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.
Most of the props were destroyed but some were saved. I went to a Kubrick exhibit in Toronto a number of years ago and a few of the original props were on display including the Moon-watcher protohuman costume and the Starchild.
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.
Issac Asimov, another Sci-Fi legend, once said to Clarke at a convention, "Arthur, you're the only Sci-Fi author I know that's written something original about God." He was referring to the short story "The Star" but could also be applied to this series and to "Childhood's End". Clarke was a master.
@@reptomicusthe problem existed. Why do you think he was brainstorming solutions in the first place. He didn't invent the communication satellite, but was heavily involved in developing ideas which would keep them in orbit directly above a point on earth.
@@jamesday1295 Although the first telecom satellites were not geosynchronous. Telstar was made by AT&T and launched in about 1960 so we couldn't get up that high yet. At the AT&T tracking station they had a big mechanical clockwork globe that showed the positions of each of several satellites at once, because there were several before the first geosynchronous one. A British rock band called The Tornadoes made an instrumental song called Telstar, their only hit that made them rich, which became the 2nd British import to reach #1 on the US chart. The 3rd, 4th, etc, were all The Beatles.
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.
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.
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.
@johnclawed it can be implied life already exists from the movie. There's a bit more to that subplot in the novel i haven't mentioned, as it's interesting from a current perspective.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
Which is why it needed the space-warping help of the monolith. As gravity warps spacetime, so warped spacetime equals gravity. Fill Jupiter with millions of self-replicating wormhole machines, and boom, instant >enough gravity
@@isaackellogg3493 Right, plus we have no idea of the density of the monoliths or even if they're actually made of matter as we know it. I would assume that whoever or whatever made the monoliths would know just how much gravity to add to Jupiter to create a star where Europa is in the "magic zone" out of a planet that is far richer in heavy elements than any normal star. While Jupiter does have a lot of Hydrogen, it has a decent amount of Carbon, Nitrogen, Sulfur, and Oxygen too these would build up in the core. Interesting problem, I don't have the math for it.
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.
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.
One epic groundbreaking masterpiece to a series is the limit LOL. If the pen was at the center of the rotating section it still wouldn't have gravity, but yeah you're right.
Yes, these are more examples (I noted another on the 2001 video) of the sloppy unscientific effort that went into this move. That makes it unworthy in my eyes even more than the great story developments that they cut out.
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.
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.
In "2010: The Year We Make Contact" (also known as "2010: Odyssey Two"), the special effects primarily consisted of detailed spacecraft models, early CGI techniques, and meticulous matte painting, with a strong emphasis on maintaining visual continuity with the original "2001: A Space Odyssey" by utilizing a replicated "Discovery One" model, all captured on 65mm film; the visual effects supervisor was Richard Edlund. Key points about the special effects in "2010": Model work: The majority of space visuals relied heavily on physical models, particularly a meticulously crafted replica of the Discovery One spacecraft from the original film. Early CGI: While not as prevalent as in modern films, some scenes incorporated early CGI techniques to enhance certain elements. Matte painting: To create complex backgrounds and planetary surfaces, matte painting was utilized effectively. Maintaining continuity: A significant focus was placed on ensuring visual consistency with the original "2001" aesthetics, including the design of the Discovery One. Richard Edlund: The visual effects supervisor, Richard Edlund, played a key role in crafting the film's visual style. From : vashivisuals.com/2010-the-year-we-make-contact-bts/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
My only criticism of 2001 is about the "pace of progress" because Clarke should have known that we were spending 5% of GDP on the Apollo program, so to build all that by 2001 would have taken 200% of GDP. He should have called it 2200. It's funny that there is a narrator at the beginning of Forbidden Planet who says that we reached the moon by 2100. They had no idea it was 16 years away.
@miller-joel most of your audience multi task while watching content, maybe scroll on there phones or cook dinner, consider this when releasing content if you want to grow, or don't, idc
@miller-joel show me on the dolly where the bad man touched you.. they are being smarter by multi tasking. I'm sure you struggle with that because your 40% down syndrome.
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.
The sets were newly built. Kubrick had sets and props destroyed after filming 2001. They used footage, photos and remaining blueprints to rebuild.
Most of the props were destroyed but some were saved. I went to a Kubrick exhibit in Toronto a number of years ago and a few of the original props were on display including the Moon-watcher protohuman costume and the Starchild.
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.
Issac Asimov, another Sci-Fi legend, once said to Clarke at a convention, "Arthur, you're the only Sci-Fi author I know that's written something original about God." He was referring to the short story "The Star" but could also be applied to this series and to "Childhood's End". Clarke was a master.
Clarke also created the communication satellite back in the mid 1940's. Created a solution to a problem that hadn't existed yet.
@@reptomicusthe problem existed. Why do you think he was brainstorming solutions in the first place. He didn't invent the communication satellite, but was heavily involved in developing ideas which would keep them in orbit directly above a point on earth.
@@jamesday1295 Although the first telecom satellites were not geosynchronous. Telstar was made by AT&T and launched in about 1960 so we couldn't get up that high yet. At the AT&T tracking station they had a big mechanical clockwork globe that showed the positions of each of several satellites at once, because there were several before the first geosynchronous one. A British rock band called The Tornadoes made an instrumental song called Telstar, their only hit that made them rich, which became the 2nd British import to reach #1 on the US chart. The 3rd, 4th, etc, were all The Beatles.
He knew the details of Europa from the Voyager missions. He wasn't projecting or speculating.
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.
I read the book and when the movie came out, I knew I had to see it.
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.
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.
It is important that you believe me. Look behind you.
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.
That is a small spoiler for the book. Let's just say the movie leaves stuff out.
@johnclawed it can be implied life already exists from the movie. There's a bit more to that subplot in the novel i haven't mentioned, as it's interesting from a current perspective.
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.
the last shot of the monolith was on europa.
I didn't say this on your 2001 reaction, but I like your style. You make it more concise than other reactors.
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 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.
I hope they make "2061: Odyssey Three" but without leaving out chunks of the best parts like they did here.
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.
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
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.
Which is why it needed the space-warping help of the monolith. As gravity warps spacetime, so warped spacetime equals gravity. Fill Jupiter with millions of self-replicating wormhole machines, and boom, instant >enough gravity
@@isaackellogg3493 Right, plus we have no idea of the density of the monoliths or even if they're actually made of matter as we know it. I would assume that whoever or whatever made the monoliths would know just how much gravity to add to Jupiter to create a star where Europa is in the "magic zone" out of a planet that is far richer in heavy elements than any normal star. While Jupiter does have a lot of Hydrogen, it has a decent amount of Carbon, Nitrogen, Sulfur, and Oxygen too these would build up in the core. Interesting problem, I don't have the math for it.
@@allenporter6586 If you read the book 2010, you'll find that the core of Jupiter is quite different. :-)
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.
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.
True, i didn't think of that. Clearly they had simulated gravity and just those pens didn't.
One epic groundbreaking masterpiece to a series is the limit LOL. If the pen was at the center of the rotating section it still wouldn't have gravity, but yeah you're right.
When the rotating section of the Russian ship stops rotating, the ship itself should have rotated in the opposite direction.
Yes, these are more examples (I noted another on the 2001 video) of the sloppy unscientific effort that went into this move. That makes it unworthy in my eyes even more than the great story developments that they cut out.
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.
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.
In "2010: The Year We Make Contact" (also known as "2010: Odyssey Two"), the special effects primarily consisted of detailed spacecraft models, early CGI techniques, and meticulous matte painting, with a strong emphasis on maintaining visual continuity with the original "2001: A Space Odyssey" by utilizing a replicated "Discovery One" model, all captured on 65mm film; the visual effects supervisor was Richard Edlund.
Key points about the special effects in "2010":
Model work:
The majority of space visuals relied heavily on physical models, particularly a meticulously crafted replica of the Discovery One spacecraft from the original film.
Early CGI:
While not as prevalent as in modern films, some scenes incorporated early CGI techniques to enhance certain elements.
Matte painting:
To create complex backgrounds and planetary surfaces, matte painting was utilized effectively.
Maintaining continuity:
A significant focus was placed on ensuring visual consistency with the original "2001" aesthetics, including the design of the Discovery One.
Richard Edlund:
The visual effects supervisor, Richard Edlund, played a key role in crafting the film's visual style.
From : vashivisuals.com/2010-the-year-we-make-contact-bts/
The scene during the aerobraking where they hold each other is explained in the book as nothing sexual, simply not wanting to die alone.
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
Imagine "Spartacus 2", or "Paths of Glory 2", or "The Shining 2."
You'll like the additional revelations in the book. Maybe wait until the memory of the movie fades a little.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
My only criticism of 2001 is about the "pace of progress" because Clarke should have known that we were spending 5% of GDP on the Apollo program, so to build all that by 2001 would have taken 200% of GDP. He should have called it 2200. It's funny that there is a narrator at the beginning of Forbidden Planet who says that we reached the moon by 2100. They had no idea it was 16 years away.
Make your mic volume match the movie volume. it's hard to follow if we can't hear the movie.
You're watching a reaction, not the movie. This is how it works.
@miller-joel most of your audience multi task while watching content, maybe scroll on there phones or cook dinner, consider this when releasing content if you want to grow, or don't, idc
@@saiga12commander The audience needs to be smarter, then.
@miller-joel show me on the dolly where the bad man touched you.. they are being smarter by multi tasking. I'm sure you struggle with that because your 40% down syndrome.