Видео

The scene during the aerobraking where they hold each other is explained in the book as nothing sexual, simply not wanting to die alone.

I did not find out until recently, that Taliesin Jaffe from Critical Role is in this movie...he plays Floyd's young son. I loved this movie ever since it first came out and I saw it in theaters...but I never realized that was Taliesin. LOL

HAL is one letter off from IBM alphabetically.

I read the book and when the movie came out, I knew I had to see it.

They actually re-built each and every one o the Discovery sets and costumes from scratch, since Stanley Kubrick had all the sets and most of the props, costumes and models destroyed after filming wrapped up. He didn't want them to show up in another SF film, understandably. Keep up the curiosity! Subscribed.

You'll like the additional revelations in the book. Maybe wait until the memory of the movie fades a little.

I didn't say this on your 2001 reaction, but I like your style. You make it more concise than other reactors.

Please react to all to Stanley Kubrick’s movies! PLEASE!

Subscribed just you did 2001 and 2010 and enjoyed your reaction!

A sequel to any Stanley Kubrick movie directed by anybody else is like a four-year-old with crayons drawing a copy of the Mona Lisa

In the novel, a lifeform of sorts already lives under the europan ice, and is attracted to light, this is why Europa is viable for an evolutionary upgrade.

The Discovery was yellow from all the sulfuric dust on Io. That's also why it's orbit was decaying. Friction. And maybe gravitational anomalies.

It is important that you believe me. Look behind you.

the last shot of the monolith was on europa.

The monolith near Jupiter is much bigger than the one on the moon. Dave couldn't bring it inside his ship because it is bigger than the ship.

Thanks, Bubbles! 🌌 Very few reacters ever get around to this one, so I'm glad you did... and glad you liked it, as did I. I've also read two additional books by Arthur C. Clarke that expand the story: 2061: ODYSSEY 3 (1987) and 3001: THE FINAL ODYSSEY (1997). They keep getting increasingly fascinating/weird. I hope someone remakes the whole set into a limited streaming series. It would be nice to see new interpretations of the designs and ideas.

If you liked 2010, there are at least 2 other films by the screenwriter/director/cinematographer, Peter Hyams, you should see...Capricorn One from 1977 about a faked Mars landing and Outland from 1981, which was a High Noon in space. Btw, Hyams wrote the screenplay in conjunction with consultations with Clarke over email as the latter lived in later life in Sri Lanka.

If you wish to learn more about this storyline, Arthur C. Clarke wrote 2 additional novels, 2061 and 3001. I really do wish someone would make a film of the 3rd book someday. Without spoiling it, the 3rd novel is similar in a lot of ways to the 2010 book and novel. By this time, man has moved to populate the outer solar system. The 4th novel is a total trip and bat$#!+ crazy and I'm not sure it really could be made into a movie and if it was, I'm not sure people would go see it but who knows. If you get around to reading the novels, let is know what you thought.

Douglas Trumbull, who also supervised the visuals for Star Trek : The Motion Picture, did the same for 2001. The special effects in 2001: A Space Odyssey were created using a variety of techniques, including wires, glass, camera angles, and matte paintings. The film's director, Stanley Kubrick, wanted the effects to look as realistic as possible, even though he didn't have access to computer technology. Zero-gravity effects Actors were suspended from wires and filmed from the opposite angle to hide the wires Slow motion was used to enhance the effect of weightlessness A pen was attached to a rotating glass disk to make it appear to float Stargate sequence The Slit-Scan machine was used to create the corridor of lights and shapes The machine involved shooting moving footage of back-lit imagery with the camera shutter open Other effects Matte paintings were used to create the grandiosity of outer space Front and rear projection were used in some scenes The space station jogging sequence was achieved by having the actor remain in place while the set rotated behind him. 2001's special effects team was supervised by Kubrick himself, and included Con Pederson, Wally Veevers, and Douglas Trumbull, who went on to create effects for other science fiction movies such as Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Blade Runner. From: 2001archive.org/resources/the-special-effects-of-2001-a-space-odyssey/#:~:text=2001's%20special%20effects%20team,Third%20Kind%20and%20Blade%20Runner.

Arthur C Clarke has a cameo in the movie. He is the old man sitting on a park bench feeding the pigeons in front of the White House. Maybe a movie based on 2061 or 3001 will be made some day.

The originally white Discovery had that yellow-orangey color because Io, the Jupiter's moon it was orbiting, has a lot of active volcanoes so it was covered in sulfur.

I actually believe that how the filmmakers portray the appearance of Jupiter in this film is quite accurate. You have to remember that when 2001 was released in 1968 all we knew about how the planet looked was from telescopic observations. By 1984, the United States had launched several probes that did flybys of Jupiter (ie. Pioneer 10 and Voyagers 1 & 2) that got closer views of the Jovian system so we then knew better how the planet and its larger moons looked but really still hadn't completely worked out about the thin ring system yet but they did attempt to show it during the air braking sequence.

I like the fact that young sci-fi fans are continuing to discover the brilliance of Arthur C. Clarke. At some point in the near future, we'll be treated to another superb vision, Rendezvous With Rama.

They very much wanted to replicate the floating pen bit from the first film, using the same method, with the pen lightly attached to a pane of glass. But it wasn't working so they went with plan B - miming the action and inserting the image of the pen later.

"I'm not okay with liquid cheese and liquid fish." Best comment ever on that scene. Stay awesome.

They did the floating pen the same way they did it in the first movie. They stuck it to a big piece of glass with double-sided tape then moved the glass around to make it move. There are out-takes where it kept falling off.

As you noted towards the end of your reaction/review, this movie was inspired by a novel written by Arthur C. Clarke. When the original film debuted, I suspect he was asked, What's next?" His reply was something along the lines of of, "Where does one go from that? The story's told; I don't think there's anything to revisit." Then came the famous Voyager probe missions with one of them making an insanely close flyby of Jupiter and some of its moons. That close approach provided information that pretty much boggled scientists. Io had active volcanoes? Europa might have liquid water under a layer of ice?!" That gave Clarke the inkling of a followup story. So he authored a sequel titled "2010: Odyssey Two" I recall the first few chapters being printed in Playboy. (Yes, I was old enough to legally purchase the adult magazine when those chapters wee published.) I remember when the book reached our local library . Of course I checked it at the earliest opportunity. Upon returning it, or maybe a couple of months later while scoping out the SF section again, I turned to somebody in the same aisle and noted, "Hollywood will prove itself an idiot if it doesn't adapt Clarke's sequel! I mean, it already has name recognition. Who hasn't heard of 2001?!" Then in 1983, StarLog, a magazine about media sci-fi revealed a film film was being made. Sorry for the ramble, but the point being, those NASA discoveries about Jupiter and its moons lead to discussion about possible life (even if primitive), which inspired Clarke to write a sequel which finally resulted in a film followup.

Make your mic volume match the movie volume. it's hard to follow if we can't hear the movie.

The end scene shows what happens to Europa after Jupiter turns into a star. The ice shell melts, life evolves. After an unknown amount of time we have plant and animal life on Europa far in the future. Where a monolith stands, for the lifeforms there. Just like millennia ago on Earth.

OMG at 20:16 Dr. Chandra has Sigourny Weaver's job from Galaxy Quest! LOL! He repeats everything to the computer, "It's a stupid job but it's my job and I'm going to do it!" This movie was filmed only 16 years after the original, it wouldn't have been that hard to make Keir Dullea look around the same age with Hollywood makeup magic, they're pretty good at doing stuff like that. Actually Jupiter would have to be about 10 times larger (more massive) to have enough gravity to create enough pressure and heat to fuse hydrogen.

Another name for the monolith in the book is the stargate, which they luckily didn't use due to a later movie of the same name (pretty good movie if you haven't seen it) and the TV series Stargate SG1. Note the Galilean moon closest to Jupiter is Io not I.O. note the Galilean moons of Jupiter (the 4 biggest) are name for Zeus' lovers and were the first proof that not everything orbits the Earth. This proof and it's conclusions got Galileo arrested and put on lifetime house arrest by the Catholic church, something they didn't publically apologize for till 1992, 359 years later. By 1984 they had a better idea of the pace of progress of space technology that's why the suits don't look as "futuristic" (my theory).

You’re correct about Jupiter. It’s been said that if Jupiter had a bit more mass it would generate enough gravitational force to create the necessary pressure to start nuclear fusion and become a small star. The implication is that the monoliths are adding the extra mass to it to make that happen. As for Europa, NASA launched the Europa Clipper in 2024 that will perform a series of flybys of the moon in 2030 and possibly get some sort of evidence that life may exist in the oceans underneath the crust of ice.

Arthur C. Clarke was a Great Science Fiction author that Understood the science and used it in the story telling. Imagine how he "knew" about Europa and here we are today confirming much of what he was projecting forward into the future.

For this movie, they had to recreate all the sets because the originals were basically destroyed after the first one was made. It's a shame that very little was saved from that production. I went to a film seminar after this movie was out and they had the visual effects supervisor there talking about how they had only the film frames to look at and reconstruct the sets. They did a pretty good job considering. On the blu ray of the movie there's a great making of featurette worth watching.

The line "oh my God it's full of stars" is from the original novel of 2001 A Space Odyssey written by Arthur C. Clarke. He wrote the book simultaneously while working with Kubrick on the movie. It was adapted from a short story of his called The Sentinel. Clarke also wrote the sequel 2010 from which this movie was adapted. I highly recommend reading 2001. It gives a lot depth to the story and is less abstract but still amazing.

I just noticed a couple of mistakes that I hadn’t before. The only area of the Discovery that would have any kind of simulated gravity after the spinning was stopped would be the rotating crew compartment, yet Dr. Curnow is sitting on the floor of one of the passageways with his back to a wall. Also, Floyd’s use of the floating pen to demonstrate his idea makes no sense since the area of the Soviet ship that they’re in is rotating to provide simulated gravity and a later shot shows them sitting in chairs. I enjoy this film and it’s a solid if not remarkable attempt but it’s not up to the level of its predecessor.

The sets were newly built. Kubrick had sets and props destroyed after filming 2001. They used footage, photos and remaining blueprints to rebuild.

You will see Jupiter, Io and Europa in the 1984 Hyams-Clarke sequel 2010 The Year We Make Contact

32:00 -ish ... only now yer scared? Watching this at a young age I was absolutely terrified by this movie and earlier in the movie. I watched "Collective Learning" Channel talk about the Horror aspect, The Fear of the Void and I now realized what terrified me so much. <3 all

People think to this day that the moon landing was staged by this director because this movie feels so realistic. However, the surface of the moon in this movie represents what scientist thought the moon surface would look like before we landed all the paintings looked like this movie, but the moon landing showed the surface looking different

This movie absolutely stands on its own. You don’t need to watch the sequel. None of us thought they’d ever be a sequel even after the author wrote the sequel.

The sequel was based on a novel by the same author, so even though it’s a different director and not as magical, the science fiction content is just as mature as the science fiction in this movie so if you want to see a good science fiction movie based on a real science fiction novel written by a real Science fiction, writer Arthur Clark, 2010 is a perfectly good film. It’s not as overwhelmingly majestic as this film because no film will ever be this good but it’s definitely worth watching to see how you make a truly good science fiction movie

SEqual to this film helps to understand Hal

“I’m intrigued I need more information” How about all the information are you ready for that?

You’re the only person reacting to this movie realized that David Bowman is forced to kill a friend

Here’s how we know this can’t be CGI. The film has shots of actual computer screens with actual advanced computer graphics for 1968 and that is the best we could do at that time. It’s wild, but there’s an AI in the movie yet. The computer graphics are so primitive so we didn’t have computer graphics to generate cool computer screens.

Every time you said "I don't get it," means you got it.

It was impossible to shoot this movie with the technology they had in 1968, so they actually shot it in space...

Watched live in theatre as a little kid. My dad was a rocket scientist. I really wanted to appreciate this. I did pretty much. Still living in this world

"I'm intrigued. I need information." Prepare for disappointment on that score. Entertainment, yes... information, not so much! ;)