I saw the movie when it first came out in the 60s, and later read the book. It was my university years and we spent many boozy hours talking about the monoliths - and the baby at the ending. As US TV shows spread across our way (Australia) Star Trek gave us The Prime Directive, where humans were prohibited from interfering in the development of any alien culture they encountered. Apparently the owners of the monoliths weren't watching Star Trek.
Interesting! Some of the points you raised I remember reading in Clarke's "Lost Worlds of 2001" which I read not long after the novel, and many, (many,) years before the sequels to 2001 emerged. Some of it was a diary, as well as a copy of "The Sentinel". But more interesting was rejected content (at the time) of the journey through the monolith, and also alien in the monolith's perspective on the interaction with Moonwatcher and the pre-humans. This latter I found a particularly fascinating read at the time. I liked the inside joke that "HAL" was named to be 1 better than "IBM", "H" before "I", "A" before "B", etc. Of course it was non-sense as HAL was Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer, but it was a neat letter-play.
I don’t care if people think I cheated. This book helped me understand the movie and appreciate it much more. Had I not read it, I probably would have written the movie off as pretentious, incoherent fluff.
I must admit,I’ve seen this film,several times.I have to laugh,though,because,I remember my(now late)Grandpa saying;it sound’s like a lot of noise to me!Because,he heard the ape’s shreak,and run around.”It’s 2001,a space Oddssey,Daddy,”my mom said to her dad,my Grandfather.I think,this is a cute memory of my Grandfather 👴!It would be interesting to see the other book’s,although,it would be;the same old,same old,here!I mean,the same story that we’re talking about.I guess,Arthur C.Clark just enjoyed reading-doing this story?After all,a good author ✍️ can write just about anything.😮😊❤
2001 is it's own explanation! I got it on my first viewing! (I was 14). The book is even more so! Clarke is my favorite sci-fi author and, to me, the book is the best thing for those who say they don't understand it. Any and all questions are answered (except maybe what the Star Child decided to do next.)
Did you know that a few years later, the special effects person tasked with creating Saturn’s rings directed the movie Silent Running? Set in orbit of Saturn with a really convincing set of rings. Curious that.
One point I noticed in the book was the parallel between Moonwatcher’s elevated thinking and Bowman’s Starchild persona. The key driving this was the same statement by both, essentially, they didn’t know what they would do next, but they would think of something.
Idk if you ever thought about it, but would love to have your content in podcast format, in Spotify for example. It would be great to listen to your content on the go. Thank you so much for your channel! I keep coming back after many years!
I saw the film in London in Cinerama the same week Apollo 8 showed us the rising Earth viewed from the Moon's orbit. It would be good to read all those sequels you mentioned. 1968 was a violent political year in the USA, where I had just left, so it was disturbing to think the idea of violence to one's fellows might have originated, anciently, in this way.
Depends on my reading mood and length of book… also how dense it is in terms of how much it makes me think. I think I’m actually quite a slow reader because I like to absorb what I’m reading… but I aim for c. 15-20 books a year.
@@Sci-FiOdyssey WOW!!! That's impressive!!! At least to someone like me. I've always struggled with prose. Often needed like half a year to read through one novel. But on the other hand, I've been devouring encyclopaedias like an unstoppable combine harvester since my 'single-digit-age' days. 😀
@@Sci-FiOdyssey And I just realized.... Damn! Man! With your speed, you could potentially read through the entire Honorverse like within a single year. 😀
The notion of the moon monolith directing a signal to a specific planet always bugged me, because that target (im assuming) would only be above the horizon 50% of the time..and the monolith is in a pit! So the aliens weren't that smart!
@@Sci-FiOdyssey I really hope that the writers and creator of the show would complete the story with the comic or book. I'm desperately waiting to know the end of the story.
2001 A Space Odyssey is a representation of the belief system of the Freemasons. Kubrick and Clark were both 33rd degree masons. At the upper levels of Freemasonry it is taught that mankind has the ability to become gods. They believe that Lucifer (a god, not the creation of a god: Elohim is a plural form that means more than one god) gave knowledge to mankind and freed humanity from the animal state. Thus they term Lucifer "the light bringer" as they believe he illuminated mankind from the state of animal darkness giving humanity the ability to evolve into gods if we follow the path of enlightenment. The Monoliths in the beginning and on the moon (as well as the others) have the perfect dimensional ratio of 1:4:9 these dimensional geometric perfections are very important to Freemasons as they see dimensional perfection to represent the works of "The Architect of the Universe". In the movie we see the Monolith elevate one tribe of apes, illuminating them with creativity and understanding and setting them on the path of enlightenment, then we see the spinning bone transform into a space craft showing mankind's progression from that first encounter. In the end we see Dave Bowman become the Star Child representing the first of the human gods.
If a book or movie has to be explained, then it isn’t great. The movie 2001 was, and still is, an extremely overrated POS sci-fi movie. When it came out, people left the movie early because it was just so hard to follow. And many that stayed said they were t sure what they just watched. I can’t remember which actor said it, I want to say it was Leonard Nimoy for some reason, but he said he wasn’t sure what he just sat 2 hours watching was even about. 2010 was actually a better movie and was much easier to follow. I haven’t read the novel, but hopefully it made more sense than the movie did. But if you are having to explain it, it couldn’t have been that great of a novel.
2001 A Space Odyssey isn't a great novel; the film on which it is based is a great film, the short story The Sentinel is a fine story. 2001: A Space Odyssey (the novel) is an acceptable film novelisation, but Arthur C. Clarke wrote many better novel. Childhoods End, Deep Range and The City and the Stars spring to mind.
Loved the book, love kubrick.....really don't like the film. Had some good visuals but doesn't capture the heart of the book. I know it is an opinion punishable by firing squad, sorry.
I watched the movie and couldn't get past the first 30 or 40 minutes. Nothing about it was engaging or enjoyable. I have no idea how or why this awful movie is such a gold standard for science fiction. Its 500 hours long and having to slog through an hour of nothing to get to a movie is pretty trash.
I honestly think you're the first person I've ever heard of watch that movie and didn't like it... Not hating on your opinion just honestly it's a first for me.
For me, this is one of my favorite sci-fi movies of all time. The special effects were amazing for the time, and Kubrick's cinematography has always been what he's great at. The part that kept me engaged at the start was just the mystery of the monoliths. The apes in Africa and the scene on the moon are the main plot beats in the first hour or so. The filler scenes are more for world building and to show off the practical effects. The second half of the movie is where the main story takes place, with the AI, Hal, and his betrayal of Bowman and the other astronauts. The ending is definitely weird, but had they made the final two books into movies, I think that would have helped people understand the ending better. Anyway, whether something is good or bad is subjective. So if the movie didn't work for you, then that's fine. I would tell you to give it another chance, but to each their own.
Its alright if it doesn't appeal to you, To each his own. But this is one of the most thought provoking Sci-fi stories, both in its novel medium and film adaptation.
All I can say to people such as yourself is: go home and watch The Game, as that seems to be the most intelligent thing you can comprehend. Maybe there should be an I.Q. test at the theaters whenever showing an intelligent film. (Not that that really happens very often.).
What are your thoughts on 2001: A Space Odyssey?
Check out 2001: A Space Odyssey here (Amazon Link) 📖 shortlink.uk/P5RW
I saw the movie when it first came out in the 60s, and later read the book. It was my university years and we spent many boozy hours talking about the monoliths - and the baby at the ending. As US TV shows spread across our way (Australia) Star Trek gave us The Prime Directive, where humans were prohibited from interfering in the development of any alien culture they encountered. Apparently the owners of the monoliths weren't watching Star Trek.
An excellent overview to my mind - thanks!
This a thoughtful and deep dive, well done.
Brilliant and insightful analysis!!
Great video! One of my favorite novels and movies. The novel made the movie more understandable for me.
Mine too!
Interesting! Some of the points you raised I remember reading in Clarke's "Lost Worlds of 2001" which I read not long after the novel, and many, (many,) years before the sequels to 2001 emerged. Some of it was a diary, as well as a copy of "The Sentinel". But more interesting was rejected content (at the time) of the journey through the monolith, and also alien in the monolith's perspective on the interaction with Moonwatcher and the pre-humans. This latter I found a particularly fascinating read at the time.
I liked the inside joke that "HAL" was named to be 1 better than "IBM", "H" before "I", "A" before "B", etc. Of course it was non-sense as HAL was Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer, but it was a neat letter-play.
Great idea for a series, and a great beginning with 2001: A Space Odessey. A thoughtful deep dive into this classic. Thank you!
Fabulous!! Wonderful video, and I look forward to more of them.
I really enjoyed the exploration of the novel and movie. i am now inspired to reread the book.
Thanks Darrel! Especially for your pointer to Revelation Space.
My pleasure!
Great video, love this format! 👍
Still the best SF movie ever made imho.
Great novel too.
I don’t care if people think I cheated. This book helped me understand the movie and appreciate it much more. Had I not read it, I probably would have written the movie off as pretentious, incoherent fluff.
Except that the movie WAS pretentious incoherent fluff and requiring someone to read a book to make it not seem that way is proof that it is.
@@JayPlaysEverything It’s nice to know that people like you speak for everyone, regardless of if they want someone speaking for them or not.
I must admit,I’ve seen this film,several times.I have to laugh,though,because,I remember my(now late)Grandpa saying;it sound’s like a lot of noise to me!Because,he heard the ape’s shreak,and run around.”It’s 2001,a space Oddssey,Daddy,”my mom said to her dad,my Grandfather.I think,this is a cute memory of my Grandfather 👴!It would be interesting to see the other book’s,although,it would be;the same old,same old,here!I mean,the same story that we’re talking about.I guess,Arthur C.Clark just enjoyed reading-doing this story?After all,a good author ✍️ can write just about anything.😮😊❤
I like this new series. I'm looking forward to more!
Great video, thank you! Keep going!! ❤
2001 is it's own explanation! I got it on my first viewing! (I was 14). The book is even more so! Clarke is my favorite sci-fi author and, to me, the book is the best thing for those who say they don't understand it. Any and all questions are answered (except maybe what the Star Child decided to do next.)
In the 1969 Hugo Awards, it was not nominated for best novel but for Best Dramatic Presentation, which it won.
Thanks for the correction!
Amazing work as always.
I appreciate that 😀
Did you know that a few years later, the special effects person tasked with creating Saturn’s rings directed the movie Silent Running? Set in orbit of Saturn with a really convincing set of rings. Curious that.
One point I noticed in the book was the parallel between Moonwatcher’s elevated thinking and Bowman’s Starchild persona. The key driving this was the same statement by both, essentially, they didn’t know what they would do next, but they would think of something.
Fascinating! I was not aware that Clarke had revised the text at any point. Can you provide any illumination of this claim?
Google
Buying the book right now, thank you!
Hope you enjoy it!
Great analysis
My experience was Jack Kirby’s cover of 2001 ASO. Taken much from the book. It was awesome.
Idk if you ever thought about it, but would love to have your content in podcast format, in Spotify for example. It would be great to listen to your content on the go.
Thank you so much for your channel! I keep coming back after many years!
Thanks so much. It’s an interesting thought on the podcast… I’ll have to think about it 😀
My favorite author!
I saw the film in London in Cinerama the same week Apollo 8 showed us the rising Earth viewed from the Moon's orbit. It would be good to read all those sequels you mentioned. 1968 was a violent political year in the USA, where I had just left, so it was disturbing to think the idea of violence to one's fellows might have originated, anciently, in this way.
How fast do you read, Darrel? Meaning, how long does it take you on average to finish reading one novel of prose? How many books per year; circa?
Depends on my reading mood and length of book… also how dense it is in terms of how much it makes me think. I think I’m actually quite a slow reader because I like to absorb what I’m reading… but I aim for c. 15-20 books a year.
@@Sci-FiOdyssey
WOW!!! That's impressive!!! At least to someone like me. I've always struggled with prose. Often needed like half a year to read through one novel. But on the other hand, I've been devouring encyclopaedias like an unstoppable combine harvester since my 'single-digit-age' days. 😀
@@Sci-FiOdyssey
And I just realized.... Damn! Man! With your speed, you could potentially read through the entire Honorverse like within a single year. 😀
such a great movie, i forget about the book
Danke!
Thank you! 🙏
The notion of the moon monolith directing a signal to a specific planet always bugged me, because that target (im assuming) would only be above the horizon 50% of the time..and the monolith is in a pit! So the aliens weren't that smart!
I’m not saying I didn’t like the movie, but I prefer the books.
Are you going to do the sequels as well?
Perhaps if they were considered “great”.
Why does the film open with 3 minutes of a black screen?
I dont think Hal would consider himself malfunctioning!
Hello Sci Fi Odyssey what your thoughts on tv series Raised by Wolves ?
Loved the first season… was a bit 🤏 on the second but was shocked and disappointed it was cancelled. Had lots of potential.
@@Sci-FiOdyssey I really hope that the writers and creator of the show would complete the story with the comic or book. I'm desperately waiting to know the end of the story.
I highly recommend to read the book. It is an easy read that really explains clearly what’s going on, as opposed to the movie.
Chapter 3 beat goooin 🙂↕️💃🙂↔️
2001 A Space Odyssey is a representation of the belief system of the Freemasons.
Kubrick and Clark were both 33rd degree masons.
At the upper levels of Freemasonry it is taught that mankind has the ability to become gods.
They believe that Lucifer (a god, not the creation of a god: Elohim is a plural form that means more than one god) gave knowledge to mankind and freed humanity from the animal state.
Thus they term Lucifer "the light bringer" as they believe he illuminated mankind from the state of animal darkness giving humanity the ability to evolve into gods if we follow the path of enlightenment.
The Monoliths in the beginning and on the moon (as well as the others) have the perfect dimensional ratio of 1:4:9 these dimensional geometric perfections are very important to Freemasons as they see dimensional perfection to represent the works of "The Architect of the Universe".
In the movie we see the Monolith elevate one tribe of apes, illuminating them with creativity and understanding and setting them on the path of enlightenment, then we see the spinning bone transform into a space craft showing mankind's progression from that first encounter.
In the end we see Dave Bowman become the Star Child representing the first of the human gods.
Groundbreaking and influential are not the same as great or even good.
If a book or movie has to be explained, then it isn’t great. The movie 2001 was, and still is, an extremely overrated POS sci-fi movie. When it came out, people left the movie early because it was just so hard to follow. And many that stayed said they were t sure what they just watched. I can’t remember which actor said it, I want to say it was Leonard Nimoy for some reason, but he said he wasn’t sure what he just sat 2 hours watching was even about. 2010 was actually a better movie and was much easier to follow.
I haven’t read the novel, but hopefully it made more sense than the movie did. But if you are having to explain it, it couldn’t have been that great of a novel.
Hal doesn't malfunction.
2001 A Space Odyssey isn't a great novel; the film on which it is based is a great film, the short story The Sentinel is a fine story. 2001: A Space Odyssey (the novel) is an acceptable film novelisation, but Arthur C. Clarke wrote many better novel. Childhoods End, Deep Range and The City and the Stars spring to mind.
Loved the book, love kubrick.....really don't like the film. Had some good visuals but doesn't capture the heart of the book. I know it is an opinion punishable by firing squad, sorry.
I watched the movie and couldn't get past the first 30 or 40 minutes. Nothing about it was engaging or enjoyable. I have no idea how or why this awful movie is such a gold standard for science fiction. Its 500 hours long and having to slog through an hour of nothing to get to a movie is pretty trash.
I honestly think you're the first person I've ever heard of watch that movie and didn't like it... Not hating on your opinion just honestly it's a first for me.
For me, this is one of my favorite sci-fi movies of all time. The special effects were amazing for the time, and Kubrick's cinematography has always been what he's great at.
The part that kept me engaged at the start was just the mystery of the monoliths. The apes in Africa and the scene on the moon are the main plot beats in the first hour or so. The filler scenes are more for world building and to show off the practical effects.
The second half of the movie is where the main story takes place, with the AI, Hal, and his betrayal of Bowman and the other astronauts. The ending is definitely weird, but had they made the final two books into movies, I think that would have helped people understand the ending better.
Anyway, whether something is good or bad is subjective. So if the movie didn't work for you, then that's fine. I would tell you to give it another chance, but to each their own.
Its alright if it doesn't appeal to you, To each his own. But this is one of the most thought provoking Sci-fi stories, both in its novel medium and film adaptation.
All I can say to people such as yourself is: go home and watch The Game, as that seems to be the most intelligent thing you can comprehend. Maybe there should be an I.Q. test at the theaters whenever showing an intelligent film. (Not that that really happens very often.).
Did you see it in Panavision in quadrophonic sound? Then you can't talk.