and resources. Or atleast that's the exoteric cover story the movie provides you. From Kubricks hidden occult perspective, the monkeys/apes represent the ignorant human beings/creatures before they discovered the gift of insight, wisdom, mental coherence, illumination, "wokeness" and/or gnostic insight stemming from the monolith artifact (which is really a cryptic reference & stand in for the qabalistic tree of life). When the monkeys/apes internalize this wisdom/knowledge from the monolith. They begin to mentally walk up right as profound evolutionary new victors ready to change the world & move mountains as a daring ambitious intellectual species. This is very similar to how a freemason, student or initiate who upgrades to a new rank or level.

one word does it well, BLASPHEME, there ya go.....

Doofus

the scene of the apes fighting is just HILARIOUS. That's the word.

lol how though? I didn't cry when i saw it.

Haha not in a sad way. It’s more in admiration of how timeless this edit and film is, being 50 years old. Such a monumental jump in time with one single cut. And the way the music slowly fades in after the cut. So beautiful it makes me emotional!

@@broccfilms2021 More like 51 years. LOL

Bill Baldwin Time is flying...

@@broccfilms2021 Yes indeed!

1 minute of 2001 is more worthy than the entire Marvel cinematic universe.

Is it a good book?..I'm thinking about reading it

Mike Manners bruh

@@tushartyagi1762 Yeah. It's basically the movie. It's quite short.

@yeeeeeeeeeth obviously he didn't have a cut like that. It's a book

Don't care about the book

as Einstein once said, WW4 will be fought with sticks and rocks

Charlie Theanteater Basically any vidéos about science, history, politics, and especially religion.

Some things change over millions of years, some things stay the same.

Dude so you're telling me this cut didn't just go forward millions of years, since RU-vidrs are literally like that anyways

Pfft, tell me about it, us intellectuals are so much better, just stay silent and agree, comrade.

Time moves forward, nothing has changed.

Bruh!!!!!!!!!!!

I think this may be my masterpiece

Donny's ancestors.

😂😂😂😂

Extryva I would say more like There Will Be Blood

And let's keep in mind what is still possible that has not yet been explored...

Apparently they did a scene where it matched it, but it didn’t look as good as they thought it would so they did it this way.

It shouldn't mattered that they should look the same, both being different shapes but they have the same intended purpose (tools to kill). Mankind millenniums later evolved from a primitive form, they simply gotten better at killing each other. There's the fridge horror, they're no different from their ancestors,

@@samuraidragon16 lol sure thing that killing is the only drive for mankind?

@@El_Fabricio One of the biggest drives for sure

The way I see it, the rough asymmetrical degree of the bone is juxtaposed to the fine symmetry of the satellite. In other words, we couldn't perfect our tools, until 4 million years later...

The little tower on the ship is shaped like a bone too. Brilliant filmmaking on everyone's part

I agree. I've always wondered why such a perfectionist like Kubrick would not have done this. Also, why show the bone spinning in two different ways? Editing is also his favorite part of the film-making process.

+Asher Huskinson I agree. When I'd heard this cut described I imagined it'd look exactly like you described it (the bone and ship exactly aligned), so when I saw the actual thing it seemed subpar. Pausing right at 1:01 to give the exact same angle at least would've been better.

It does seem weird for Kubrick, but the way it's done makes it look like a god is catching the bone and twisting it a few degrees back into a more rigid position. It also kind of foreshadows when Poole is spinning in space and then caught in a sketchy way by Bowman in the space pod.

It really would not be "more powerful".

Asher Huskinson I’m pretty sure it was said somewhere that Kubrick thought that lining the two up perfectly would make it too obvious. I could be wrong tho

not 4 million but 40,000 years

@@FeRoOOo71 no, million. Humans 40,000 years ago were a lot more advanced than what was shown in the movie

Well, I'm not going to doubt the first part but the second part seems to be your own personal interpretation. An artificial intelligence *by definition* is a sentient being. HAL9000 is described from the very beginning as a being fully capable of doing "his" (HAL sounds more like a male name and he has a male voice) own decisions regarding which involves running of the ship and having conversations with the crew. The question is whether HAL has something akin to human emotions to which Bowman replies that HAL displays sometimes shows sign of "pride". This "pride" is probably derived from people's interpretation of HAL referring to the 9000 series computers as "foolproof and incapable of error by every practical definition" and as "the finest computers ever made". He is merely stating the facts but since he comes across as a "human" being with the sentience humans naturally interpret that as pride bordering on bragging. The bottom line is that HAL was always sentient from conception and an artificial intelligence by definition is a sentient being. Hence this notion that the monolith somehow affected HAL - giving him sentience no less(!) - is hard to understand. You claim that the monolith affected HAL. Well, HAL malfunctions long before they reach Jupiter and the monolith. This puts the whole mission in jeopardy. There was a monolith found on the moon as well and it didn't affect any artificial intelligences on Earth even though the moon is but a short hop from Earth and Jupiter is roughly 1500 times the distance from Earth to the moon. The films also makes it clear you have to get close to the monolith to be affected by it. The cavemen reach out and touch it briefly and Bowman later approaches it in his spacewalk. It's never specifically stated why HAL malfunctions in the film but that is almost irrelevant because we as viewers realize that Bowman and Poole are stuck all by themselves in the vastness of space with a computer that is malfunctioning and getting increasingly unreliable. Although I really dislike people applying information retroactively from sequels and such it's stated in 2010 that the reason HAL9000 malfunctioned was because Dr.Floyd had given HAL orders to intentionally withhold information about the mission to Jupiter. Floyd of course was only following the orders of his government and had no idea what he actually had done to HAL. Dr.Chandra explained that with:"HAL was given orders to lie by people who have no qualms about lying to get their way. He didn't know how and therefore had conflicting information. He became paranoid." For me however this explanation in the sequel doesn't matter in the original 2001. What matters is that HAL malfunctions. What causes this malfunction? Who knows? Maybe some space radiation, an improperly attached module, leaking capacitors. Incredibly complex machines are always prone to malfunction due to the human factor. Humans built HAL. The bottom line is that HAL can only function as well as humans "assembled" or programmed him. If something breaks down or malfunctions then it's due to human error no matter if it's a jet airliner, space shuttle or incredibly advanced computer with sentience like HAL9000. I'm also curious to how you can equate being given sentience to suddenly becoming immoral, killing the rest of the crew in hypersleep, pushing Poole into space and trying to prevent Bowman from entering the Discovery. Does being given sentience entail becoming immoral and murderous?? No, HAL appears crazy and paranoid and therefore is as accountable as a mentally ill person suffering a psychosis - not at all. People suffering from psychosis are believing things which aren't true and hear voices which aren't there, hence their brains are malfunctioning. By law they can't be held responsible for their actions because they don't even understand what they have done if it's a crime. Likewise HAL *malfunctions* and becomes paranoid. Therefore HAL sees Bowman and Poole as a threat which jeopardizes the entire mission. So you're basically saying that the monolith is so fantastic it made HAL go crazy and malfunction? Well, it sure is well designed in that case. Giving a computer sentience (which HAL already has) makes it lie, go paranoid and kill people? Why would the "next step in evolution" result in an immoral computer deciding to lie and kill the crew? Preposterous. The bottom line is that the monolith has absolutely no connection with HAL. "It starts to disobey orders and makes questions for itself." *When and where?* HAL only does disobey the order from Bowman to open the pod bay door. That's when it's already clear HAL wants the crew out of the way. But what question for "itself" does it have? It seems as if these decisions are arbitrary and out of whim in the film - i.e. a serious malfunction brought about by a computer error, conflicting orders/programming or some unforseen complication due to the very long mission to reach Jupiter. Again, this malfunction happens long before they even reach the monolith. The last part about Bowman becoming reborn as some transcendent being is totally fine.

The book clarifies the ending. The Monolith creators are beings of pure energy, and have guided the evolution of and judged alien races across millennia. Bowman’s arrival and rapid aging are the Monolith race studying humans to see if they are worthy of proceeding onto the next stage of universal evolution (flesh and bone to synthetics to energy beings). After deeming humanity as worthy, Bowman is then transformed into an energy being as a reward for his efforts, which is seen as the Star Child in the film, who then safely detonates every warhead on Earth to remove the last remnant of tribalism which was holding humanity back, in order to usher in a new golden age as the human species can now begin to advance towards their eventual evolutionary destiny.

What are the sounds the astronaut is hearing after he finds himself in the bedroom? Instead of transcendence, could it be possible the new baby represents reincarnation?

Synchronizing them exactly would have looked gimmicky and jokey.

In music we will intentionally use dissonance to throw off the listener, give them the idea that something isn't quite right. The satellites look beautiful and there's the wonder Blue Danube waltz, but the editing tells us something isn't quite right with what we are seeing. It's up to us to figure out what that is, eventually we will find it.

Maybe that's what he wanted, who knows. He had to be aware of it, though, as he spent a ton of time editing it. If he wanted to make the bone and satellite match, it's possible he couldn't do it without a ton of work. The ape men scene was filmed on location, in Namibia, if I'm not mistaken. The satellite scene was obviously a special effect. Probably done in a studio with models in Europe. Editing then was done by basically taping different pieces of film together. I'm not an expert, though, and I was just recently introduced to 2001 so I'm not totally familiar with the production of the movie. I'd say he didn't care, symmetry wasn't necessary for the scene. Or he didn't realize until after each scene was filmed that more work would have been needed to do what your referring to.

I was thinking the same thing... In editing and animation it's called Match cut.... Two shots are joined with one common object... That orientation bothers me alot😂... Knowing Kubrick's work... It must be intentional

There's a video on YT where someone aligned the orientation and it doesn't look right. Kubrick was pretty big on jarring cuts and continuity errors intended to disorientate the viewer (look for the disappearing chairs and typewriter changing colour in the shining). The direction that the bone is spinning also changes between cuts.

Is*

@@wellno7179 Oh well I guess I have to kill myself now

Still is

It was terrifying and fascinating

great comment, and perhaps they weren't smart enough to leave the tools alone!

It was a radical weapon for them, they were scared to death of the rival clan welling such incredible, never before seen power that they fled for fear of also being killed by it.

The classical music was just a placeholder which happened to stick!

And one year before the moon landings!

How? The idea behind it (e.g. We still resemble our primitive past) so amazing and could have been so much better. But the bone doesn't match the orientation of the satellite and the cut is completely out of place.

@@explodingwolfgaming8024 You didn't get the joke mate.....

@@muezzinmeier2569 What was the joke? At least I'm not on reddit (would have been r/wooshed into oblivion)

@@muezzinmeier2569 Okay? No need to be rude? Just missed a joke and wondering what it is, not that rare of an occurrence?

@@explodingwolfgaming8024 Yeah, I'm sorry. That last comment of mine was just a dumb one.Heck, I might be even wrong about him making a joke.. I assumed this is a sarcastic statement because it lacked some pretentious pathos filled nonsense that some people connect to this match cut. Some people think its the best cut ever, some people think it is shiet. That is just how it is with this cut. the amateurish feel you get from this jarring cut is intended atleast that is what Kubrik fans say. There are some more or less convincing agruments about it. It could be just shiet tho.

interstellar did

@Tyler Durden Nolan is highly inspired on Kubrick

@Max instellar is great but as a messy(yet powerful) final act that keeps it from being on the level of solaris and 2001

@@bill775 no

@Max Actually Nolan was heavily inspired by Kubrick

And still for the same effect; as a means of power among the "tribe".

Where's the Wakanda scene?

What was it important for later on?

@@davidbarroso1960 In the book, Bowman becomes the Star Child seen at the conclusion of the film, a being of pure radiation and energy. In order to advance humanity he safely detonates every warhead in existence at once to remove the existential threat of MAD to usher in a united, golden age of humanity so that they will abandon antiquated nation states (dangerous tribalism) and continue down the next step of universal evolution; flesh and bone to synthetic forms and finally to energy beings. Bowman is granted the final form as a reward for being the first member of his species to make contact with the Monolith creator race after he and humanity are judged as worthy of it.

@@MrSoopSA ah, i didn’t read the book, thank you

Rogério Penna yeah the videos they showed to the public were fake because in space there is no wind so please explain how the flag was being blown in the footage but there were moon landings

BlankTae Tea Gravity, ever heard of it?

James R. Dude I asked about the wind and it being blown. Then here you are with gravity???

@@blanktaetea4643 The landing was real. The videos too. The flag was not moving because of wind but because of waves caused by contact with the flagstaff. However, this was a very weak motion that was only stopped by the rigidity of the flag, because there is no air resistance. If there was fake wind in the "studio", the dust and sand on the ground would have been blown into the air. In addition, there was a stick over the flag to make it look like it was waving a lot, but if you go to wikipedia, you can see two frames of the video,which show, that the flag was not really moving. There's a 213 page long pdf which proves every moon landing conspiracy theory wrong. search for it :)

Der Taxler NASA confirmed that the video was lost. I can’t remember what video it was. But, you can try searching it up.

I sign that

True!

Better than interstellar?

@@jirehlauganas4493 I hope your joking.

@@nicholas4727 definitely not

Kubrick got a lot of advice from Anthropologists and Biologists for an accurate look. The actors inside the costumes were all professional mime artists.

@@troig43 at least the most accurate for that time

-🤡

@@kachiggamybigga9481 🐒

@@IAmAHeater 🤓

Nobody saw this in 1967, it released in 1968.

And lost Best Make Up to Planet of the Apes because some Academy voters apparently thought the apes in 2001 were actual apes

@@charliepanayiotou4305 lmao

@@charliepanayiotou4305 you're technically right because humans are Apes

I also don‘t get how 2001 didn‘t win production design.

well it is.... i watched with my family 2 days ago and my mom hates it xD

what about Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked?

No

Of course and at first it bothered me, but then i started realizing it's made purposely (i guess) to represent ethical/moral human imperfection. At least that's my take on it.

@@jackr_4382 😂😂😂😂

Why Detroit?

Bill Baldwin because Detroit.

@@bill775 Because it is a nonviolent city, full of nice, nonviolent people!

@@johneggmuldoon3176 Lol, it's just anti-blackness. Why else would one speak about Detroit?

@@bill775 what? This accusation is insane. Are people in Detroit nice and peaceful?

tbf it's rightly given a very great deal of credit!!

Lol its crazy

LMAO! I luv it! too funny1

I don't get it.

Here 🙋🏻‍♀️

🙋🏽‍♀️

🙋‍♂️

Found what?

@@Actually_saif I forgot now. Lol smh.

Actually, no human watched this film at all in the year 2001. Not a single one, ever.

@@floydpinkerton7954 Haha, nice joke. I'm betting people did

@@SylveonMujigaeOfficial Then what is the purpose of your original comment?

Floyd Pinkerton My dad did since he was born in 1968

It might be BC time to AD time as well

The best cut in film history is from "Lawrence of Arabia"

@@chaoszel i saw that! it was cool

@@azophi also the meaning of it.

@@chaoszel I never saw that film :( Maybe I will though It's probably on Netflix since it o l d

@@azophi the cut and the meaning was everything.

To think we thought we knew the secret to our existence before we even landed on the moon,sounds crazy if you ask me