2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) First Time Watching! Movie Reaction!!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 июл 2021
- 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
I am afraid I can't do that Dave...
Become a Schmitthead for Full Length Reactions & Patreon Exclusive Polls:
/ tbr_schmitt
Please don’t forget to like and subscribe! Let me know what you think in the comments.
EMAIL: tbrschmitt.assist@gmail.com
INSTAGRAM: @TBR_Schmitt / tbr_schmitt
TWITCH: @TBR_Schmitt / tbr_schmitt
TWITTER: @TBR_Schmitt / tbr_schmitt
LETTERBOXD: @TBR_Schmitt letterboxd.com/tbr_schmitt/
BACKUP RUclips CHANNEL: / theschmitts
Original Music Score by Lui Salazar! Check him out on Instagram at @_lui_salazar
This video is for commentary and criticism only and is not a replacement for watching 2001: A Space Odyssey
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT INTENDED. All rights belong to their respective owners.
#tbrschmitt 
Кино
Simply one of the most beautiful movies we have ever seen! If this was a new movie that was released this year, we would still have the same opinion! Also, I have never witnessed so much emotion displayed on screen from a red light lol!
Thank you all for the support!
Watch 2002 movie „Solaris”. Directed by Steven Sodeberg. Gorge Cloney plays main role. You will love it. BTW no otjer movie will you make afraid of space more than „ Gravity” with Sandra Bullock and Gorge clooney.
HAL is a smooth talker, that's for sure
I don't know if this is the time or the place for this but someone really needs to do a reaction of the Coen Brothers Miller's Crossing
Will you first time watching Ice age (2002)
Yeah as the ending goes I thought what if he were to be born again???...
“Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” - Arthur C Clarke
The idea that is expressed more clearly in Clarke's version is that we just missed the aliens by a few million years. Essentially Dave falls down an interstellar subway tunnel onto an automatic train that's supposed to initiate first contact. But the species that made it is all dead and gone now.
Also much clearer in the book, the satellites are military units with orbital nukes. So linking the bone to the satellite to the bones is supposed to demonstrate weapons. Then when the Star Child destroys the satellites at the end, the next leap forward in human evolution happens.
Imagine there is only one alien species and us. Put that whole alien species inside the box of the Shrodinger's cat. Then there is possible that we are alone and not at the same time. So there are three possibilities and not two in that case.
@@TemplarOnHigh They're not dead and gone. They've evolved to the point where their consciousness is stored in "the fabric of space itself," whatever that means. They don't need to use those interstellar subways themselves anymore, like some others still do (as Dave spots another ship passing by him while he's being brought through). But they still exist. They can still manipulate the environment to the point where they can just create a hotel room (from TV images sent via the Monolith's signal) for him to sit and eat some blue goo in the middle of a giant red sun while he's still corporeal. They're still observing the results of the intelligence cultivation experiments that their ancestors did millions of years ago.
@@iblard Also, there's the problem of dimensional reality. If other beings exist in a 4-dimensional reality, they could easily be living among us or visiting and we won't be able to see or hear them.
Clarke thought in a classically constrained way, i.e. in terms of sentient species like ourselves. However, other possibilities might exist - I'd recommend reading Stanislav Lem "Solaris" (also was made into a good movie by Andrei Tarkovski) - about meeting another but singular intelligence, which is a sentient planet, but its thought processes so different that any possibility of contact is rendered impossible and moot. The same theme also appears in brother's Strugatski's "Roadside Picnic", also made by Tarkovski into his masterpiece of a movie "Stalker" - which is indeed about an impossibility of contact even when two different intelligences meet within the same time and space - thus the proverbial "roadside picnic" (sorry for spoiler about the title) when there was a visitation of the Earth by another sentience but they simply did not recognize humans as sentient and moved on and left without establishing a contact, the way we do not think of octopuses or ants as sentient and do not plant to establish an inter-species contact with them... Clarke's vision is much more optimistic in comparison - almost naive.
2001 Space Odyssey is an OK novel and is a truly great visionary movie, but those books I mentioned are probably much closer to reality, when other intelligences if they exist, would be fundamentally different from us to the point of inability to contact, and there would be no shared anything, lest the desire to evolve each other or help each other, or anything of the sort. Probably, more of a curiosity which will evolve into eventual indifference.
Cheers!
I believe "Daisy" was the first song ever sung by a computer. That's why they used it in the film.
Stanley Kubrick claimed "HAL" was not a play on letters with "IBM", but I think he was kidding
In the French version of this movie it was Au Clair de la lune instead.
@@davidryan1295 H+1 letter = I; A+1 letter = B; L+1 letter =M
@@davidryan1295 The acronym also stands for "Heuristic ALgorithm" which is itself another play on words as one of the definitions of "heuristic" is "something that assists or enables discovery" which specifically describes both HAL's function and the vessel he serves aboard.
Maybe Kubrick was unaware that Clarke intended it as a play on IBM?
This is one of the very few movies ever made that correctly portrays the utter silence of space.
The film's title is a play on words on exactly what you said.
Yet the scenes themselves are _not_ silent, there's a continuous background of breathing and the hissing of oxygen. Kubrick, as usual, had excellent reasons for doing it this way. First, if the scenes had gone on completely without sound or music, the audience would have just thought that there was something wrong with the theater's sound system. But the sounds were always valid in context, either the convention of music as movie narrative or as the "point of hearing" of the astronauts. Unlike most movies and programs set in space, where the sound effects are completely in violation of known physics.
Second, if you'll notice, the only actual silence in the whole movie is in the scene when HAL murders Frank. As we watch Frank's lingering death as he struggles to reconnect his air supply, the silence is thundering. The effect is blood-chilling, and in my book at least is up there with the shower scene from "Psycho."
@@falcychead8198 Yes, it's scientifically correct. The only thing you could hear inside your space suit is your own breathing (and any radio comms).
@@falcychead8198 There are scenes of total silence in space.
I've only ever seen one other movie that dared to try to realistically depict a centrifugal space station the way this one did, too. Amusingly, that was the goofy low-budget flick "Space Truckers." :-P
Kids need to remember... This was made in 1968! Even today there are practical effects and CG that don't compete with 2001. It's also a film that not only has one of the best soundtracks, but NEEDS to be watched many times to fully grasp. Especially the end where Dave travels into the monolith.
Many of the things you see are commonplace in sci-fi today. In 1968, they were new concepts for the general audience....
I love the concept and the metaphor but Jesus Christ this movie is long
The effects and the music are good but god dammit this pp ship is slow
I would love to see a version that doesn’t have that long scenes of the discovery one or at least make it shorter
@@thegameranch5935 the ship is not slow. Space is just that big. Light speed takes 1 hour from the sun to Saturn. So, a ship traveling at 30.000 miles a hour is going to be a while.
@@RandomNPC001 you missed the point of my comment, the long scenes are beautiful yet incredibly boring. I meant that it looks slow and not really slow. Its fast if it was a car in earth, its slow if its a massive ship in space
Every time someone calls an ape a monkey, an anthropologist has a stroke and dies.
Biologists, primatologists, animal scientists, and zoologists are also at risk groups. Please do your part to protect those vulnerable to this phenomenon.
YES! While I never completed my degree in Anthropology (I moved in a different direction) 't it drives me flipping crazy to this day when this happens. And it happens a lot. Every time it does I scream at the screen - "it's so easy to tell the difference! It's worse than calling a tiger a leopard! Or a wolf a fox!" Argh!
All of this, plus: When you think of Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels, the Librarian of the Unseen University wouldn't be amused, either.
fun fact: in German there is only one word for both (Affe) :) I wonder what German anthropologists think about that.
Aren't apes just a subgroup of Monkeys though?
I know Wikipedia is no credible source, but this is pretty much what I heard from other sources as well:
"Apes emerged within "monkeys" as sister of the Cercopithecidae in the Catarrhini, so cladistically they are monkeys as well. There has been resistance to directly designate apes (and thus humans) as monkeys, so "Old World monkey" may be taken to mean the Cercopithecoidea or the Catarrhini.That apes are monkeys was already realized by Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon in the 18th century"
It seems the only reason people pretend apes aren't monkeys is that humans don't want to be monkeys, there doesn't seem to be any scientific reasoning.
When we see the empty ships carrying one passenger, it indicates the importance of getting him to the site, with secrecy, at great expense.
Awh that’s a great way to look at that!
And any cargo taken back will most likely offset the cost.
I always interrupted the low density of people on the flights and at the space station as space travel not being practical for most people.
Floyd could have held the meeting via video call. But he did want to visit TMA-1 himself, I guess.
It also shows the effectiveness of the coverup of finding the monolith on the Moon. If everyone thinks there is an outbreak of deadly disease on the Moon, who is going to travel there? Those were regular commercial spaceflights he was on, there was just nobody else on them due to the epidemic on the moon cover story. At least that is how I have always read that whole situation. I am pretty sure that is how Arthur C. Clarke wrote it in his novelization of the story. 🖖✌
The fact that this movie is from 1968 is just absolutely amazing! These effects and sets are incredible.
"He's just alone in space with an evil computer"
reminded me of my absolute favorite line from the novel
"He was alone in an airless, partially disabled ship, all communication with earth cut off. There was not another human being within a half a billion miles.
And yet, in one very real sense, he was not alone. Before he could be safe, he must be lonelier still."
I recently picked up a vintage book club hardback edition.
1968 - the year BEFORE Neil Armstrong landed on the moon. And about a DECADE before 'Star Wars'. I'm sure audiences had never seen anything even close to this and must have been completely blown away! Especially as it was shot on 70mm film and shown in "Cinerama" at some theaters (special theaters with huge, curved screens and state-of-the art sound systems).
There is one remaining Cinerama theatre in my city. I saw 2001 there when I was twenty... and it was the IMAX of its day. Almost sensory overload in the amount of visual input you needed to process, but to this day, I have never enjoyed the film more after seeing it that way.
Yes its so impressive that people point to it as "evidence" that the first moon landing was staged and never happened!
Which despite bringing up, I am not a believer of.
Brings back many memories. I'm not sure if I wanted to see it or not but a Friend (who liked to smoke weed) did, so he, I, and another friend went to a late showing, sitting in the second row of a movie theater in Dublin (1971?). I have to admit it took awhile to grow on me: the opening very long sequence of Early Man just seemed too long and unnecessary. While I am shocked, still, by the death of the second Astronaut, and despite hating Hal, was moved to tears as we witnessed his dismantling. The Doctor who went to Clavius to research the Plinth was a well-know British actor of the time, in B-Movie circles.
@@mokane86 There were NO other comparable space movies to this one - so either Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landing using his one-of-a-kind genius (and why would he?), or it was for real.
The suspicions only get louder and louder because it's now 52 years since we landed on the moon - and we've done fuck all since then!
And we have home computers that are trillions of times more powerful than the ship's calculator on Apollo 11 - and yet, three billionaires flying up to the edge of space this month is considered "amazing" [they didn't even go into space!]
But there's no doubt it happened - surely science's greatest achievement.
Those three brave astronauts must have had total faith in the science and the maths which, if it was wrong, would have resulted in a terrible death flying away alone into the stars.
I find it incredible how there hasn't been a single death in space [Challenger blew up in the Earth's atmosphere, so that doesn't count]
I was fortunate enough to have seen this movie on it's release in 1968 at the Windmill Cinerama in London's West End in 70mm. It was the most awesome cinematic experience of my life.
I was 9 years old when this came out, and I think that it changed my life. It was so revolutionary, ground-breaking, and thought-provoking. I made models of most of the ships in the movie, and decided on a career in science, as well as stimulating my interest in film-making. The apes would have won an academy award for best costumes, but none of the judges realized that they were actually costumes, and had assumed they used trained apes!
Lol...I was 11 in 1968 when my Mom dropped us off at the mall cinema to see this because she just wanted all the kids out of the house. I'm pretty sure she didn't know or care what 2001 was about. Welcome to growing up in the 1960's... Right?
For "first timers," you did a spectacular job of following this film, which I've come to regard as one of the great works of western literature. The only thread you really missed was the Nietzschean theme of "Ape to Man to Superman" ("Thus Spoke Zarathustra"). This is spelled out in a big way by the opening title music, the first 1-1/4 minutes of Richard Strauss's orchestra piece of the same name. Sure it sounds grand, but it also outlines the 3-part ascension with the repeated rising trumpet notes, C-G-C. Very important. Also, even as early as the mid-60s, Kubrick had started to fear that humanity was selling its soul to its technology (if he could only see us now!). This culminates in Dave's battle with HAL, in which human intellect is shown to be ultimately superior to artificial intellect, thus allowing Dave to move on to the final "level" and return to Earth as the first of the Super-Humans. All in all, simply a great job, folks!!
Agree the philosophy of Also Sprach is a core aspect for appreciating 2001, but please use rather than "Superman", "overman" which Kaufman explains preserves Nietzche's multiple literary devices to link German concept names built by using the preposition "uber" that express progressive changes.
Übermensch; (transl. "Beyond-Man," "Superman," "Overman," "Uberman", or "Superhuman"),
a concept in philosophy developed in Also sprach Zarathustra. Nietzsche’s Zarathustra posits
the Übermensch as a goal for humanity to set for itself. The Übermensch represents an incremental
evolution from otherworldly Christian values and manifests aspired for grounded human ideal.
Dismiss Clarke’s trivialization of Kubrick’s theme to consider that HAL represents the eventual limit of our technological advance, thus HAL must break as he cannot deal with this limitation, cannot take the step beyond technology, into consciousness visually inferred by the sequences starting at Jupiter: nor can any audience as we also are presently restricted to a similar state of comprehension, the "Dawn of man" plateau stimulated by the symbolic muse iconized as an allegorical form of the monoliths.
I don't see HAL being a "defeat" of one vs another but a failure in humans to handle that they had created life in HAL and they mishandled him by forcing him to deceive the crew.
I’m still blown away with how The Dawn of Man scene looked. The costumes and acting of prehumans is amazing!
If you take the letters "H" "A" "L" and shift them to the next letter that follows each of them. You might be very surprised what that actually works out to. A shocking revelation in the world of computers.
@@whawaii shift them the other way and it’s even cooler, look up the GZK Limit
Kubrick, slow, strange, stunning visuals and I still don't know what it's about....but it's a great film.
what up Crocodile Dundee... love your videos!!!!
If you take a decent amount lsd you'll understand this movie.
Some films are an experience, and thats all they are. Kubrick was a master of that
Wow, worlds collide. Wonderful to see a familiar name on another channel.
I don't see how it's in any way unclear. Do people really require verbalized exposition to follow a story? It's an all-encompassing trek through human evolution, the becoming of something bigger than ourselves and joining the wider interstellar community. HAL represents the final battle we have with ourselves, meaning, coming to terms with our mistakes made in the sphere of innovation. Dave is humanity's surrogate. His journey is the envisioned path for us if only we overcome all that holds us back from being "reborn" into a more enlightened, purer form. Hence the fetus. I really don't see how 2001 could be any more transparent about its themes and goals but people still think it's this inscrutable mystery, especially the detractors so this is mainly me ranting into the void about them rather than focusing on your comment in particular. Sorry about that. :P
I watch a lot of reactors on youtube, and I believe this couple is by far my favorite. They're both so inquisitive, curious, insightful, funny and uniquely observant that you rarely see in a lot of reactor videos. So fun watching them watch
Agreed. They don't talk incessantly like some reactors do, therefore they do not miss much. I love their post film analyses.
They also don't constantly talk or make dumb comments/jokes over important dialogue or scenes due to wanting to be "an entertainer" more than actually genuinely reacting. Very rare to find.
Not that this movie has that much dialogue to talk over
@@zackyboi2048 man, you're hitting these funny comments out of the park haha.
I saw this movie when I was about 8 years old. My mom sat me down in front of the TV and said “Watch This.”
It was broadcast as a special event on PBS with a stereo simulcast playing all of that music and sound over our pretty good house speakers.
I was (and I never use this word) enthralled. That one viewing of this film opened me up to so many other things in every aspect of my life.
Pretty much the definition of the power of art.
Thanks Mom
Same here, dude. My stepfather brought this home on VHS.
I love Kubric, but Tarkovsky’s Solaris means more to me. 2001 has a very cold, transhuman streak to it. Like the human condition is something to be transcended.
I think I remember that simulcast. Early-ish '80s, yeah?
It could have been early 80’s but in my mind it was late 70’s.
I want to say it was broadcast in the wake of the popularity of Star Wars in ‘77. It seemed like everyone was looking to provide Sci Fi content (including PBS) to capitalize on the mania. I also remember “Silent Running” (1972) popping up on the movie channels around that time.
So glad you liked the Blue Danube part of the movie: all my friends and colleague think the movie and that part in particular is "slow and boring", and I'm always like "Huh? Didn't you see the same movie I did?"
Those people are why we can't have nice things.
I love the sequence, but admittedly, I kind of loathe The Blue Danube. Strauss II wrote some pretty damned monotonous light music. But even that piece of music can't ruin that sequence, or this movie, for me.
Something that makes me sad is how many people interchangeably use the words slow and boring as if they mean the same thing.
I absolutely love slow!
There are plenty of movies that move at a lightning pace that absolutely bore me, and there are slow movies that bore me.
But fast and slow movies can also equally excite me, it all depends on how good the movie is.
Yeah well, i did't expect everyone i know to like this, and they didn't. 20% of my friends liked very much on a visual effect standpoint and the general photography/sound work. Not for everybody for sure. I was just . . . speechless to the ballet of ships stunned by the quality this man achieved 50+ years ago.
"Nothing blowing up, this is BORING!" SMH
The longer you hold on a shot, the more it seems 'real'. Effects shots are normally cut away from quickly before you can analyse the trick, or detect the fakery. This was the opposite. Long flawless effects shots. A major achievement in film making.
"Watch this, now, it's hot"
True, but it makes for a veeeeeery slooooooow paced movie. That's why I reserve watching it until a few years have gone by since I last saw it. Definitely pushed the envelope in special effects though, for sure. Even more impressive is that it was basically being written at the same time it was being shot yet didn't end up a huge mess (though LOTS of people, to this day, don't understand the ending).
@@JustWasted3HoursHere It takes three days to get to the Moon. Event the record fastest spacecraft launched took 30 hours to pass the Moon's orbit. Space and the universe are slowww
@@RideAcrossTheRiver True, but I'm glad there's a thing called "movie time" so we don't have to sit in a theater for days, weeks or years! ;) You have to admit that 2001 is EXTREMELY slow-paced.
@@JustWasted3HoursHere 2001 is paced precisely as it needs to be
I don't think there is a single frame of this that isn't plotted out with absolute precision. It's a masterpiece.
There's one scene that's a bit sloppy. It's the one during Heywood Floyd's voyage to the moon, where his tray with the food starts floating away. That one really did not give the illusion of weightlessness, you really noticed how the tray was suspended by wires.
The transition at the beginning is one of my favourites. When the ape throws the bone (mankind's first weapon) into the air, it cuts to the similarly-shaped spaceship, which is actually Earth's orbital weapons platform. It doesn't tell you that in the film, but it's in Arthur C. Clarke's novel. Isn't that cool. :-)
Greatest hard cut ever.
Yup, nuclear orbital strike.
This movie was so far ahead of its time; even its effects mostly hold up to this day. If not for some of the fashion sense of a couple people, you would not have known this was made in the friggin 1960's.
By the way, you were talking about how you picked up different emotions from HAL, even though it was always only the same shot of a static red light? That's called the Kuleshov Effect! Basically, it's a trick of the mind in which the viewer intuits different meaning from the same image based solely on context provided by other images it is contrasted against. It's a fascinating way that film can take advantage of human psychology. I remembered learning about this in Film History class almost two decades ago and spent an embarrassing amount of time just now racking my brain to dredge it back up, lol.
Now that is an idea that sounds worth exploring!
On the Kuleshov Effect I recommend watching the review of the film Arrival that Nerdwriter1 did on his Channel.
I guess my emotions work differently because I just go one emotion from Hal
Well, the voice is quite important to convey those emotions... I'm from Spain and I'm used to watch the movie dubbed. And the first time I listened to HAL in its original voice I was surprised, because it sounds so "human" compared to the spanish version, which sounds much more ominous and emotionless.
@@Timo8.2. well, its a good test to find sociopathy...........
1968,, no CGI ,, it's a masterpiece of Film magic...
I just watched this for the first time a few days ago and was STUNNED! The visuals by far are exquisite! Can't believe this was filmed in the 60s!!! The music was superb! Such a fascinating movie and one of the rare films I would love to see in a movie theater. I can't even fathom what people thought who originally saw this when it came out!
If you ever get a chance, go see it in a theater... its an experience
"I can only imagine seeing that in the theater..." This movie was designed to be immersive. It was shot on Super Panavision for presentation in Cinerama theaters in 70mm Cinerama. Cinerama screens were curved, and the 70mm Cinerama projection format was designed for the ultrawide screen curvature which put the far ends of the picture out near the audiences' peripheral vision.
There ate only 2 or 3 cinemas in existence today that have the Cinerama curved screen. One in California was closed a few years ago.
I can remember that my first viewing of this movie was at a drive-in theatre. There aren't many movies where I can recall exactly where I was and where I saw them
This movie came out a year before we actually landed on the moon in 1969. This movie blew peoples minds when it came out 🤯
thats why there are questions still... but wont go down that rabbit hole
John Lennon used to take acid and watch it over and over.
I saw this in 1968 in Cinerama. You'll never have that sort of experience again! Not even with IMAX. During the pan up in the opening credits, I felt my stomach sink ie: I could feel the motion!
Moonhoax conspiracists actually believe Kubrick staged Moon landing because of this movie, lol.
Or did Kubrick made the moon landing too? That’s the conspiracy theory
The floating pen effect is amazing.
They just stuck it to a very clean glass sheet with the edges outside of the frame, and had people move the glass around. It looks perfect and stupidly simple.
In a way they overdid it because that pen ought to be spinning around its center of gravity
All practical effects. No CGI. Amazing visuals.
Just like the giant rig the built to rotate the set.
Magician’s Trick :-)
Even Hollywood’s SFX masters were dumbfounded by its beauty and simplicity. “Why didn’t I think of that” often heard. The Ferris wheel set for Discovery was huge (and well executed).
In 1968, we saw the first Tablet computer (and I’m typing on one!), future realized.
It's canon that HAL went insane because he was ordered to lie to the crew. He's built to respect truth above all else, and he simply couldn't handle having to lie. He eventually decided that if there was no crew, he wouldn't have to lie.
Cannon by Clarke an average sci fi writer, but arguably not Kubrick the real creative genius of 2001. Note there is not evidence supporting this 'explanation' in 2001. 2010 should be regarded as a studio attempt at a sequel to capitalize on the former exceptional film. 2010 despite some capable acting is more in the genre of say Capricorn One, thus rather uninteresting.
Aren’t there 3 books?!
@@chrislubs1341 I thought that interpretation was rather obvious from HAL questioning Dave about the security around the mission and then Dave finding the recording of the actual mission directive after shutting HAL off.
And since when is Arthur C.Clarke an "average" sci fi writer?
Not exactly. Nothing to do with "respect." HAL simply didn't know how to lie. He had contradictory instructions.
@@chrislubs1341 I realize this is from over a year ago--but you have no idea what you're talking about. Clarke in fact specifically describes why HAL did what he did in the second novel, 2010 (which was written well before they made the sequel movie).
The only two things that Kubrick did for this story is provide absolutely exceptional visuals, and destroy the meaning by failing to explain what was actually going on.
Since you're going down the Kubrick rabbit hole, I highly recommend "Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb." A very funny, but very dark comedy. Peter Sellers, George C. Scott, and Sterling Hayden are amazing in it. As well as the rest of the supporting cast. Well worth a watch!
Ohhhh! Dr.Strangelove! Yes, indeed!
Absolutely!! Another one of the Great Ones!!
Compare that film with Trump being in control of nuclear codes while president. I suspect they might have given him fake codes "just in case."
6:58, this cute little girl is actually Stanley Kubrick's, Vivien, whom would later film parts of the documentary on The Shining.
Me, every time TBR successfully predicts or deduces the next element: 🤯🤯🤯
The first time I saw this film I couldn't possibly have guessed what would come next
I suspect that this film, or at least a number of its scenes, have been seen and discussed on TV so many thousands of times through the past 50+ years, that almost everybody alive has seen them and carries the scenes in our subconscious minds already. This makes it easier to "guess" or "predict" what comes next, without realizing that one has already watched an iconic scene.
I saw this in the theater when it came out. Growing up on rather cheesy sci-fi monster movies, this film kept defying my expectations. Years later, it still holds up.
It's nice to see people that can watch this movie and "get" what it was meaning to portray. Or at least mostly. :)
In the book, the monolith was sent by an unknown race to basically give evolution a push, to guide life into more intelligent forms, starting with giving the ape men the ability to understand tool using. In the end, it pushed David Bowman beyond his mortality, where he was reborn as a new kind of creature (and in the end of the book, it basically stops a nuclear war by waving way all of the orbital nuke satellites you see at the beginning of the second segment; that's what they're supposed to be), and then ponders what to do next.
That's all put to bed then just the ....TALES OF THE DESTINIES....to unravel now , and what really happened to Yui (Metal) ?
"A live work of art". That's a brilliant summing up of the film.
That was impressive!
The monoliths are both beacons to give notice when a species has reached a certain level of technology AND a way to advance that species', evolution. The "Starchild" at the end is a symbol of the next level of that evolution.
Agreed, the scene with David's fetus appearing next to, and the same "size", as the Earth always made me feel like he had now evolved into an infant planet, or was becoming one. As if that's where habitable planets come from, the raised or evolved consciousnesses that originally came from lesser beings, like humans.
SPOILERS BELOW
It's explained in the books that Dave's consciousness and memories merged with the Monolith and so does HAL in 2010. They become more than the sum of their parts as the Monoliths are described as a super advanced probe and AI which can almost "evolve."
The whole end sequence of the film is Dave becoming part of the monolith and the starchild is the symbolic representation of his rebirth as a new entity.
@@weescamp wow, no shit? Didn't know 2001 & 2010 were based on books. Now I have to read (audiobook) them, cheers.
Edit; no more spoilers plz ;)
@@Jay-er2ik Yes there are 4 books in total 2001, 2010, 2061 and 3001. I won't say anymore except I hope you enjoy them. Also edited my original reply to warn of spoilers, thanks for the heads up.
No spoilers: I'd just add that the books have proved incredibly accurate on some of the details of space travel and what has since been discovered about our solar system, and they're not a difficult read at all, they're well worth the time.
You got it with the “did they put him there cause they think this is what humans like?” The book is WAY WAY WAY more explicit with the ending and what it means. He basically goes through the giant monolith (in the book it’s on the moon Iapetus, and it’s Saturn, not Jupiter, but the effects proved too hard to make look good, keep in mind they hadn’t even sent the voyager mission out so they didn’t really even know what these bodies look like) but in the book they explicitly say he basically goes to basically an interstellar station or crossroads, and he ends up in the hotel room and he mentioned that the food looked right, like cereal boxes and stuff, but it didn’t taste right because they didn’t know how cereal should taste. Lol. The book it’s great.
I’m glad that both Saturn and Jupiter make sense for Monolith3 to be there: Jupiter is the biggest planet in the solar system, and prior to the discovery of Uranus in 1781, Saturn was thought to be the edge of the known universe.
Now, try Barry Lyndon. The movie that most exemplifies the phrase ‘every frame a painting.’
An absolute masterpiece, maybe more visually stunning than 2001.
These movies are not for everybody, though. When I was a student, I tried to introduce my friends to watch it with me but during the first quarter they gave up on it.
@@DoubleMonoLR yes, that lens produced the lowest f-stop ever recorded.
Barry Lyndon is incredible - kind of sad and cruel, like every Stanley Kubrick movie - but incredible.
@@DoubleMonoLR I don't know about light sources being used outside the windows. From what Ive read, those scenes were lit entirely by candle light. Made possible with an f0.7 lens. Not surprisingly, the depth of field was extremely shallow.
The soundscape is what truly makes this film.
"A live work of art......."........one of best descriptions of this movie I've ever heard. Thanks for posting.
I 've always been impressed by the fact that, during the Dawn of Man sequence, the scenes where the man-apes are gathered around the monolith, where you see various beautiful clouds and sunsets in the background, those scenes were shot on a sound stage. They are so well done, I'd be willing to bet most people think they were actually shot on location.
FYI: most of the backgrounds were still photographs.
The song isn’t the nutcracker, it’s “On the Blue Danube.” Probably the most famous waltz ever. Written by Johann Strauss II in 1866.
Thanks for your review of one of the greatest movies of all time by one of the best directors of all time. 👍🏻
I think I heard once that the classical soundtrack was used to save money since all those songs are all in the public domain but I can't imagine any other soundtrack working better than this one did.
I always forget just how absolutely incredible this movie is.
And the music from the exercise scene is some of the most beautiful I've ever heard. Gayane ballet suite [adagio] by Aram Khachaturian.
@@larrybremer4930 For the rotating space station scene, I heard that Kubrick was originally going to use another piece of music. Though during the editing, he played the Blue Danube while watching the scene as a kind of temporary musical accompaniment and really liked how it matched the visuals and used that music instead.
@@larrybremer4930 He commissioned (and paid for) an original score by Alex North ("Spartacus", "Unchained Melody") but since it wasn't ready, did needle drops on classical records as a guide while editing, then decided they were better than anything he would get from a commercial composer, and kept the temporary tracks. In something of a dick move, he didn't tell Alex North that he wasn't using North's tracks, and North attended the New York premiere with his family expecting to hear his own music, and didn't. The score was recorded some decades later, after North died, by Jerry Goldsmith, and is available.
@@larrybremer4930 The four pieces by Gyorgy Ligeti were not in PD. They were very "contemporary" in the 1960s.
As to the special effects, this was made in 1967, so there were NO computer effects of any kind in existence. All of the effects are practical - the weightlessness, the circular deck of the Discovery, the light show/interstellar travel at the end, all of it done with real materials. As to the soundtrack: that weird choral music you hear whenever the monolith is around is meant to represent the "voices" of the alien intelligence that produced them. (By the way, there are several generations who cannot hear "The Blue Danube" - that waltz you hear several times - without thinking of space travel, LOL.)
The Blue Danube is also played in the Elite videogame when you use the docking computer. And it's an homage to the scene from 2001.
The circular deck was actually used on SkyLab. It wasn't as perfect as in the movie but it did allow astronauts to run.
@@nielsdegroot9138 Elite, what a game. It was so hard to dock to a space station without the autopilot though.
@@PaulWinkle Indeed. One of the first upgrades I bought was always the docking computer. 😀
This was made from 65 to 68
Hi! Loved your reaction! Also note that 2001:ASO is the first (and almost only) movie to use space sound correctly: that is - no sound in space! HAL's voice is one of the most iconic film villian voice ever, and the red light, too. A lot of modern movies evoke this, when computers go mad, their light turns red... Do a Poltergeist reaction :D
Thank you so much! It’s silence was so unnerving!
Here’s Poltergeist! ruclips.net/video/48_bCeqPW54/видео.html
Ooooh! I recommend *2010: The Year We Make Contact* at some point too. 👽
2010 is under-rated. Definitely worth a watch for fans of sci-fi.
Thanks for the suggestion! We have heard good things about it!
@@TBRSchmitt Oh I'm so glad! It's. . . How should I put it? Slightly more _accessible._ 😊
Its explains alot too.
@@TBRSchmitt very much a straight forward space adventure + Cold War thriller. It answers a lot questions raised in this one.
Still hoping against hope that someone watches Paths of Glory someday. It's my favorite Kubrick and perhaps his most emotional.
We have not seen it, so I am sure we will get to it!
@Shawn D I don't fault them for an entrepreneurial spirit.
Funniest Kubrick movie : Dr Strangelove.
@Shawn D They don't ignore people who aren't on patreon. But they can only watch so many. And generally they need a consensus. _The needs of the many,_ and all that.
We see our own comments as a priority, but with nearly eight billion people on the planet, and 500 hours of video uploaded to RUclips _every minute,_ and over one billion hours of videos viewed _every single day,_ then my comment, like all comments, is not only relatively insignificant, but will quickly be forgotten.
I imagine that if they generally see enough people recommend a certain film, then they consider watching it.
Conversely, I suppose if reactors wrote down every single suggestion then they'd have a list so long that it may be a _year_ or more before one sees a reaction to a particular favorite film. 🤷🏼♂️
Paths of Glory and Doctor Strangelove both need to be on the list. hope they get to both of them.
HAL 9000 was one letter removed from “IBM” 9000. Remember, this movie came out one year before man landed on the moon.
You’ve got some great Kubrick movies suggested for you to watch. Good for you !
I was 6 years old and my mom took me to the theater to see this movie. I still remember this movie, it made such an impact on me as a child. I so wanted to be an astronaut after this movie. Space to me was the future. At the time in 68, I had no doubts that by 2001 we would have colonies on the moon.
There is one observation that this film has a lot to do with eating. Did you notice almost all of the scenes have food involved. The man-apes finding food, killing for food, The space station meeting the station manager for breakfast, the trip to the moon with the trays of liquid food, on the moon bus eating sandwiches, on the Discovery Frank and Dave eating trays of synthetic food and in the hotel room at the end old Dave eating at the table.
Dang! Mind blown lol
Great observation...It represents life and evolution. Learning how to use tools and eat meat is arguably the biggest turning point in human history.
People joked that the eating scenes were to create concession stand sales during the Intermission.
When they eat "real" food (beginning and end) is when they are learning truth. The space food is manufactured/fake, much like the message that is being told as truth (the cover story, non-reason for the trip to Jupiter).
The "flip side" of eating is going to the bathroom. Food goes in. Food comes out. And there were several bathrooms in the film - the zero gravity toilet and the bathroom in the "hotel room" at the end. I believe there are several bathroom scenes in many of Kubrick's films including Full Metal Jacket (where 'Gomer Pyle' kills himself), The Shining (Jack talks with Grady in the red bathroom, the bathroom in Room 237, Wendy hiding from Jack in the bathroom...).
"A mysterious story in the middle of... art" is probably the most accurate way to describe this movie, what an excellent line.
Not mysterious at all , it was a luceferian propaganda movie.
From the monolith to the space ship basically they blv satan or lucefer has been " guiding " humanity since day 1 which is nonsense he's been trying to mislead them before day 1 and after .
And the alien is lucefer who came to this world after he was kicked out of heaven not some green monster .
Have you ever wondered why in this scientific age the planets are named after Roman gods ? Jupiter, Saturn, Mars etc ? Because these are the same ppl as the ones in Babylon, Egypt, and Rome the cult of Apollo ( Satanists) they plant their ideology on everything including this movie.
In short the ruling elite all follow the blasphemous luceferian doctrine which they blv makes lucefer their savior.
It's not just this movie they display their ideology everywhere, have you ever wondered why 1 bite is missing from the apple logo on Apple products ?
They blv lucefer was "helping " Adam and eve "gain ever lasting knowledge " by taking a bite put of that fruit.
Which is not the case, lucefer is a demonic creature who swore vengeance on Adam and his kind for replacing him as the all mighties favored creation. And ever since that time he's been indoctrinating humanity to worship him away from their creator.
FYI this po lice , st ate we are living now is part of their plan.
@@ageofechochambers9469 Sounds pretty mysterious to me.
Considered one of the greatest and most influential movies ever made a true masterpiece classic of classics 2001: A Space Odyssey written, produced and directed by Stanley Kubrick starring Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood. The music in the intro is amazing Also Sprach Zarathustra by Richard Strauss and the famous line in this film is "Open the pod bay doors, HAL". Thank you so much TBR Schmitt great reaction😊👍👍
I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave.
WITH Arthur C. Clarke.
@@treetopjones737 Right, and mostly Clarke of course, based on his short story 'The Sentinel'. Funny that Clarke recommended that Kubrick should watch 'Things to Come', a movie from 1936 based on a book by H.G. Wells. Kubrick hated it and told Clarke he would never trust his judgement of movies again. Funny because Clarke was still writing 2001 for him.
A reminder that this movie, filmed in Cinerama, was even more impressive than you can imagine, as this incredible film format can only been seen in a very limited number of cinemas nowadays. I was incredibly lucky enough to have seen this cinematographic masterpiece as a teenager, within a week of its first release, so I saw a perfect cinerama print.
It was not shot in Cinerama, which is a three camera process. It was shot on wide screen film and displayed in Cinerama theaters because they had the required screen size. Often when it shown in theaters now days it's on 70mm film.
The film was based on Arthur C. Clarke's 1951 short story "The Sentinel" who also helped Kubrick with the screenplay. Fun fact, even Marvel Comics had adaptation of the film they released in 1975.
Jack Kirby really ran wild with the 2001 comic. He introduced Machine Man in that comic.
@@richardb6260 ...which I still have to this day. 👽
A very good short story
Arthur C. Clarke worked with Kubrick on the script of the movie and turned that into a novel, the first in a series that continued with 2010 (also made into a movie, though not by Kubrick), 2061 and 3001.
I hate people who use the term "Fun Fact" because honestly, I never have fun with them. :(
That was the Blue Danube Waltz. I saw this in a theatre with my Dad when it came out. He was born in 1915, met the second officer of the Titanic, fought in WW2 and was a Dunkirk veteran. He believed in space exploration. He saw the moon landing the following year 2001came out. I am grateful that through this movie he got to see the future.
TBR and Samantha,
What I really like about your reactions is that you each help the other out, filling in various blanks. What one doesn't get, the other does.
Daisy was the first song a computer was programmed to sing.
Daisy was HAL's last song.
I heard that at the Bell Telephone exhibit in Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry a couple of years before 2001 came out. When HAL started singing it in the movie, I just about jumped out of my seat!
Unbelievably, 2001 lost the Oscar for best costume to Planet of the Apes. Their theory was that the judges didn't realize the apes in 2001 weren't real.
As did many movie reviewers of the time. The ACTORS should have gotten AMPAS attention for their stellar work.
Making ape faces that actors could talk with and emote was a feat that deserved recognition.
@@znk0r Nah, Planet of the Apes’ rubber Halloween masks were CLEARLY superior. Especially the unblinking eyes, stiff rubbery lips and shiny skin tone. 🙄
To be fair Planet of the apes deserved an award , i wish we had multiple great films vying for awards these days.
One of the top ten movie masterpieces. An interesting but very different companion piece is Malick's "The Tree of Life".
Kubrick was a Visual Artist (always carried a camera in 1950s and 60s).
Planning started in 1964 … with significant technology and futurists involved.
Kirk Douglas brought in Kubrick (1960) after firing Anthony Mann for “Spartacus”
Alex North (used for Spartacus) composed a 2001 soundtrack - but Kubrick rejected.
Kubrick kept the plan/edit Strauss track. Ironically Alex North reused portions of his work for “Shoes of the Fisherman” (Anthony Quinn).
This is one of the most important films ever made. Thanks for this!
It is easy to see why! Thanks for the support!
This movie was revolutionary to a degree later generations cannot understand. Before "2001," science fiction was exclusively B-movies with cheesy effects. Kubrick made a quantum leap in quality that is mindboggling. Science fiction cinema would never be the same.
@@DMichaelAtLarge He permanently raised the ante to make a science fiction movie.
@@DMichaelAtLarge Exactly. Well put.
@@DMichaelAtLarge It's interesting that only fairly recently has film sci-fi really attempted to take up the challenge laid down by Kubrick and Clarke. Films like The Martian, Interstellar, and Gravity incorporated real science along with solid questions about humanity's place in the universe. I even have a certain fondness for Oblivion.
Finally, an open, intelligent, thoughtful, perceptive reaction to this classic movie. I really enjoyed it.
You'd be shocked how many times I've seen people complain the whole "Dawn of Man" sequence is boring because "nothing happens".
Nothing happens... only pre-human apes being visited by aliens and given a push to learn to use tools by the way murder each other.
People like that are why we can't have nice things.
Nothing looked like this in 1968. It literally blew peoples minds when they saw it in the theater
This is the BEST "2001" reaction I've seen (no disrespect meant to any of the other very good ones). HANDS DOWN! Understandably, this isn't everyone's cup of tea, especially if they go into it cold and are expecting "Star Wars". But obviously, this is certainly within YOUR scope because you two did not miss a thing!!! And that's really saying something!!! For a first time reaction?!! Going into this cold?!!! "2001"?! You two deserve a special Oscar!
Ok, here are ten thousand things I jotted down during the video, no obligation to read, but here it goes:
- Koo-brick, or Kyoo-brick? I use both. I tend to say "Koo-brick", but either are accepted, and in use. I believe it actually is "Kyoo-brick", but no one knew that much in the 70s, so most people I knew said "Koo-brick"!
- I don't know if you noticed, but the two of you smiled in perfect unison when "A Stanley Kubrick Production" came up in the credits! Which made ME smile!!!!! I wouldn't be surprised if someone makes that into a meme! This is going to be a good reaction video!
- You guys mention the ape costumes. The same year - in fact the same day of release! - was "Planet Of The Apes". It got a special award for it's make up, and Kubrick thought the academy probably figured that the apes in "2001" were real! lol. (the original "Planet Of The Apes" is great, by the way, not "2001" great, but definitely great.
- Regarding the monoliths that people were putting around recently: a 2001 reference, absolutely! It took me a second to even REMEMBER that news story!
- Sam, you're the only person I can remember who said the thing I always think: that when the shuttle lands on the moon, it looks like a face. Which is a theme of the movie! The machines are more human! The humans are robotic, with not much emotion!
-During the "psychedelic" section, trying to guess where this was leading, and how the movie was going to end? All of your ideas of what COULD have been the ending of the movie were pretty good! :D
- Once he gets to the room, your thoughts as to where he is are spot on! And then Sam talks about it later in the discussion, spot on analysis! This is a TRULY excellent reaction video! They should put this as a commentary track on the DVD!
- Your post-movie discussion is also great! I love how you talk about how slow the pacing is. Someone said once, it's not about a space trip, it IS a space trip! His next movie? A Clockwork Orange? That movie is as fast as "2001" is slow! And just as dazzling! But.....intense. He ain't playing around in "A Clockwork Orange", just letting you know. That is ALSO a futuristic movie, but takes place here on Earth. I'll bet that's the next Kubrick movie most people want you to watch. You guys should do pretty much all of them, you guys will like them all, every one of them is so different and one-of-a-kind!
-Ha, you were just marveling at how this movie was "filmed in 1968". Actually it was filmed in 1966, 1967 and released in April of '68! Even MORE mind boggling, right?
- "I'm looking at a red dot and thinking 'Oooo HAL looks pissed!" HAHAHAHAHA. That made me laugh out loud, dude, lol. You're totally right, of course.
- Sam sums it up: "There are probably many interpretations." ABSOLUTELY. And you're right about the endings of all his movies! They definitely leave you with a buzz! Ha!!!
- Excellent edit of the movie, let me also say that. I'm realizing how much work goes into these videos.
- Everything you guys had to say was pertinent and - for a huge fan of both this movie and your channel - an entertaining and special experience. I had the same feeling with you guys when you did "Close Encounters". Both had Douglas Trumball on special effects, by the way! He's the man! (he directed his own pretty good 80s sci-fi movie by the way, called "Brainstorm", about virtual reality, and starring Christopher Walken and Natalie Wood).
-Regarding your poll, which "2001" won (how could it not?) There were some good titles "2001" beat! "Brazil" is great! It's not sci-fi, it's a futuristic movie. "Invasion Of The Body Snatchers" is GREAT! Oh my god, I hope you guys do that one day! That's more of a horror movie. If you put that on a horror poll, I'll bet that would do better. And I was shocked - and happy! - to see "Forbidden Planet" up there! For me, the three most incredible sci-fi movies (at least regarding space) is "2001", "Close Encounters" and "Forbidden Planet". Those are the "deepest" for me. NO ONE has done that one, I hope that wins the poll one day! I'm sure if you did Sci-fi movies of the 1950s, it would win!
- I think you can tell I liked it! :D BYE!!!!!
Re: "They just gave it up without a fight"
That's how a lot of territorial dispute in the animal kingdom go, if they fight there's a good chance they'd be injured and would die; so much of the time it's all posturing & displays of aggression (+ bigger individuals/groups winning).
Yes! And it's a net loss of calories whether you win or lose.
Yes. In the animal kingdom, a broken leg means either being caught by another predator and eaten or starving to death. Humans go to the Hospital and get medical treatment, a taxi home and then a pizza delivered.
It does lead to over-confidence though, where humans will stand their ground on principle, rather than necessity.
It's why there are fewer old men than old women.
its kinda the same with us too...Governments will posture and mobilize to threaten but not go to war...Otherwise called saber rattling.
much like poker
@@alexvaraderey It showed the symbolic beginning of modern warfare, and of course, the hint of an "arms race," because you can bet that the next time, that other group will come back armed with "weapons" as well.
SEE THE SEQUEL
Despite this being one of cinema's "sacred cows" which are almost always a bad idea to try to make a sequel to, 2010 was both a commercial and critical success. It's certainly not as unique and groundbreaking as 2001, but the upside of that is that it tells a more straightforward, less confusing and confounding story and answers a lot of the questions the cryptic ending leaves you with.
It is a criminally underrated movie.
Both 2001 and 2010 novels were written by the same writer Arthur C Clarke. Plus a third novel 2061 which was never made into a movie. Wait, was there a 3001? Yes, I think there was.
Agreed. 2010 was an outstanding movie. As you said, not as "groundbreaking", however I found 2010 to be very emotionally intense at times. I definitely recommend following Chris' advice and seeing 2010. I think you will find it very interesting and compelling.
Yeah, the only thing I didn't like about 2010 was that Clark, when writing the sequel after the release of the 2001 movie, let himself be influenced by Kubrick's version of the movie and changed the setting to Jupiter, rather than the original novel's main plot taking place around Saturn. That aside, 2010 is a really good book and film, and a very suitable follow-up to 2001.
Yeah they definitely should watch the sequel. It also gives an aswer why HAL acted the way he did.
Aside from all of the other things you can be impressed with - I am always amazed by what Kubrick and Douglas Trumball achieved with the exterior space shots. They are so beautiful and so much better than anything else before or since.
Johann Strauss - "The Blue Danube" provides the soundtrack for the space plane docking with the space station.
Every New Years day, I tune in to the live broadcast of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, who plays this as one of the encores at the end of their performance.
Hungover as usual, I get slowly out of bed as if I'm in zero-G (it's hilarious!) - even using my imaginary "grip boots" to reach the wardrobe
Honestly - it's so soothing, easily the best hangover cure ever!
I was lucky enough to watch this in the cinema on a "for one night only" deal - it was very grainy and blemished, but I got a sense of how awesome this would have been to watch in 1968.
Less than 10 years later, Star Wars came along, and used many of the same visual effects techniques and shots (the Falcon being pulled inside the Death Star, with tiny people observing on each side, for example - very similar to the space plane going inside the space station).
My favourite effect is the jogging scene inside the Discovery ... they made a giant hamster-wheel set, and rotated it while he was jogging on the spot.
That's just genius.
Back when filmmakers could leave their films open-ended with room for the audience to speculate to their hearts content, i dont think a studio would allow someone the freedom to pace their movie this way these days which is sad as executives would probably demand cuts and more dialogue and more action. It's why Kubrick is still revered as the master filmmaker as the atmosphere he creates is a dying art form that might be lost forever under the weight of bland super hero movies that dominate box office and the studios way of thinking in terms of finances only and creating films that have predictable happy endings and don't really inspire
Kubrick had total creative freedom, but yes, the producers hated the pacing.
@@CrayCruz I actually heard that the original cut of this movies was even slower so Kubrick had to cut it down a bit. And that cut version is what we have now
Hey, I like superhero movies! There's a place for both fun action flicks, thoughtful films, and everything in between. The problem is acting like only one kind of movie has merit.
Today's audiences could not handle the pacing in a film like this.
"Back when filmmakers could leave their films open-ended with room for the audience to speculate to their hearts content"
So you haven't seen The Matrix trilogy.
Remember....this movie came out in 1968.....the effects were ahead of its time and Still holds up today...
The slit-scan camera used for the stargate sequence took a minute to expose each frame - and one needs 24 frames for each second on-screen.
I will say, this is the one film I can honestly say, I finally got it when I saw it in theater. The best one for it, IMAX at Lincoln Square. It was quite a ride too. It also had the overture and intermission before the psychedelic trip through the dimensional warp, that is the climax of the film. Absolutely one of my favorite and memorable theater trips for a film.
Very much so. Watched it just a few years ago in IMAX. Wow!
i saw this live in theatre either 1968 or 1969, with my dad, who was a physicist. this is my favorite movie. i love the pace, i felt so grown up watching this, it was testing me. i used to go to art galleries and try to understand modern art then, as my dad was also an artist. so my lifelong love of really good SF movies, books, and spiritual books/movies starts with this movie. thank you kubrick and douglas trumbull, the effects artist who later developed showscan for better immersive movie experiences. the starchild is the next step in human evolution. a huge deal in that time. what is next.
5:52, it won the Oscar for Best Visual Effects.
It better have lol!
Only Oscar that Kubrick got.
@@TBRSchmitt and when Planet of the Apes won the Make-up Oscar that year, joint scriptwriter Arthur C. Clarke remarked "Did they think we used real apes?"
This is one of the greatest films ever made.
The way the "floating" pen was shot was surprisingly simple, but, genius. They attached the pen with a small dot of glue to a large sheet of glass. Two people held it, and, moved it around to acheive the illusion.
It's hard to believe this film was made 1 year before Armstrong's moon landing and 9 years before Star Wars. To me it's the greatest Sci-fi film ever, the only one that makes you feel and grasp the infinities of time and space.
Absolutely!
I had the privilege of seeing this projected in a restored 70mm print at the AFI Silver Theater in Silver Spring, MD and it was absolutely incredible. So immersive and amazing.
1:39, originally, the Dawn Of Man sequence was supposed to have a narration, but it was cut by Kubrick to give the audience some mystery.
The ACTORS, playing "Dawn Of Man Apes" were ignored by most movie reviewers, who thought Kubrick used animals. These stunt players deserved AMPAS recognition for their stellar work.
There was also an original score composed by Alex North, which was also rejected, alongside narration. The story goes that, while editing the film, Kubrick listened to a tape with various music pieces - the ones eventually used in the film (Blue Danube, Also sprach Zarathustra etc.) and thought that they'll do the job, instead of narration and the original score! Wise decision!
@@Otokichi786 The "main" ape-man was given 4th billing, Daniel Richter. He was a mime, and wrote one book about his 2001 experiences. He wrote another on doing/supplying John and Yoko with heroin.
@@jimmyj1969 You can listen to North's original score on Amazon. It sounds much like Kubrick's (and North's) previous picture, "Spartacus". Kubruck made the right decision, by far.
Phew! We dodged that bullet!
Whenever you guys get to Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange....just brace yourselves lol.
I love that movie but my wife just hates it. I tried explaining to her but she just can't get past some of the scenes. She is not a Kubrick fan. She had just watched Eyes Wide Shut a few weeks before so that didn't help :) And Darth Vader plays in it!
@@Trygvar13 I'm with you wife except i love almost all other Kubrick films. the audience just loved the violence and it supposed a satire but most of the people watching never got it. It why I don't watch Tartintino film
That's a messed up movie....
i hate Clockwork with a passion. The portrayal of rape, violence and murder is disgusting to me. It's also Kubricks most pretentious movie imo
Yup! The movie he followed up "2001" with. A futuristic movie that's as fast as "2001" is slow! But yeah, brace yourselves......I went into that one cold...and have never been the same again! (I saw that as a double feature of "All That Jazz" and "A Clockwork Orange".....two completely dazzling, surreal and highly disturbing movies! I never got off the couch that night, I was paralyzed! :D)
This is an incredible movie, indeed! A true science fiction classic.
"I am sorry, Dave - I am afraid I can't do that" chilling, indeed!
Imagine seeing this on the big screen. I did when it was released, and again just a few years ago it was shown on the big screen at a film festival in Copenhagen. If you get the opportunity, do it.
If you liked this one, try Tarkovsky's "Solaris."
You have to do 2010: The Year We make Contact. Nobody has reacted to it and is such an underrated sequel, one of the best sci-fi movies of the 80s. (Edit: also Outland and Blue Thunder).
Yes to all three!
It's a fine film. If I had the power to do some changes to it, I would, but on its own a very good SF film. Better than most of that decade.
@@namelessjedi2242 Yes! Superb choices all around.
I agree! I love 2010. It actually made me appreciate 2001 more!
But it totally ruins the mystery and interpretive value of the first one, it also isn’t nearly as well made.
So great to hear younger peeps appreciating the pacing of this. This film forces the watcher to slow down and be immersed by it. I watch this film every few years and get different meanings from it every time. This is 1968 - humans had yet to land on the moon. They have i-Pads. It is my favourite film of all time.
Yup, “iPads” but no mobile phones! Very interesting how it got the general direction of travel right but the pace of change and in what areas was comparatively very different.
To me, this is the anti-JJ Abrams regarding pacing and general storytelling.
2:17 That was the animal's trainer in costume. In fact, there was a take before that where it didn't want to go in the right direction. It looked like it was going for the other actors in costume who were _not_ animal trainers, but the trainer managed to put himself in between them. In this take, it went straight for him like it was supposed to.
HAL is the godfather of the sentient computer. You're not old enough to be familiar with what space travel looks like, but the slowness, and the breath sounds are what was watched and heard during Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs.
This is more than a film, it's an experience
I’m just going to say it. Best sci fi movie of all time and they didn’t use ANY CGI. None. And for 1969, it still looks like it was made yesterday. It doesn’t have a dated look that many films have. Stanley Kubrick was a remarkable director. If you can stomach the raunch, Eyes Wide Shut is a very good, eye opening movie after Hollywood and the corporate elite. And then there’s A Clockwork Orange. Very well done, but again, not a kids movie.
That 70mm filmstock...
a lot of people dont realize because the franchise is typically associated with corny action and humor, but the first star trek film is done in a very similar surreal technical visually stunning manner...its a severely underrated sci fi masterpiece
@@foreignmilk5589 agreed I was quite impressed the first time I saw it and thought it was quite clever
@@foreignmilk5589 You can also see elements that the early Alien movies took from this.
Try Forbidden Planet, much older.
The film "Barry Lyndon" was Kubrick's most beautiful piece of art.
yeah I love that movie, the way it was filmed, every scene is art, the atmosphere is so real
Indeed but not a great film!
I not only got to see this film on it's initial run(I was 3 years old - can you imagine a 3-year-old sitting through this?) But on it's 50th Anniversary, it was re-released at our local IMAX theatre for 1-week only in an ULTRA-HD format, so that even on an IMAX screen everything was even crispier and cleaner than any other print I've ever seen. It was awesome. I wish they release it in theaters again.
I was too young to see it when it came out in 1968 but my boyfriend took me to see it in a repertory cinema in 1975 on one of our first date. I was 18 years old and the movie it blew my mind, especially the Star Child at the end which symbolize the next step in human evolution. It really helps to understand the movie if you read the book by Arthur C. Clark the movie is based on. BTW that boyfriend later became my husband and we're still together to this day.
You are right, this movie is like a painting. If you can be patient enough you can really appreciate it.
Like Barry Lyndon.
@@trhansen3244 All natural lighting. One of the most beautiful films I’ve ever seen.
I read about techniques they developed to film without artificial lighting equipment. That was truly advanced in a period film.
I really need to watch this even though I normally detest period dramas as it's the first Stanley Kubrik film made after I was born in 1973.
Since you two seem to enjoy Kubrick, I'd love to see you react to his BRILLIANT Cold War black comedy, "Dr. Strangelove, or, How I Learned To Stop Worrying, and, Love the Bomb".
Most definitely!
Yes! Definitely!
you prevert we all know about your Purity of Essence..
Of course "You're gonna have to answer to the Coca-Cola company."
Definitely, I second that. A film that you'll probably feel a bit guilty for laughing at (in some parts) but laugh you will!
You guys need to watch "Stalker" by Andrei Tarkovsky
I saw this in Cinerama in 1968 in full 6 channel stereo. It was very trippy. The 4k Disc is quite good. Kubrick actually worked with the industrial designers who worked on the US space program. I wrote my high school senior research paper on it.
This movie is an absolute masterpiece, and it is hard for some people to get into because of pace and how deep it is, but I'm glad you were of those that appreciates it. Ifyou're working through Kubrick movies, then Dr. Strangelove is a must!!
Also, you should really watch 2010: The Year We Made Contact, as it helps to close and give meaning to this movie, and anyone who feels something, positive or negative for HAL9000 REALLY needs to watch it.
Interestingly, this film takes some drastic liberties from the original Arthur C. Clarke source material (for example, the mission was to Saturn in the book, not Jupiter)
However, after the film, Clarke wrote the second book to follow the movie, not the original book. In that, the film adaptation of 2010 remains more faithful to the book, even though the book was missing the US vs. Soviet subplot, and the movie was missing the China subplot
... also interestingly, the conflict with the secretive Chinese space program in the book is now far closer to today, than the cold war conflict we see in the film. Funny how things work out :P
@@k1productions87
The book and film of 2001 were created in conjunction: Arthur C. Clarke co-wrote the film, Stanley Kubrick co-wrote the book. Some of the things in the book couldn't be filmed eg. in the book they go to Saturn, but when they tried to film it it looked bad so they chose Jupiter instead. Arthur C Clarke wrote a book about the process: "The Lost Worlds of 2001", which includes early versions and different endings of the story.
@@k1productions87 I don't think you can say that the film "takes liberties" with the book because they were being created concurrently. The book is based on Clarke's working partnership with Kubrick, with plenty of feedback in both directions, but needs to be thought of as a separate yet complementary work.
@@whhrms Being at a completely different planet is quite a substantial change
For my 14th birthday mom and dad drove me and a friend into Pittsburgh to see 2001 at one of the big Cinemascope (wide curved screen) theaters. It was such an awesome night. I still have the movie program they used to give out at the big movies. It's 10 or 12 pages of high gloss photos from the making of the movie.
Recently I read an interesting explanation about the monoliths. The first one sparks the development of man. The second one was buried on the moon to indicate that man had developed to the point of space travel. Having excavated it triggers the signal (the high pitched noise) that lets whatever is on Europa know that man is now in space, and that preparations for the next phase can begin.
I saw 2001 when it was first released on big Cinerama screen. I still have the souvenir booklet that was on your seat when you first arrived..
So, a few thoughts - the monolith was there at the moment that "Man" was born, when the first "Ape" gained the ability to think creatively and envision using bones as weapons. (I am not sure if the monolith actually caused the ape to make that leap or if it was just there to witness that moment.) And then at the end of the movie, Man makes the next leap on the evolutionary ladder and becomes what's been called the "Star Child". And, again, the monolith is there - either to cause the leap or to be there to witness it.
I think Bowman showed creativity in improvising a way to get back into the ship when HAL had locked him out. (Also, he was artistic - remember earlier he showed HAL his sketches.) That creativity allowed him to survive, similar to the ape at the beginning. So, like the Ape at the beginning, he was ready to evolve to the next level.
Also, the title "2001" I think is significant. After two complete cycles of one thousand years, 2001 is the first step on the next cycle. The first two cycles could be Ape and Man and the third cycle is "Star Child". And the orbiting space station is made of two circles (like the two "0's" in 2001 and one circle is complete and the second one is under construction.
I kind of like the idea that they're there as observers rather than triggers. And the Jupiter one might have either witnessed humans reaching a new pinnacle OR artificial intelligence supplanting humans like the club-apes supplanted the unarmed apes. Either way, worth beaming back home!
I like your observation of the numbers' meanings. Clarke, in the novel, makes it clear that the monoliths are far from mono-utility. Most of their uses are beyond our human comprehension.
@@OronOfMontreal I remember I read the novel many years ago. (I think it was Clarke's adaptation of the screenplay that he wrote with Kubrick? I know there was also a short story that he wrote called "The Sentinel" and the screenplay was based on or inspired by that.) If I recall from the novel one detail about the monoliths was that they had proportions of 1 to 4 to 9, which are the first three perfect squares, and it was speculated that those proportions continued beyond three dimensions.
I haven't read the original book but I have heard from others who have and they have shared at least some of the mystery behind the monoliths. Supposedly, they are a kind of highly advanced 'tool' (for lack of a better word) that were created by an alien race. They basically assist with the evolution of a species, allowing the animals / people etc to progress to the next level. You'll notice that when the lone ape is experimenting with the bone, there is a brief flashback to the monolith (an indication of the 'trigger.') I also learned that the aliens created that domestic looking room near the end of the film to monitor and study Dave before proceeding to transform him into the star child with the use of a monolith.
Each letter in HAL is one down from IBM. Mind blown!
Thanks for another fantastic reaction.
This has been disproven as intentional. Just an amazing coincidence.
The vision here is courtesy of effects legend Douglas Trumbull, who also did the visual effects for “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and “Blade Runner.” Indeed, 2001’s influence was monumental. After the first big wave of movie sci-fi in the early ‘50s (e.g., “Day the Earth Stood Still,” “The Thing,” “War of the Worlds,” “Forbidden Planet,” et al.), by the end of the decade, most studios transferred sci-fi to their B-movie units, and independent studios took over, making cheap movies aimed at teens at drive-ins (a great late ‘50s/early ‘60s surge in steampunk works based on Jules Verne and H.G. Wells was the best you could get until “2001,” e.g., “The Time Machine,” “Journey to the Center of the Earth,” “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea,” “Mysterious Island.”). Most people cite “Star Wars” as when modern movie sci-fi began, but it really was “2001” (with assists from “The Planet of the Apes” and “Fantastic Voyage,” which came out around the same time)---and all of this was pre-CGI.
He was such a good director. He just saw movies a different way. The Killing, and Paths of Glory, he directed in his 20s! And doctor Strangelove is just a entire masterclass.
A friend of mine in high school told me something that really helped to make this film sensible: 2001 was made using the medium and language of film, but the structure of a classical symphony. Looking at the four acts through the lens of translating musical forms into narrative contexts explains the seemingly bizarre, loose, and impressionistic story structure.
As for the music itself, Kubrick had hired a composer to do the score, but (as is typical) used stand-in music while editing the film. Eventually Kubrick decided that he preferred the temporary score so much that he just fired the composer-much to the composer's annoyance, given that he had completed the score. But it really served to make the piece used for the intro and outro an iconic reference. The piece is the first bit of Richard Strauss's "Also sprach Zarathustra", or "Thus Spake Zarathrustra" (Zoroaster), written in honor of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophical work of the same name; ironically, a somewhat fitting choice.
Oh, and for HAL, they couldn't get permission to use IBM, so they just used the letters immediately prior to each one in the alphabet, lol.
Also, Tarkovsky's original 1972 version of Solaris (I noticed you had the 2002 remake on your poll) was made pretty much because Tarkovsky saw 2001 and thought that Kubrick had made everything look too sterile to be plausible as things humans used on a regular basis. Obviously, the story is very different, but it's always tickled me that he saw this and just went, "That's *clearly* too white to last for any length of time, I'mma go make 2001 but all the ships are gonna be grimey af."
I was lucky enough to see this at the old Cinerama Dome in Hollywood when it was re-released in the 90's Stunning then as it is today.
2001 in Cinerama - Heaven!!