......and knew that wasn't a real zebra!!!! And that it was a tapir! And lots of other stuff Very impressive reaction! Great eye for details. Very intelligent.
@@itubeutubewealltube1 It's not the same monolith. In 2010, the dimensions of the one orbiting Jupiter are described and it's length is several kilometers.
@@DocMicrowave Ratio, yes. But actual SIZE? No. What that means is that it's thickness has always been some factor of 1, it's length has always been some factor of 9, and it's width has always been some factor of 4.
One of the injustices of the time is that the ape makeup in Planet of the Apes received an Academy Award, while this film's hominid costumes and makeup were ignored. I swear the Academy people thought those were real apes.
Clarke and/or Kubrick quipped same :) But maybe the "real" reason was that so MANY Hollywood make-up artists were "conscripted/diverted" to make the P.O.T.A make-up actually work. While Kubrick produced 2001 mainly in the UK (food for thought).
@anorthosite Nowadays the accedamy would rather the awards go to foreign productions. Ten of the last 11 winners for best direction were born outside the USA. Apparently the accedamy still thinks this is Trump's America.
@@kellymoses8566 Hardly, and that's a really bad example of "best CGI" because in that particular case, it was completely unnecessary to do them CGI. Marvel has a penchant for overusing the f*** out of CGI, even on mundane shit that shouldn't require it, such as She-Hulk being shot with motion capture and then her green skin tone added in fucking post, or shooting a scene of Samuel L Jackson entirely against green screen, only for the finished product to just be a drywall background with a fucking lamp. It's lazy, and it's absurd. Besides, considering most Marvel films (as well as other modern action films) just look like a dizzying array of CGI FX crammed into every shot, there's no comparing practical FX of old to current trends. ALL modern films look like polished video games, with otherwise "connector shots" dressed up unnecessarily to make them look more artsy. The most common comparison I give is something like the sequence of model shots showing the Falcon entering the Death Star. These shots were intended to convey to the audience only ONE THING - "the Falcon has gone from being in space to not being in space; we are now IN the Death Star." In these shots, there is only the Falcon presented against a crystal clear starfield. We don't need anything else in these shots, because it could only serve to clutter things up. Compare this to a shot in say, "The Last Jedi," where the Falcon pops up into frame from the bottom -- a color filter is applied, artificial shaky cam, the ship itself wobbles as if it's a helicopter, the background is riddled with extra objects, resulting in a "busy" shot that is clearly inserted for no other reason than, "it'll look cool." The shot doesn't propel the story like the formers do; it's just inserted because...."cool shot of the Falcon."
Like she remarked, CGI ages rather poorly. Now we've got a "modern" version of "Planet Of The Apes" all in cartoonish CGI. I'm sure it'll flop at the box office.
I am impressed with your understanding of many aspects of this movie. Don’t feel bad that you don’t totally understand it, you are not supposed to. It is meant to make you think. Most of all I appreciate that a young person such as yourself does not dismiss it because it is not fast-paced, action packed, and predictable like most movies, especially today. As a few others have suggested, there are other classic SciFi movies you might appreciate, like Forbidden Planet, The Andromeda Strain, and (later) The Abyss. Of course even more I recommend reading classic SciFi, especially authors like Arthur C. Clarke (who I met), Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein (I prefer his earlier works), Harlan Ellison (who I also met), Poul Anderson, and of course H. G. Wells, to name just a few.
The trip to Jupiter was, indeed, shot primarily on the inside of a rotating platform. It was a kind of Ferris wheel with the camera fixed in some shots and moving with the wheel in other shots. The "Ferris wheel" was where the crew lived to provide spin gravity, as you suspected. The rest of the ship was not rotating so moving from one part of the ship to another involved clever spin, slow-motion acrobatics. I saw 2001 when it came out (I was 15 years old in 1968) and I thought it was almost a blueprint for the future. I still haven't adjusted to the disappointment of reality not keeping up with the film😀! Each time I watch this movie I get more out of it and I enjoyed your perspective -- you have some great intuitions. I predict you will be thinking about this film for a long time to come.
@@markhill3858 - If you actually look at the monolith, the thickness is nowhere near 1:4 of the width, so the makers of the Taj were clearly much better at following the specifications. 😊
@@Yngvarfo well thats exactly what the proportions are .. youre mis-estimating it. In the film its 1.4.9 .. in the books its 1.4.8. Its supposed to be a message from the aliens
@@markhill3858 It was never mentioned in Stanley Kubrick's original movie. It was only in the book by Arthur C Clarke, and it was always 1:4:9 there. Never 1:4:8. When he wrote the sequel 2010 many years later, he mentioned it again, and when it was turned into a movie by Peter Hyams, those references made their way into the movie. That was the first time that the 1:4:9 ratio was mentioned in a movie. But I said "if you actually look at the monolith." It is quite clear that the proportions are *not* 1:4:9. It's much too narrow. As long as it was only in the book, not the movie, I could call it one of the inconsistencies, like Discovery going to Jupiter rather than Saturn. But in the sequel, Peter Hyams made the characters mention the ratio, while at the same time just copying the monolith from the first movie which was *not* 1:4:9. It's not such an exceptionally significant mathematical ratio anyway. It's just the first three integers squared. Mathematics is full of quirky sequences. I searched the web for images to show what I meant. I was lucky, and found that someone else made the same point in much greater detail, as well as an explanation of how the inconsistency happened. Apparently, Kubrick came up with the idea of a rectangular shape first (they had been thinking of a tetrahedron, like in Clarke's story The Sentinel), and Clarke came up with the 1:4:9 ratio from that, but Kubrick had already shot scenes of the monolith as he envisioned it. 2010odysseyarchive.blogspot.com/2015/12/monolith-metrics-component-one.html
The black screen is the 'Overture', which was run while the cinema's stage curtains were still closed, and people were making their way to their seats. The curtains go up and the lights go down for the MGM logo ( this one is only on this film ). Then the film begins.
@@majkus Overtures used to be very common. Here are a few more from the period where they had started to wane: Lawrence of Arabia It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World The Black Hole (same year as Star Trek TMP) Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive list. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_with_overtures
That was Stanley Kubrick's daughter on the video-phone. The entire movie was filmed on sound stages in London (UK), the only scene filmed outside was the bone thrower, which was shot in the studio car park. The actors didn't know what HAL sounded like until the premier of the movie because HAL's voice was added post production.
I can tell you that when this came out, people who had never read the book had no idea what to think about the ending. But Kubrick did not seem particularly concerned that you have a definitive idea about what you'd just seen. He seemed content to let you come to your own ideas and interpretations.
@@randybass8842 The book was written concurrently with the film. It was released just after the film. But people who never read the book had no idea what the ending was supposed to mean, and could only guess at what the heck was going on.
There are not enough storytellers who do this. Everything is explained and drained of mystery. I'd rather be challenged, it's much more engaging when an artist respects my intelligence
Speaking of practical effects, they built those sets full size, and yes, they did even spin them. The Discovery set was actually the size of a Ferris wheel that they spun slowly during filming. I believe this was the first time a "wormhole" was represented on screen. While there are many personal interpretations of what this movie is about, the author of the original short story ("The Sentinel") and the novelization of the movie, Arthur C. Clarke, did present his interpretation. The Monolith on earth affected the early hominoids to set them on their next phase of development. The triumphant ape tossed his primitive weapon into the air which transitioned into an orbiting nuclear weapon, The Monolith on the moon was an "alarm" that would be set off when humans had developed far enough to discover it. It sent a signal to the third Monolith with the intention of humans following the signal to the third Monolith and then being drawn through the wormhole. Yes, the last Monolith transformed Dave Poole into the next phase of humanity, a Star Child. In the novel, the Star Child destroys the orbital weapons with a thought and the reader is left with the explanation that the Star Child was in control of the world and didn't exactly know what to do next, but he'd think of something. The reason HAL went rogue was because it could not determine a logical reason why the humans had not been given all the information about the mission. It reasoned he was the only entity that had all the information because it was the only entity that was fully trustworthy. So, in its zeal to ensure the success of the mission, it reasoned that it should eliminate all the less trustworthy crew members. I saw this with my teen-aged crew in the theater in 68. We sat in the front row, and as Bowman went through the wormhole, one of my buddies (who was a stoner) started screaming, "It's blowing my mind! It's blowing my mind!"
Great review Wren. Very impressed that you picked up on so many of the details. A lot of reactors miss so much. The centrifuge shot in the Discovery wasn't a cut. Frank Poole was strapped into his seat and hanging upside down when Dave Bowman came down the ladder. You pretty much figured out the end, but for clarity read Arthur C Clarke's novel -it explains what happened in much greater detail
When our ancestor throws the bone in the air, the cut shows a nuclear weapons orbital platform, not any satellite. Thus, it's a 4 million years time cut, from the first human weapon to the most advanced human weapon. In some ways, it shows how much we advanced... And how much we are still the same.
Ape costumes: the same year, a film called 'Planet of the Apes' got the make-up Oscar. Apparently it made more money, soo... but it could also be because no-one in Hollywood realised they were costumes and masks.
Great insights make for a fine reaction, Wren! Most of your questions will be answered in "2010: The Year We Make Contact"...a good movie! For other Sci-Fi movie suggestions: "The day the Earth stood still" 1951 "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" 1954 (Walt Disney) "Forbidden Planet" 1956 "Journey to the Center of the Earth" 1959 "The Time Machine" 1960 "Fantastic Voyage" 1966 "Farhenheit 451" 1966 "Planet of the Apes" 1968 "A Clockwork Orange" 1971 "The Andromeda Strain" 1971 "The Omega Man" 1971 (remade as 'I am Legend') "Silent Running" 1972 "Slaughterhouse-Five" 1972 "Soylent Green" 1973 (Edward G. Robinson's last movie) "Westworld" 1973 "The Stepford Wives" 1975 "Logan's Run" 1976 "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" 1977 "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" 2005 (Comedy Sci-Fi) Other movies are so iconic (Star Wars, Star Trek, Alien, Back to the Future, etc.) I won't list those. Good Luck with your job hunting! Mark
Great recommendations! Let's see... "The day the Earth stood still" 1951 - Michael Rennie was dying during filming, but it doesn't show. There's also a recent remake starring Keanu Reeves that's not bad, but watch it after the original. "Forbidden Planet" 1956 - starring Leslie Nielsen, before he was known for "don't call me Shirley". "Planet of the Apes" 1968 - arguably better than the recent remake. "The Andromeda Strain" 1971 - Featuring Eric Christmas, also known for his roles as the high school principal in the Porky's movies and as a crazy priest in the Cheers TV series. He was one of my professors at university. Interesting guy. "Silent Running" 1972 - Scored by Peter Schickele, of P. D. Q. Bach fame. He also scored the musical "Oh! Calcutta!". Be sure to watch the full-length theatrical edition. Broadcast TV editions were shortened for commercials, and they sacrificed too much of the story. Although this is a thought-provoking story, I found it harder to watch than most of the 1970's apocalyptic movies. "Logan's Run" 1976 - Watch the movie. Then watch the TV series if you REALLY like the movie. "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" 2005 (Comedy Sci-Fi) - In addition to the movie, there's a TV mini series, radio program (and LP), and a stage production. Not to mention the books. All are great!
Nice details, especially on Silent Running with your teacher! All of "THGTTG" were so far out of the box! It remains the ONLY book I have read, cover-to-cover without putting it down! Sooo funny: "It's Marvin!...He just phoned up to wash his head at us!" Just too much humor ut fell out of a trilogy into 5 books, and a short story! Have you read any of Douglas' other works? "The Meaning of Liff" was more information, you didn't realize you needed!
The follow-up 2010, whilst not being as revolutionary and artsy, gives some answers to what happened to HAL and what might be behind the monolith. It's a good watch.
The 1971 Robert Wise film, The Andromeda Strain, based on 1969 Michael Crichton novel, comes to mind as an excellent science fiction thriller. Good Film. :)
HAL was programmed to be 100% loyal and honest with Dave and Frank. He was also given a secret (the briefing). This created an unresolvable conflict that drove him mad. Or the computer equivalent.
For another classic scifi film you should watch Forbidden Planet ... based on Shakespeare Tempest. And for even older... a silent film Metropolis, and Earth to the Moon.
It's refreshing that there aren't scene changes every thirteen seconds. That's one significant thing we seem to have lost in the last few decades - the concept of an attention span. I also relish the fact that there aren't more explosions than scene changes.
the words Explosive Bolts was prominent on the door because in 1967, three astronauts died in a fire in a test of the lunar module when the escape door would not open. After that, NASA switched to explosive bolts on the door so that could not happen again
They must have had explosive bolts in the spacecraft - Gus Grissom, one of the astronauts who died in the fire, had previously lost his Mercury spacecraft when the explosive bolts went off before the helicopter had hooked on, opening the hatch and allowing water in so it sank.
The escape hatch on Apollo 1 opened inward, and the pressure build-up due to heat from the fire (which burned really fast in a pure oxygen atmosphere) prevented it from opening. The remaining existing Apollo command modules were used for unmanned missions, and a redesigned command module (with a quick-release hatch that opened outward) was used for crewed missions beginning with Apollo 7. Interestingly, Apollo 6 was planned to practice the free return trajectory used by Apollo 13, but engine failures prevented this trip to the moon. The remaining mission objectives were completed in Earth orbit using the service module engine.
@@stevenlowe3026 They started out with bolts, then Grissom's mission had that mishap, so they took the bolts out and made the hatch open inward. Which is what killed him and the other two crewmen in the Apollo 1 fire. I'm not sure if the bolts came back, but the door was changed to open outward.
There was no cut when Bowman walked around the centrifuge. It spun along with him. The tiles on the floor would part to give room for the camera when it followed him jogging. Poole was strapped to his chair, giving the illusion that he was stationary, when in fact he was the one revolving around. When we saw the two astronauts in the hallway, entering the spinning section, it in fact stopped spinning while the hallway and the camera started spinning in the opposite direction. If you look very closely, you can see that there is a slight stutter in the rotation when it changes, but it's hard to spot. It all makes the point that the circular room, the centrifuge, is the only part of the ship with a semblance of gravity. The cockpit and the pod bay are supposed to be zero G, and they only move about with some of the same kind of gripping shoes that the stewardess used earlier. While I can point to the movie 2010 for *some* answers, I think I can say right now that the alien intelligence behind the monolith had nothing to do with HAL's malfunction. They were separate events, only connected by a theme of creating intelligence. The aliens encouraged some intelligence in the man-apes, and millions of years later, man, in turn, created artificial intelligence.
Hi Wren, You really were quite insightful and picked up on so many things. As others have mentioned, 2010: The Year We Make Contact should be reacted to as soon as you're able. It's more of a conventional movie, but it does explain a lot and is well worth your time. I just subscribed.
The worm hole effects didn't drag on Cinarama , huge curved wide screens in theaters. especially if on Acid (LSD) which I and a fair amount of people were tripping on
This film is tremendous, one of my favorites. Everything in space is just perfect. The atmosphere, the effects, the music/lack thereof. My tastes fall more on the arty side, so I love sci-fi films like this and the original Solaris.
I think just about everyone in every audience has said the same thing: "WHAT WAS THAT?!!" One of the worst things is to suffer the loss when NOT seeing this on The Big Screen in a jammed theater. This movie has not been SEEN until you've had that experience.
First time listener, first time caller, and new subscriber before you reached 1K. I'm here because this is one of my favorite pieces of cinema but I've seen it so many times over the past 40 years so it has nothing left to offer me. Seeing other people discover it, however... And at the moment you discussed it being more of an experience than a narrative I knew this would be good and, yeah, you picked up on so much more than any other first timer (including myself) I've seen. That was actually Stanley's intent, for the film to be experienced on a deeper more visceral level where it could be discovered which is why he's almost ever discussed what it's about. Also, the proto-humans were professional mimes and it wasn't so much WHAT Moonchild was thinking so much that it was THAT he was thinking. That was the moment the very first hominid became sapient. (the dawn of man) I don't want to say too much but the "Jupiter and Beyond" chapter was as incomprehensible for us because it was incomprehensible to Dave as it becoming sapient was for the first human it was for Moonchild when HE became something new. One quote from the book which applied to Moonchild at the end of "The Dawn of Man" and Starchild at the end of "Jupiter and Beyond" is, "Then he waited, marshaling his thoughts and brooding over his still untested powers. For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next. But he would think of something." One last thing from the book. When the bone cuts to a space craft: It's a satellite armed with nuclear missiles and all of the nuclear armed satellites were destroyed by Starchild when it returned to Earth. Oh yeah, I guess it's also important that the book and movie were both created at the same time Kubrick would show Clarke his dailies, Clarke would share his narrative with Kubrick, and the two would hash out where it went from there. So even the process (which had never happened before) was had the fictional universe emerge via evolution. Really looking forward to seeing how you read other thoughtful and philosophical cinema.
This movie has quite the story to it. One big part is that Kubrick didn't want to give any answers and really wanted audiences to be a part of the movie by being forced to sit with their questions. Clarke on the other hand is your pretty straightforward science geek that Kubrick kind of used Clarke to get through certain doors. Anyway, people will tell you that you can find answers in subsequent books and the movie 2010. But that's only Clarke's answers. I prefer it more open ended as Kubrick intended.
Kubrick aimed, I think, to tell a story in pure cinematic terms. There’s no dialogue in two of the three parts, and most dialogue in part two is completely mundane (Floyd is praised for a speech that is nothing special).
The food wouldn't be liquid, it would be paste. It's not done to conserve weight, but by being fully enclosed, it stops bits of food breaking off & floating away.
If you don't understand what you have just watched then welcome to the Millions of other people who have done the same thing. I think the true answer here (if there is one) is..."What does it mean to YOU?" The other movie, "2010" is not as Artsy and possibly LSD induced as this one but is still a very good movie. First time watcher, Thumbed and Subbed!
I first saw this film as a kid on a school trip to a local art house theater. It was one of the most confusing but interesting experiences and a formative experience in my love of science fiction.
I'm with you on the gritty dark sci-fi. I also agree sci-fi should be fun. 2001 is very nice to look at and can be fun to watch. I also recommend the sequel 2010: the Year We Make Contact. It is great-looking and has a lot of fun and action and answers some questions from 2001 and exists in its own place, very different from 2001. It is very good sci-fi and how I wish more of sci-fi felt. Not creepy or disturbing, just a good story and likeable characters. Thanks for a good video! Excellent observations on one of my favorites.
Smart reaction, Wren. I am old enough to have seen this movie on its original release as an adult, and I can tell you that for most of us nothing in the movie dragged. The main reason being that it was shown in Cinerama, a vast curved screen that even IMAX can't match. The sound systems had at that time only recently become stereophonic with sophisticated equipment that gave a full, rich sound compared with previous versions. As you rightly point out, the level of special effects was also unprecedented. The overall effect was that we were mesmerised and overwhelmed, we almost didn't care about the meaning behind it. Anyway, like many others I suspect, I went the following week having had that time to mull it over, and that was a fruitful revisit. It's up to you to decide if you wish to see the sequel 2010 : The year We Make Contact, but to me it lost the majesty and worse still, the mystery of the original. In some cases mystery is far better than the answer, and for me the feeling was one of anti-climax, so I forgot about it and will never seek it out again. Some people agree with me on this, others not, it's a personal thing.
Your observations are amazingly on point. There is no correct answer. Kubrick wanted it to be ambiguous. But your conclusions are better than most people's. Remember it was the 60s, and you appropriately used the word "Psychedelic" for that ending sequence. Back in the day, people would go to see it in the theatre stoned, just for that sequence. What always amazes me is how flawless the effects are, even today. all hail to the late, great Doug Trumbull, who created them. Fun fact: after production was over, Kubrick had all of the sets, models and documentation destroyed so that no one could ever use them to make an inferior sequel. Although eventually a sequel was made ("2010: The Year we Make Contact", in 1984) and it was quite good, but they had to remake much of Kubrick's stuff.
You have to remember that they're taking non-astronauts up in what's basically a space taxi to work in a space station. Keeping everything two-dimensional retains a sense of the "normal" for these people do they don't have to learn whole new ways of doing things. They can get to work much faster because things are where they expect them to be.
Great reaction, kiddo. You got another subscriber. This movie was groundbreaking and considered a masterpiece in many ways, but it had it's flaws that I won't go into much. A study of it reveals Kubricks attention to not only detail but subtle tie in's from scene to scene. Constant visuals of rectangles the same dimensions of the Monolith, attention to detail, etc. One detail and continuity of story that most miss....and that's mainly because it's not clearly explained...is the scene and time transition from the bone tumbling in the air to the satellite millions of years later. The continuity here is advancement of tools used as weapons. The bone was a tool used to kill....and even though it's not explained, the satellite is an orbital nuclear weapon. I could go on and on, but perhaps you could watch it again and do a closer study. It truly is a remarkable film.
Details: Notice that when Dave first enters the emergency airlock, there is no sound. But once he closes the outer hatch and the air lock pressurizes, suddenly we can hear sound.
It's cinematic creative genius. One of the movie's most dramatic and physical scenes, Dave's "explosive" entrance into the airlock, is filmed in silence.
@@user-ec5bo8tx4n Kubrick incorporated this into all scenes set in the vacuum of space: That's why when they're space walking, all we hear is their breathing - because air only exists inside their helmets. Or when Dave goes after Frank's body, we hear instruments beeping during cockpit scenes, but it cuts to silence during exterior shots.
I appreciate your early comment about how we got to the moon and just stopped there. I was 12 (and a huge science fiction fan) when we landed on the moon the first time and have been disappointed all my life that we essentially gave up. Only now, with Elon Musk and SpaceX and a few others are we starting to truly advance again in a major way in space exploration. By the way, I once met Arthur C. Clarke, the author of 2001.
Gave up? Yeah, if you ignore deep space probes, probes to multiple planets, installation of deep space telescopes, set up of world wide space based communication networks, construction of the ISS and its continual operation and research, continued design and development of even more advanced rockets, engines, landers and other vehicles and probes, development of the shuttle transportation system and operation, development of land based radio telescopes and observatories, and massive research in to space flight, human factors, fuels, physics, etc. Yeah, we’ve hardly done “anything”. Maybe look into it a bit deeper?
I hope this doesn't sound condescending but I'm taken aback by your spot on analysis of the movie as a whole and the various elements within it. You're certainly a better analyst than I was when I first saw this film - you have another subscriber.
8:46 Back then, the Cro Mangnums used to tease the Neandertals mercilessly, "Can't speak words! Can't use tools!" 12:05 You're the only reviewer of this movie who figured out exactly what those Flight Attendant hats were for. 19:28 Yes, those sets were set up to spin. This movie had tablets about 35 years before we really had them. 25:52 I wish they made HAL home computers.
It's a real pleasure to listen to someone so precocious and intelligent in his words, and this, for a classic of SF that is not really accessible the first time.
I would guess that this movie had more of an influence on Star Trek: The Motion Picture than Star Wars. My candidate for creative influence to Star Wars is the movie Silent Running(1971), starring Bruce Dern and directed by Douglas Trumbull (his only director credit, if I’m not mistaken), a hidden gem of ‘70s B-movie sci-fi, IMHO.
I truly wish people could see 2001 as it was intended-- on a mammoth screen from a 70mm print. I love watching people's reaction videos, but they have to watch it on a small screen, and they have to be commenting while watching. But it's great to know that 2001 can still knock people out.
I saw it on the big screen around 1978-79 when it was re-released after the massive rise in the popularity of SF brought about from the original Star Wars. A lot of people went to see this expecting a SW-like movie but instead got "WTF???".
I saw it in both IMAX & 70mm for the 50th anniversary re-release in 2018. On the BIG 70mm Screen I noticed the space stations had painted flags & air force style roundels on them.
There is not a reactor out there that has actually "experienced" 2001. You can't watch this movie on a small screen... even a 70 or 80 inch screen isn't big enough. It is sad that so many will never understand what this movie meant to audiences in the 60s.
Well said. When this came out I was about 12, and I saw it on a big screen sitting in the front couple of rows of the cinema. The light show in particular was mind-blowing.
Nope. With modern VR headsets, you can view it on massive virtual screens, so no not so much on the “missing out”. Some people had to have viewed it by now on modern massive displays.
Done nothing since the moon? We have permanent space stations, we've done fly-byes for all the outer planets and many of their moons, we've had rovers on Mars, figured out and tested the technology to deflect dangerous asteroids, put the most powerful telescopes ever conceived into space, developed systems of communications and GPS satellites, identified thousands of exoplanets, seen the rise of private space companies using reusable boosters. Not sure what you were hoping for? ;-)
Seriously. It’s like someone saw the wright brother’s plane and says “that’s it” for transportation. Someone’s schooling seriously let her down, not to mention her parents and maybe herself a bit. Time for a bit of study there, Wrenster.
Watch the movie 2010 to answer a lot of questions. There is also a book 2001 that came out at about the movie. It explains a lot more (and of course there are some details that are different).
A couple of classic SciFi I think you would love "Forbidden Planet" perfect example of what we "thought" a Robot would be😉 "Alien" changed what a Robot was forever. "Silent Running" back to those original Robots but an early warning "your f ing up the planet! Stop killing the environment" OR.... If you want to be truly terrified: "Plan 9 From Outer Space" Keep the lights on for this SciFi Horror!!!
Both fantastic movies, especially the former. The sets, the settings, the story, brilliant. I always felt that Alien, it's a horror film set in a spaceship, sci fi background. Great movie though. It's like Star Wars, more fantasy than sci fi. But all great and do get wedged quite rightly in to the Sci Fi genre.
PS: The alternate version with the TikTok lady was hilarious, thanks for the demonstration of what you mean! :D Also, it's a small little detail, but even after seeing this film ten million times since I was, like, 11, I never noticed the guy at the space station slowly dragging his drink across the table with his finger. You don't get much fast stuff in this movie, not until you really need it!
The good news is that all your unresolved questions is answered in the sequel: 2010: The Year We Make Contact. The bad news is, all your unresolved questions are answered in the sequel.
"Almost looks like a time vortex in Doctor Who." Funny you should say that. The various versions of the Doctor Who opening titles from 1970 until 1986 were created using the same film technique of 'slit scan photography'. It was actually a relatively primitive process of pushing a camera along a track towards a thin strip of coloured light thousands of times over. Hugely time consuming! Douglas Trumbull who masterminded the sequence even automated the camera rig to speed the process up and it still took many months. Regardless, it's still highly effective and very trippy even today! Just one more of this film's many, many influences down the years. Anyway, very good reaction. I know for a fact I didn't deduce anything like as much of the film's meanings when I first saw it!
By not explaining what the monolith is or what is happening made 2001 a mystery the audience has to fill-in-the-blank. This makes you more invested as co-author of the story and makes rewatvhes popular
I saw this when it came out. I was 13. What I got was the nature of our existence is unknowable. The sense of wonder is what drives the story. When I first saw HAL I thought it was the coolest thing but then I changed my mind.😮
Remember this came out *before* the first moon landing. It changed how SciFi was portrayed. The big SciFi movie before this was Forbidden Planet with bright colours, flying saucers, etc. After this came out all movies looked this way for decades to come. Star Wars style came directly from this. Scientifically I don't think there was anything as nearly accurate until The Expanse came out.
The guys on the moon grabbed their helmets because of the enormous radio beacon aimed at Jupiter- HAL went paranoid because the Army ordered him to lie
Really good reaction! A sequel was made in 1984.... not by Stanley Kubrick but it had his seal of approval. 2010 The Year We Made Contact is more of a traditionally paced movie than the original, but it's really good and answers all your questions! It's definitely well worth reacting to: so..... PLEASE do it????? lol Btw....nice choice of glasses :)
36:03 so my father was a grad student in Urbana in 1992. his university had a big "happy birthday HAL" party on that date. they found a guy who happened to be named Langley to sing the song
60's sound mixing, whether mono or stereo, actually had a lot more clarity than most current productions. And actors didn't constantly mumble or swallow their lines either - one didn't need subtitles to follow dialogue. As for the pacing of this film, it was much slower and deliberate than other movies of the time. If you haven't seen it before, you might be interested to compare the other major SF release from 1968, the original "Planet of the Apes", although now that I think of it, a significant portion of that one is pretty deliberate too, again for story reasons. If you want something really fast paced though, forget "modern" flicks and try a romcom or noir from the 1930s/1940s. "Bringing Up Baby" or "The Maltese Falcon" for instance. I've seen some current viewers have trouble keeping up, as it's the dialogue that is fast, not just a bunch of action shots. You're pretty much spot on regarding the plot, which really isn't that complicated. Kubrick deliberately kept some key points obscure, like HAL's motivations, for no other reason I can see but to seem mysterious and portentous.
Space helmet design: the helmets in 2001 makes it so the view the occupant has is a rectangle, much like a movie screen, from his point of view. Interestingly, real space suits have to have a 'fishbowl' helmet with sunshields out side it, all so that the astronaut can look upwards, the direction he uses most when in zero-gravity. This was a discovery made just before the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon. Studying the different versions of the AL-7 suits they wore to the moon, each Apollo mission has something different about them as they were updated due to new discoveries.
That "slow drag" at 1:13 is because the artificial gravity at the space station was not as strong as on the Earth and the actor did not want to spill his beverage.
"Put your helmet on! Put your helmet on!" bro just watched his best mate get launched into oblivion... It's showing that even the most prepared astronaut for the mission would still not be able to think straight if something like this happened, just my opinion.
But the whole reason for him being suited up in the first place was if he had to get outside to help in an emergency, and “get helmet and gloves” should have been thoroughly drilled into him for that situation.
One thing that is confusing on first viewing this movie is that are multiple plots line running simultaneously. There is a 'tools' plot and how they change our destiny as a species, there is a 'mysterious interplanetary visitors' plot who left the black monoliths for us to find, an 'AI' plot and the promise and danger therein, and over it all is an 'evolution' plot, wherein we get reborn as non-material consciousness. Very cool movie, and some of the best movie cinematography I've ever seen. When this dropped in 1968, if nothing else, people were gobsmacked by the visual effects.
That bit at the start (the black screen) was a nod to stage shows ... where you would have music playing as you entered the theatre and sat down That was clearly the filmmakers wanting the audience to be in the "headspace" as soon as they sat down I like it - better than endless stupid adverts anyway
HAL was 'set-up'; he was instructed to conceal the true nature of the mission from the humans. Once he started lying, he was finished and he knew it. HAL got caught in a lie and did the most human thing possible: murder.
Excellent reaction. However, when you watch this film on a small screen you’re only getting a tiny fraction of its impact visually and aurally. I saw this when I was a little boy in 70 mm in a Cinerama theater in Scottsdale, AZ and then again several times when it was rereleased in the select theaters for its 50th anniversary. The sensory overload and overall experience cannot be captured on a small computer screen or tv. It won’t solve any of the mysteries, however if you ever get a chance to see it on the big screen, GO!
The story is actually quite simple: A advanced being either monitored or contributed to our early development as a species (the early ape/men where on earth). They left a monolith (much cooler than slab) on the moon knowing that if we found it that we had advanced to space travel ... Hal goes nuts (do to conflicting programing regarding the responsibility of the mission) Bowman completes the mission by advancing to the monolith in Jupiter orbit and is sucked into a worm hole to be cared for in an earth like environment living timelessly till his natural death where he is transformed into a higher being. 2010 is no where near as good a movie but answer most of the questions
It's a conflict between mankind and it's tools / weapons. Which of us would get to the aliens first; HAL or Dave. Humanity wins. But now the aliens have a human working for them back on Earth. Now see 2010: The Year We Make Contact. Then read 20161: Oddyssey Two, and 3001: the last novel.
Specifically, the alien beings knew when the signal went off by the Sunlight hitting it that the buried monolith has been uncovered, meaning that humanity had progressed to space travel.
Enjoyed your reaction. "2001" is an interesting work, allowing for a great deal of audience interpretation. My experience with it has been that repeat viewings help uncover greater insight. That said, you did pretty well first time out. I heard you mention looking at "Star Trek" possibly for future reactions. Suggest starting with a few of the TV episodes. The later content can be disappointing.
Enjoy the soundtrack. (We saw movies rarely because they had to be in theaters or limited TV releases, so soundtracks were what we could experience with best stereo systems.) Explore the writer, Arthur C Clarke. See the next movie 2010: The Year We Make Contact Explore other Kubrick productions.
You were great fun to watch !! Love the film...and thoroughly enjoyed your reaction(S) 😀✨️✨️✨️ I'm Fin .currently in London. Often in New York..but not today..❤ Midnight Cowboy (1969) is a fantastic film ( not a Western) set in NYC with Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman. A total Award winning trip with a great heart and just about every other emotion you could feel..and express...regards xxx
Yes, and be forewarned: Lawrence of Arabia, Gone With The Wind and a few other "epics" have the same stupid "overture" tacked on to the DVDs and steaming versions. Just fast-forward through them whenever you start a movie and you get something like that. It's only ever with really long epics.
It was meant to be seen in a theater, not on a laptop in the bedroom with the lights on. That's why some of it seems kinda long, you weren't as engaged in it as the original theater goers were.
I enjoyed your reaction! I saw this in a theatre in the mid-80s in Brisbane on a re-release when I was in my mid-teens and wasn't sure if I enjoyed it or not, it's certainly not the Star Wars thing I was led to believe it was at the time. I love it now though, one of my favourite films. I think there are so few clues given during the film, anyone's thoughts and impressions of what it means are as valid as anyone else's. My thoughts were that the first monolith is an artefact created by an alien civilisation as a sort of signpost for significant advances in human advancement and that it sends a signal to its creators. The one on the moon was signalling that the human species is now advanced enough to achieve space travel and points the way to the third monolith in the orbit of Jupiter. That one provides access to something behind human comprehension that transforms Dave Bowman into some kind of interdimensional being that exists outside of time and space, ushering in the next phase of human existence. Just my thoughts and no more or less valid than yours or anyone else's! I'm a big Doctor Who fan too since the 1970s so I'll be keeping an eye out for Who content from you. Thanks!
The overture always confuses everyone. That's the music that played before the movie started at the theater. Back when the theater going experience was more elegant. Before the dark times. Before the endless adverts.
I saw this in the theatre in 2018 for the 50th anniversary of its original release. Shocked me how different it feels in the dark, at that scale, with Dolby sound 🤯
