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.
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.
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"
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 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.
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.
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)!
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.
"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
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! 🤓
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.
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?.
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.
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. 🖖👽
"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
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.
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!
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_
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.
Oh heck yeah! I've actually seen Barry Lyndon and I swear, every shot is a masterpiece. It's like browsing an art gallery of paintings! Thank you for the suggestion David, it's a gorgeous film. If you have any other film suggestions, please let me know! Thank you for watching
Watching and reacting to this film, and skipping watching 2010 the sequel next or soon after this is absolutely not OK. Yes, this is the original, and started it all...but 2010 made it whole, and complete. You simply must see and react to on the channel to 2010....
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
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.
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.
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
A great film to showcase pre CGI FX was brainstorm, directected by 2001 fx genious douglass trumbull. really shows off his mastery only improving. its a good film, not a great film. a great film dealing with similar cosmic themes of human evolution is " Altered States" by weirdo director ken russell.
Best reaction to this film I've seen on RU-vid. 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!
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.
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
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
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.
Beautiful reaction to my favorite film of all time. Please keep in mind 2010 is in no way similar in style as 2001. You could compare it more to Alien and the sequel Aliens, not that 2010 is an action movie but it is very much not a Kubrick film and abides by more traditional cinematic pacing and progression. 2010 also has not aged nearly as well as 2001, but it's a solid cast with some of my favorite actors like John Lithgow and Helen Mirren; Roy Scheider did a pretty good job too. Thanks again for a wonderful reaction!
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...
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)
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.
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 !
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.
@@MoviesWithMartyeverybody in the sixties thought the future of space exploration was nuclear, even more than using nuclear energy on Earth, we experimented nuclear rockets on ground successfully until Nixon closed the project in the early 70s. That decision changed the history of space exploration and its consequences on Earth. Search the documentary Project NERVA.
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.
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!
Woah, that sounds like it would have been one heck of a trip! But I can bet it was something else, especially that colourful sequence nearer the end! Thank you for letting me know and for watching!
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.
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.)”
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.
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)
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
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?
🤯 Oh my god, WAIT it was DENIED?! I had heard it was that too... thanks for letting me know Grim! I hope you're well and thank you for watching! P.S. I just saw the interview where the woman mentions it. I still want to believe it though haha
Thank you Douglas!! Haha, I REALLY loved the film, as you can see by me constantly gushing over every aspect of the film. I'm glad you're enjoying it! I am so happy I was able to do this one. I've been meaning to watch it for a long time. Thank you for watching and commenting!
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)
I've checked the original copy and other copies and the effect is there still. It's not a brick pattern per say, but is something similar. It's not my display either, as I've checked it on other sources since. I think it could be to do with the screens they used to project though. There's something there that I can see, whatever it may be. Thanks
I do love this! I've heard it a few times now and despite it being said that this is probably not the case during the interview, I still believe it! Thanks for watching Ross
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.
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!
Search for rob ager's (collative learning) analysis on this and all Kubrick films. That guy is phenomenal. Favorite video essays/film critique on RU-vid
This movie! It is something else. Every reaction is different which is why I keep watching them, One day I might be able to piece this movie together in the way it was intended. Thx for the upload. EDIT> you need to make the HAL 900 voices, I think you and he are one.
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.
12:08 Kubrick cut away from showing the coffee pour because it would have to have poured like molasses under the moon's low gravity. Better to not try and mimic that.
The captain of the lunar shuttle in white suit is Ed Bishop , future commander Straker in British U.F.O. series. Brian Johnson designed all spaceship and moonbase models and later he designed the Space: 1999 series base and starships, in 1974, as well as many sci fi movies models.
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.
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.
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!
You want to know why HAL makes you nervous? This movie is why HAL makes you nervous. This is the movie that popularized the fear of artificial intelligence.
YES! Haha, he is just SO creepy! I wish they would re-show this publicly in cinemas for more people to see. It'd be interesting to see people's reactions to the AI taking over and what effect that would have on people with smart speakers haha
Trivia. Hoe HAL was named. IBM was THE computer company at the time, so they made HAL superior to IBM by naming it one letter before each letter in I B M [H before I, A before B, L before M].
The book "2001: A Space Odyssey". is not canon for Kubrick's movie. In collaboration Clarke, and Kubrick agree the book is common expository science fiction. This movie is the most complex layered, and puzzling of Kubrick movies. Kubrick movies always have a puzzle layer to them. Figuring out the puzzle is part of the fun of Kubrick movies. Beware, spoilers ahead. The movie is illustrative of Friedrich Nietzsche's 1883 book, "Also sprach Zarathustra". Zoroaster has nothing to do with Nietzsche's character Zarathustra. Nietzsche just thought it was cool to name his character after a founder at the root of religion, particularly Christian religion, to give him authority while the character Zarathustra decries religion, particularly Christian religion. "Also sprach Zarathustra" is the name of that grand title music, the music during the scene where the monolith teaches the ape to use a tool, and the end where it turns the man into a super being. Nietzsche's character Zarathustra posits the Übermensch (superior man) as a goal for humanity to set for itself. The Übermensch represents a shift from otherworldly death oriented religious, particularly Christian, values and manifests the grounded life affirming human ideal. The Übermensch is someone who has "crossed over" the bridge, from the comfortable, easy, mindless acceptance of what a person has been taught, and what everyone else believes to the mountains of unrest and solitude. Zarathustra is the narrator of a series of short stories to illustrate, and teach the points to support the position ending each story with "Also sprach Zarathustra", "Thus spoke Zarathustra". In this movie the monolith has the role of Zarathustra, narrator, and teacher. Now you know the monolith character has a name. Zarathustra. Zarathustra tries to show that the comfortable easy, mindless acceptance of what a person has been taught, and what everyone else believes, is mediocre, and repulsive to the superior man. As inferior, and repulsive as the ape is to man, man is more so to the ubermench. The transition from ape to man takes place from one frame of the movie to another. That's how close man is to ape. The entire 4 million year history of the transition of ape to man is but a blink of the eye in comparison to the transition of mench to ubermench. Zarathustra is disappointed as man, instead of being repulsed by the mediocre, embraces the mediocre comfortable easy, mindless acceptance of what a person has been taught, and what everyone else believes. This is illustrated in the movie by all the food is repulsive, and has something wrong with it, grubs, raw meat, food sucked through a straw, sandwiches that should be chicken, and ham but are not. But "They're getting better at it" but the coffee's too hot. The paste food trays are also too hot. Despite how we see the effects as fantastic the people in the movie practically sleepwalk through that life, and their movements are clumsy. The people are so mediocre (practically dead) Frank, and Dave aren't tippy top fighter jock alphas with "The Right Stuff" of the 1960s space program. They are so alike when they do talk in the pod they agree about everything. So bland, and mediocre their breathing doesn't even quicken when they go EVA. They don't even talk to each other until they have to leave their comfort zone, and plot against HAL. Their first words to each other are a lie. They know they are killing a conscious entity. That's what they're discussing when the sound cuts out in the pod. "No 9000 computer has ever been shut down before.", "Well no 9000 has ever fouled up before.", "That's not what I mean", "?", "I'm not so sure when you think about it...". Out with Christian morality to affirm, and fight for life. In "Also sprach Zarathustra" a dwarf shoves a tightrope walker off into an infinite abyss. That's HAL killing Frank. The ship represents the tightrope. That's why it's long like that. "The Trip", as the psychedelic sequence is called, represents the "crossing over the bridge to the mountains of unrest and solitude". All the food is repulsive except the last meal, it's perfect, comfortable. Except for the broken glass. The most startling moment in movie history. Puzzling too. "What does it mean?" Our hero has reached comfortable middle age. But he's not yet perfect. He's on his death bed before he reaches for perfection. He reaches for the black monolith, the dark side. Then he becomes the superior being. Zarathustra says we must embrace what religious morality says is the dark side to be a superior man. Religious morality says the darkest side is to reject their other worldly god. Zarathustra says "God is dead". Face it, own it. Don't turn to the comfort of false belief in other worldly reward by throwing away the treasure of life banking your treasure in heaven. God is dead, and heaven is bankrupt. Everyone who says otherwise is a lying, thieving beast feasting on your death, and your fear of death. The fear of death is contradictorily a fear of life. A fear of wasted life. The fear of which becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. Sacrificing life for the comforting false promise of reward after life until it's too late to live a life. Zarathustra ends the narration saying his story is over, and it's the transformed mench to ubermench hero's story now, and it's just beginning. The movie ends with the image of the hero as a not yet born super being. His story has not yet begun. The monolith is the same shape as the movie screen. During the beginning, and intermission it's the only presence on screen for a long time. Black, and exactly the shape of the monolith. The monolith takes a horizontal orientation at Jupiter like the movie screen. The change in orientation is depicted again in the corridor of light. The movie screen has been the narrator of this movie. Its story is over, and we are the hero of our own story, and our story has not yet begun. That's how far mench is from ubermench.
17:17 I really enjoyed this video. I saw this movie in the theater when newly released, but your video, I first notice now the moment HAL decides to lie and not trust the other crew member, similar to Fantastic Voyage, another excellent video you did. The human, after HAL speaks to him like a mission crew member he trust, the human dismissal is a problematic behavior of how people would act then (not shown in your video) just the lie about the fault because he has already decided the mission is in jeopardy, as he was the only one who already knew the truth of the mission, which you dfind out in the last desperate attempt to be understood by playing the briefing film. Then, Mankind had only just reached space, for "real" and this "slow paced" movie was the public's very first vast expanse view of "real" outer space, as some humans had actually achieved. No internet, no cable TV, Movies were the primary visual media that could capture the whole diverse US public to focus upon the same basic understanding. Similar set design and special effects in Fantastic Voyage and the excellent Barbarella. Did you do 2010 yet? It features a younger Russian born musician named Natasha Shneider in the excellent scene of how people are just the same human, despite the country politics
This film was released before we actually were able to see the entire earth from space. Apollo 8 orbited the moon Christmas of the same year. Kubrick’s films had a ridiculously outsized influence on western culture that most people were never even aware of.
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).
You really must check out a channel called CinemaTyler, and watch his seven part playlist covering every aspect of how Space Odyssey was made. You'll be blown away at how Kubrick achieved what he did. It's the best, most thorough, 'making of' documentary there is about Odyssey.
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 RU-vid, to share their thoughts with me about this monumental film. Thank you, dude.
I was fortunate enough to watch this in 70 mm on the big screen recently. My mom and I actually watched this on its opening day back in 68. Watch the sequel 2010. It will explain a lot. I enjoy your channel and have subscribed.
