2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) | Movie Reaction | First Time Watching | AI Was Bad Even in the 1960s! 

Sometimes you just know how a reaction is going to go before you've seen it.

In my younger days movies were considered to be an escape from reality. These days it seems people want the Cliff Notes version of the story so they can get back into their everyday lives as quickly as possible.

The noise in the First 2 minutes and 57 seconds are the Overture. Most movies back in the day had an Overture. The curtains of the movie screen would still be closed. The Overture was there to set the Mood of the film. I wish films would still have Overtures today.

In the book, HAL-9000 is a sympathetic character who is so human that he develops a psychosis, and his reasons for why he takes the actions he does are explained. The instructions that he was given from the White House to conceal the monolith clashed with his basic programming not to conceal information from the crew. HAL was working on a non-murderous solution to the problem, but overheard plans from Mission Control to temporarily disconnect him. HAL didn't understand the concept of sleep and thought that this would kill him, so he panicked. Kubrick chose to leave HAL's motives more ambiguous in the movie, which makes HAL seem more monstrous.

Mrs. Movies proves the point that older movies took their time, and today's movies take no time. Think about it.

"You ever been through a wormhole?" "No...Neither has Stanley Kubrick." Nailed it.

''Open the Pod Bay Doors, HAL.'' ''I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave.''

Most of the message and commentary in this movie was visual, not in the dialogue. So a lot of the “artsy” scenes were really telling the story

You should see the sequel 2010. It explains most of the mysteries and it's a very different film experience. Much more accessible.

“I would not be cut out for space if I was spinning the whole time” … we are in space and we are spinning the whole time.

The reason Hal went nuts is that he had to lie to Dave and the other guy. His malfunctions were a desperate way of avoiding the contradiction. If everyone had been told the real reason they were going to Jupiter, Hal would have been fine because he wouldnt have to pretend. This is canon from the books.

True science fiction is about the discovery of the unknown, which this film epitomizes. Back in the old days, long epic films would have several minutes of music play to let the audience know the movie would be starting soon so they could take their seats and be ready. 10-15 minute intermissions were included in the middle to let people go to the bathroom and such before the second part started. The presence of the Monolith is what caused the apes to begin evolving. By touching it and seeing how smooth it was compared to the rough, rocky terrain around them, the realization came into their minds that it was something that was "made." So later one of the apes had an epiphany. Basically, it was "If someone made that giant rock become smooth, what could I make this large bone into?" and figured out that he could take the animal bone and wield it as a weapon. All the consequences that came with that new knowledge followed afterwards. You'll notice the ape throws the bone into the air and then it match cuts to the future with an orbiting nuclear bomb in space in the fictional year 2001 as seen from the 1960s. It's a weapon to weapon cut. The film came out in 1968 but was so accurate in its depiction of outer space and the moon that astronauts afterwards said being on the moon made them feel like they were in the movie. As far as the ending is concerned, Kubrick stated that Dave is transported by the Monolith through a star-gate to an alien world inhabited by a god-like, higher alien intelligence. To them, Dave and the rest of Humanity at that point, are still just a more evolved version of apes (you'll notice Dr. Floyd touched the Monolith on the moon the same way the apes did millions of years prior). So, the aliens basically put Dave in a cage in a zoo to study him. You might notice in our zoos that we tend to dress the animal's cages to try and match the environments that they are used to being in to make them feel more comfortable. Kubrick said that the aliens gave it their best shot and essentially dressed Dave's cage with decor that they figured a human would find aesthetically pleasing and comfortable to live in. The off-screen noises you hear while Dave is in his cage are like the equivalent of what animals might hear when people are watching and talking about them from the opposite end of the glass. So, Dave basically lives out the rest of his life in his cage with a disjointed sense of time and then at the end he is transformed by the Monolith into a super being (officially referred to as the "Star Child") and sent back to Earth for reasons unknown.

Fun Trivia: the little girl Floyd talks to on the video phone was Stanley Kubrick's daughter, Vivian, who would later go on to direct and edit the behind the scenes documentaries for her father's films , The Shining and Full Metal Jacket.

The relationship to the book is complicated - it was inspired by a short story Arthur C. Clarke wrote called "The Sentinel", but then Kubrick hired him for the movie as well, and he wrote a novelisation of the movie (which sold really well because it tells people what the Hell they just saw). It really does help a lot. The guys in the monkey suits studied chimps at the zoo. I think the stewardess on the moon flight is wearing that thing on her head to stop her hair from flying out in all directions (you can see clips of exactly that happening for real with some of the female astronauts on the ISS)

A landmark of science fiction cinema, a quaint artifact of the 1960s and undeniably one of the most beautiful, majestic films of all time.

This is the deepest of movies, and it is amazing how it is more than a half century old and it still holds up visually artistically, like it was made yesterday

Mrs. Movies is definitely NOT an idiot. I had to watch the movie a few times before I understood what was happening with the apes, and I'm a retired engineer . . ..

This is not artsy-fartsy, ist a 1960s sci-fi movie. We even didnt land on the moon yet, how do you make a hard science movie in a era where my wristwatch has more processing power then the 3 PCs used for the Moon landing. Yes its a very slow movie, but that is part of the experience, and no you cant shave anything off, the silence and dread of being in space is a character on it sown. Once upon a time in the west has a 7 minute "silent" intro where wind and screeches is all you get, along with some iconic stares. Its CINEMA not everything needs to be like fast food, somethings need you to invest the time to appreciate.

"I swear I'm not an idiot. It was just not very clear," is a line I'm going to start using at work... a lot.

Well, this should be interesting. The dark opening was also a) to let people get to their seats, and b) is emblematic of the black monolith - and the experience you are about to go on. The "lava lamp" effects were created by putting a thin sheen of oil on a plastic sheet, sprinkling different powders on the sheet and then lifting from underneath. He comes back to Earth as the star child, the next step forward for mankind.

This is the kind of movie that you have to watch more than once to get all of the nuance.

The desert shot during the beginning was actually filmed in England, it was entirely indoors using clever cinematography and paintings in the backgrounds

Absolutely watch 2010, it's a decent follow-up, feels much more like a straight forward, "modern" movie, and as for why HAL did what he did... spoilers...! Should also watch Contact if you haven't

You kids! Watching films on your phones, TVs and computers. As has been pointed out, important films shown in the theater (since there was nowhere else!) had a 5 minute overture to allow people to get seated before the film begins. The lights would dim and the overture play. When the overture ends the lights go completely down, the curtain opens and the film begins. Haven't you seen films like "Gone With the Wind" and "Lawrence of Arabia"? Movies were a full presentation in those days. I worked in a classic film theater, and when we ran these films they came with strict instructions from the studio as to how they were to be shown. The ending also often came with walkout music. The film ends, the lights come up, and music continues for 5 minutes while the audience left. Oh, and the movie came first, Clarke's book was a novelization of the film.

In 1964, Kubrick wrote Clarke a letter asking if he could help him create the proverbial good science fiction movie. Clarke gave him a short story to read that he had written for a contest in 1948 called The Sentinel. It became the foundation for what was to come.

Note: the novel was written in parallel with Kubrick's film being made, meaning that the film should not be considered a de facto adaptation of Clarke's novel; they are individual and separate works with different meanings and commentary. The novel is imbued with Clarke's vision and the film is imbued with Kubricks vision of the same narrative.

The books, by Arthur C. Clarke, are award winners in their own right

Lots of people call this a slow movie, which is true, but they don’t really understand how hypnotic and ultimately terrifying it actually is. It’s a masterpiece in my opinion but that’s just me

"I know that this is like a masterpiece....right?...or some shit like that" The quote of the year. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I was once lucky enough to have the opportunity to ask Kubrick what the ending actually means and I will always remember his response. "Use whatever stimulation you choose to partake in, watch the movie on the biggest and loudest screen you can and at the end, whatever the story means to you - that's what I wanted." Kubrick loved keeping things ambiguous in his films which is why he'd have hated the sequel 2010: The Year we make Contact since that's far more explanatory in it's story. It's still worth a watch though so I'd encourage you to seek it out.

HAL knowing the secret message, causing him to freak out: a common theory, for sure.

You're right, Mrs. Movies. This film is very deep. It's a hallmark of Stanley Kubrick films. I liked the sequel, '2010'. It's a fair bit easier to follow, plus I really like Roy Scheider.

You have to remember the first man into space was 7 years before this film came out and they hadnt landed on the moon yet, the story was even earlier, before man had got into space. so it was proper dreaming about what could happen

BEST SCI-FI MOVIE EVER MADE! Special effects still hold up 50+ years later! I loved the movie and then read the book while in the final years of elementary school .. .. The ending of the movie is quite different than the book .. .. Let me know if you want to know the book ending .. ..

Mrs. Movies" First 5 minutes just a black screen." People who've already seen it: "Oh, just you wait"

Was not expecting this reaction, 2001 is a movie that isn't for every and yeah very confusing, but so amazing.

a legendary film by a legendary director on of the best science fiction films of all timez with a music score second to none!!! think how this would have looked back in 1968 on a huge movie screen to people that had never seen anything like it before.. remember this was a year before the moon landing .

The quip about the Monolith looking like a Book of Mormon sticking up out of the ground tickled my inner and outer apostate... 🤣

The first time I saw this movie was in high school Physics. The teacher had us do math problems based on things like gravity, orbits, and object rotations in the movie. Our final test was over 2010. I also think it was an excuse for Mr. C to introduce us to a movie he really loved. And 24 years later, I still remember how much we all enjoyed those assignments.

Musical overtures in movies (with nothing onscreen) used to be very common.

HAL was troubled because he was keeping a secret about the mission and when the humans were talking about aborting the mission, it decided that the mission was more important than the humans. The monoliths were about an ancient alien species trying to cause the human race to evolve. The final scenes were about the next version of Humanity. BTW - people have pointed out that HAL was just one letter in each case from IBM. Kubrick insists this wasn't the case.

2001 is more than a movie. It's an attempt to try to get at that feeling of introspection you get when you contemplate the meaning of existence in your shower. The film is purposefully designed to allow you to interpret it. It hints at feelings we all have but can't quite explain in words. And while the film doesn't change, you do, so each time you revisit it, it can have a different meaning for you. The key thing is you're meant to let it wash over you, in deep focus and introspection, so try watching it again wihtout asking "what does it mean", just let the emotions guide you. It's not about a monolith or a rogue computer. It's about mankind and our relationship to the universe and endless quest to seek out answers. To quote Kubrick: "“The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent, but if we can come to terms with this indifference, then our existence as a species can have genuine meaning. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.”

I love your guys reactions and have for years. But it's a shame that Ms. Movies has absolutely no concept or ability to extend her perception to a time like the 60s and how this film affected people. Moreover, if you're not completely enthralled and captivated by the monolith scene with the colors expanding... to the point where you feel something unexplainably nostalgic about reality coming into being... then you're probably not on the level to really judge this film yet. It's raw art. She's so used to seeing movies as well-packaged, consumerist products that she's likely unable to subtract that from an art-piece of actual integrity. She's trying to fit this movie into the same dimensions as the modern culture's plate of soulless, vapid, overly expository, thoughtless and untalented soda can films. This film is not from a time like that. This film doesn't hold your hand. It's not there to entertain your ADHD. It's there for itself and if she cannot see what it's accomplishing artistically, that's not her fault or the film's fault. It's simply that she is too shaped by modern media culture to even bear witness to something that's an achievement. If I were her, I would be upset by this and try to extend myself until I see what others see... because in doing so, she'll become much more intelligent and her concepts of art, entertainment, and perception will all deepen significantly.

This lady's expression through the entire movie screams "This is trying to make me think and I refuse."

the long music at the beginning was to let the theater audience know that the movie was about to start and to take their seats. Most folks would be in the lobby getting snacks or smoking before the movie. The same is done at the intermission.

Right away, let me recommend the sequel, "2010: The Year We Make Contact. An excellent follow-up. A much more straight-forward space adventure, cold-war thriller.

My two penn'orth: It's a film you can't talk through..... It's a film that needs to be seen in the dark (especially the 'worm hole' bit)...... but I understand that doesn't work for a RU-vid reaction channel. It's a small detail but I just love the hand cell animated computer screens.

9:34 "This is a deep movie, huh? 'S a real deep fuckin' movie. ... I was not mentally prepared for that." Okay, now what you need to do is take that quote and put it on a T-shirt in your merch store. And make sure it's clear that she's referring to 2001.

When it came to the attention of the studio that some people were watching the movie while high on drugs so they could REALLY enjoy all the lights and colors in the Jupiter sequence, they put out a new ad with a tagline promoting the movie as "The Ultimate Trip!"

Mrs is in rare form in this reaction. She was definitely grumpy and didn’t seem interested in touching the monolith.

This movie became very popular with the stoner crowd when it came out. Especially for the beyond the infinite scene. Some theaters would play this as their midnight movie for years back when midnight movies were a thing.

I love Stanley Clarkes Bass playing in this movie.....

Nobody except a still photography unit went to Africa, the ape scenes were done in London. The actors studied apes in London zoo to get it right. Kubrick got a still photography unit to shoot the backgrounds in Africa which were projected onto a screen under very bright lights to get rid of actors shadows. The ape set rotated so that the cameras could show different views. Looks like its all shot outdoors, but done in the studio. The classic 'stewardess walks upside down' scene was a simple trick pre-CGI, just fix the camera and rotate the whole set apart from the bit with her on it - she was essentially 'walking on the spot'. Same trick used in the Discovery ship, it was a giant rotating 'hamster wheel'. Oh, and did you recognise some shots of the Pan Am clipper approaching the station?...George Lucas 'borrowed' some for the Death Star. And that floating pen?... stuck to a sheet of glass.

When the mission commander leaves his ship and finds himself launched into a high speed hurtle through the galaxy, you get the distinct feeling he's not going home again. This is a strictly one-way trip.

Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C Clarke wrote the screenplay together. It was inspired by a short story, The Sentinel, by Clarke, as well as other short stories of his. After the film was released, Clarke published the novel 2001: A Space Odyssey, which he worked on during the screenplay process.

The end sequence when he's in that strange room. It's he's basically in an observation room and analysed to see how their experiment in giving man knowledge and seeing if he's a force for good or bad. With the star child, they're saying we are.

Check out 2010: The Year We Make Contact. That film is A LOT more streamlined and, though not as great as 2001, still very entertaining. Solid 1980's era cold war film.

The book was being written as the film was being made. If you ever get the chance watch this movie in a cinema. I wasn't too keen on it when i first watched it on dvd on a small box TV. Then saw it in a cinema years later and it blew me away. It was definitely made to be a cinematic experience. Never seen or heard anything like it. I think my favourite effect was the pen floating, without cgi, that was really impressive. I like how many monolith shapes there are hidden all over the film. The song Hal sings was the first thing a computer was programed to do, I think, that was a fun Easter egg. Watching it again with you guys maybe Hal realised it wasn't going to be good for mankind as a whole so was going to abort the mission. Don't know why he'd say it was so important though. Either that or he was jealous and thought he'd be better suited to do the mission alone. I'd have to watch it again and think about it.

Did you notice how extremely realistic the visuals were? To impart a sense of realism to the Discovery, they built a 54-foot-long model. Imagine the studio setup required.

A great film that doesn't hold your hand and forces you to pay attention. I love it and it's underrated sequel 2010. I think you two should watch the sequel if you get a chance, either on the channel or in your personal life.

2010: The Year We Make Contact is real fun and has a much more modern pace. There were rumors that Tom Hanks was going to make part 3, but it never happened. 2010 explains why HAL went bad. I don't know if it's fair to call this the dawn of Sci-Fi. 1930's Metropolis heavily influenced Star Wars; namely C3PO.

"Jupiter and beyond the infinite." "To infinity and beyond."

I saw this when I was about 10 years old, and did not get lost once. Oh, and I never thought HAL was evil, only confused and fighting for his survival. I felt the same way about the replicants in Blade Runner, which my mom took me when I was 12. I guess it helped that I began reading science fiction and horror books at a very young age. My mother gave me Stephen King's first novel, Carrie, when I was 8. I always feel sorry for HAL and the replicants. In these films, man is a screwed up species, in need of more enlightenment.

Kubrick was one of the greatest directors ever. Yes the last part is trippy and artsy, but that's why many love it. I think the monolith repesents how our knowledge is always limited and it only expands when we reach out to the mystery and have the courage to embrace it.

The point of the overture is to let you know the movie is starting, so hurry up and finish your popcorn purchase. I prefer it to ads.

This is the first movie I ever saw in a theater. it was shot entirely in 70mm, and is really beautiful. It totally blew my mind.

I absolutely love this movie, but fully understand it’s not for everyone. Not for any sort of “they aren’t smart enough to get it” kind of way, but rather it just doesn’t appeal to everyone’s tastes. Nothing wrong with that. Film is subjective. Look at all the “best movies of all time” lists. No one agrees on what the best movies are, or what order movies should be ranked. We all have different tastes. That being said, I believe 2010 might be a little more up your alley. It is far more traditional storytelling. A plot that is fairly easy to follow and laid out more simplistically (not suggesting you need it, but it’s just a lot easier to get into).

The room in the end is like a zoo he is kept in, while the alien intelligence views him, supposedly after dying he is made into som super intelligent baby and sent back to Earth...

Saw this in the theater when it was first released, along with fellow graduate students in various fields of science (archaeology, paleontology, biology, and geology). We had some fun discussions about it afterward.

Mrs. Movies 21:43: "That's trippy...." Me: "You ain't seen NUTHIN' yet, sweetie..."

I agree with Mrs. Movies. This movie thought too highly of itself.

The computer was called HAL because if you go one letter forward for each you get IBM

A little interesting backstory about the song that HAL sings as he is dying. In 1961 Arthur C. Clark was visiting Bell Labs. He came across two researchers who were doing the first research into speech synthesis. They showed him their results. A computer singing a particular song. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-41U78QP8nBk.html

i will argue that 1958's forbidden planet was the start of more serious sci-fi

Highly recommend the underrated sequel, 2010, different style of film but still very good and answers a lot of the questions from 2001.

This entire film is an essay on evolution, intelligence and the concept of time. Since it is exposed in a cinematographic work it is open to interpretations but if I remember correctly there is here on RU-vid a video of an interview with Kubrik himself where he explains its meaning

You have got to watch one of his best, A Clockwork Orange . I think you both will love it .

I appreciate the honesty. Nothing is worse than fake enthusiasm. Though genuine enthusiasm is always what i hope for. Can't expect everyone to love what you love, though.

The 1984 sequel, 2010, is a much more conventionally paced movie. It's more modern and opts for explaining rather than showing. It doesn't leave it up to the viewer to put his or her own interpretation on the film the way that 2001 does. The cast is also tremendous. Roy Scheider takes on the role of Heywood Floyd. It's underrated, I think. It may not be as much of a masterpiece in terms of scope and meaning, but it might be more enjoyable than 2001 - which was very much a movie of its time. Its impact was as a pioneer in so many innovative film making techniques.

gotta love the bone weapon flying in the air... and in a single cut, time jumps 4 million years in the future, to show... ANOTHER WEAPON... that's not a satellite, it's an orbital nuclear weapons platform.

Nice reaction, guys! A strange memory I have about this film is the time I was in college, (ca. 1988) on my way to my Music Appreciation class (I was a Computer Science major, but we were required to take one Fine Arts class.) I arrived to class early, and my professor asked for my assistance. He was dubbing a new soundtrack over the opening of this movie, playing a keyboard. He had me hold down one note while he played his new score. And he made sure to tell everyone else in the class how well I played.☺

Some of these comments would have you believe that this film was universally loved at the time and it's only modern audiences with their "intellectual vacuity" and "short attention spans" who struggle with it. This is nonsense. It's always divided opinion, and it's not going to help watching it on the small screen without any idea of what you're letting yourself in for. Also, it's possible for something to be both brilliant AND frustratingly self-indulgent, depending on your perspective. Personally I love this film, but only since I was lucky enough to see it a cinema a few years ago. Even then though it was still opaque, and the psychedelic sequence felt too lengthy and quaintly anachronistic. Perfectly valid reactions from both, although I may tentatively suggest a rewatch when you're more in the mood for this sort of thing now you know what to expect.

It's most definitely self-indulgent, and while I like the movie as a whole, and I can respect the vision, I totally get why someone would dislike it or wouldn't care for it. I think the worst part of this is the "movie critics" (random fans from Twitter and Reddit) coming into your comment section and telling you you're wrong for having an opinion that is different from their opinion. Classic childish behavior displayed by self-proclaimed "true film aficionados". I do hope everyone understands that calling Mrs. Movies dumb, unintelligent or stupid is not going to heighten her appreciation of the movie, it's just going to make the fans look like total assholes.

The earliest humans or pre humans in the beginning couldn't have understood the middle part of the film which was inhabited by us, the more evolved humans, so the third segment has to imagine a post human future that we ourselves aren't evolved sufficiently to understand. That's why the third segment turns into an impressionist art piece which is meant to be as mystifying and incomprehensible to us as our world would be to the earliest humans in the beginning of the film. Kubrick is trying to imagine and visually depict what is literally unimaginable to us. So there is a reason for the ending to be that way. It wasn't just Kubrick wanking off. It's also the significance of the floating space baby at the end. It references our rebirth as a species into some other evolutionary form. It's not for everybody, but I will say that a lot of people don't click with this movie the first time they see it (this was also true for The Shining), including countless well known critics and even Woody Allen. He explained that the first time he saw the movie, he was really indifferent to it. It was only on subsequent viewings of it that he started to recognize that Kubrick was way further along on a curve. Allen said it took some time for him and many others to catch up to Kubrick. I felt that way the first time I saw it as a teenager. I liked it, but felt kind of unsure about it. I didn't understand the point of it. It's probably in my top 3 films of all time now. I've seen it countless times. If you take your time with it, like so many other Kubrick films, it will reward you when you try to interpret it and the film will grow on you. I also remember taking an ex to see it and she was bored out of her mind. lol. It's also hard to fully appreciate this movie if you've never seen it in a theater the way it was intended to be seen.

The book and screenplay evolved together, during filming. It is a very cool, but confusing story😊

The music at the beginning over the dark screen is essentially "walk-in" music to allow patrons to find their seats before the movie actually began.

As mnetioned in another comment, the sequel film "2010" is a more traditional story narrative featuring Roy Scheider as the character Dr Floyd from 2001. And the actions of the HAL-9000 are more deeply explained. I remember the weekend that "2010" & David Lynch's version of "Dune" both hit theaters at the same time, i saw them both of that first Friday. "Dune" played at the Chinese Theater while "2010" screened at the Cinerama Dome, both in Hollywood. I enjoyed 2010 way way more than Dune. Still one of my favorite sequels.

HAL's self awareness was brought about by his proximity to the Monolith, which evolved him to sentience. I feel like HAL was genuinely afraid and pleading with Dave while being destroyed. Like he said, his mind was going. BTW, the first song ever sang by a computer was a MIDI version of Daisy Bell, which HAL sings as he is fading.

Another vote to DEFINITELY watch 2010. Mrs. Movies will like it... it is a 'normal' movie. It's 1980's, cold war era (good to keep in mind). But much more modern pacing and storytelling. Also, it does a great job (if you are paying attention) to explaining much of what was going on in 2001. I suspect you will like 2001 a lot more after seeing 2010. Although, you still may not want to sit through all of 2001 again! 😂

My introduction to this film was Mad magazine's satire cartoon: "2001 Minutes of Space Idiocy"

im old enough to have seen this film first run in true Cinerama. the overture at the very beginning was played with the lights on to cue the audience to be seated, lights dimmed and the actual film began

In my opinion, the most amazing and fascinating thing about this movie is the concept idea. The idea that there's a civilization out there that is capable of guiding a species into their evolution. In this case, our ancestors were given a little touch in their minds so they started using tools and that freed them from starvation and gave them the advantage over others . But this civilization seems to be like gods in a way. We never see them, we don't know anything about them. We only see this monoliths, just this pitch black monoliths waiting for humanity to find them as they evolved into a civilization capable of travelling through space. The movie is incredible. If you think, this was 1968... think about it, and think what you saw and how it looked. It's not important the fact that they thought that PAN AM was going to last until that year, the important thing is the rest of the ideas. A.I. for example, and now we are discussing about AI in our present. You should try 2010 THE YEAR WE MADE CONTACT, which is very good sequel for this masterpiece.

You'd enjoy the sequel more. It's more of a traditional film and answers some of your questions. I love this film, but I also loved 2010. I believe you'll appreciate this more after seeing the sequel. Also, the sequel has Roy Schieder, Helen Miran and John Lithgow.

"Daisy Bell" was composed by Harry Dacre in 1892. In 1961, the IBM 7094 became the first computer to sing, singing the song Daisy Bell. First computer to sing - Daisy Bell youtube.

You guys need to watch the sequel 2010. Answers a few questions about the first movie. Got Roy scheider and Hellen Mirren. It's a lot more straight forward than the first and a lot more happens. Even has Bowman in it. 😉🥰

The opening scene with the bone a.k.a. the first tool ,being wheeled into the air and turning into a spacecraft is still, and will always be the most powerful moment in cinema

Titan is a moon of Saturn. It is unique in that it is larger than some dwarf planets such as Pluto, and is the only satellite world in our solar system that has a significant atmosphere.

2010 is Just A Movie. 2001 was created to transcend the dominant paradigm. The sounds of the "Overture" were to herald the Alien presence.

As recommended below "2010: The Year We Make Contact". The must see sequel. ❤

David Bowie saw this while on acid and it was the inspiration for "Space Oddity". "Ground control to Major Tom..."