Great job on this. This movie blew my mind many years ago as a teen. My teacher took 5 minutes to talk to me about the ending, and I remember that more than anything from the class. It's my understanding that Dave was under the care of higher beings at the end. They had tried to read his brain to provide an environment he would understand, but the technology was imperfect, so he got that home, which seemed a mix of different human eras. Also, there was a higher gravity weightiness to the scene, like he was on a larger planet. I like the thoughts you added to the interpretation. And, as far as Im concerned, people can interpret how they want.
@26:19: "Good, there's 30 minutes left, I need information!" Me: "LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL" Though, if you want to know what happens next, there's the fantastic Peter Hyams film "2010: The Year We Make Contact". Please react to it, if you have time!!
Yes, THIS is the movie that pretty much pioneered and revolutionized screen visuals of THIS kind. Star Wars pretty much just used the same kind of techniques and just applied them to a more action/adventure type story.
After this movie came out, practically no one in Hollywood would touch an outer space movie until Lucas came along. The original Star Trek was still in its original run and the producers felt shame and humiliation at their cheesy little TV show. Roddenberry would later attempt a kind of revenge with his motionless picture but that's a whole 'nother story.
Again, Star Trek was TELEVISION (back THEN anyway) and 2001 ASO here was a THEATRICAL FILM, so there's THAT difference to consider when comparing them.
Instead of using an optical printer to combine separate film elements, Kubrick used a "held take" approach, exposing the same film negative multiple times, with areas blacked out for one shot that would be filled with content in another shot with the same negative.... which means that he had to wait months to see if the shot worked, since he wasn't developing the film between takes. That's one reason the space shots look so crisp. The movie took about three years to make, it's clearly a masterpiece of practical effects work.
And it wasn't just made before the Moon landing, but also before the first Jupiter fly-by. We had no idea what the Jupiter system looked like. In contrast to 2010, where we see detailed shots of Jupiter's moons.
Pre-production started in 1965 and the bulk of the movie was filmed between June 1966 to September '67. The sequel 2010: The Year We Make Contact is very good and answers many of the questions but is a mystery in itself.
watch you trying to figure this out at 27:31 and knowing what is coming , i am holding my breath with anticipation of your reaction, when the word got out about this scene people went in the theater stoned just to enhance the stoned effect on the big screen, and it worked, part 2 2010 the year we made contact tries a bit to explain more about this
I have to say reacting to 2001 is pretty ambitious for such a new channel, it's not an easy movie, bravo. A few notes, spheres are often used for spaceships because it is the most efficient way to maximize volume while minimizing surface area. There would be no issues in deep space for a long spindly ship like Discovery, it really should never have shear stress imposed upon it and has the advantage of keeping the drive section far away from the crew section. The sections of Discovery that were rotating were doing so to impose a pseudo gravity in the living section. The author Arthur C Clarke was a full fledged scientist (astronomer) who was the first to calculate geosynchronus orbits which are used by communication satellites today. Good job catching just how remarkable the special effects are especially for 1967 (the year it was filmed), as you say they still look great. This movie gave George Lucas the hope that he could actually make a great looking space movie, which he then did with Star Wars almost a decade later. As for being confused, you're supposed to be. Kubrick and Clarke would be proud of a job well done. If you are really interested I would suggest reading "The Lost Worlds of 2001" and as far as Dave being the only survivor, Odysseus was the only survivor of the Odyssey.
I am blown away by your comment on the food at 33:54 with which you were right on point! The whole movie people were „eating“ mushy artificial stuff with food coloring in the „futuristic technocratic part“ and at the end, Dave was shown actually enjoying a proper looking meal in an environment without any technical gobbledigook….
They didn't really know what Jupiter's moons look like close up back in 1968, so don't try to find any identifying features in those artists' renderings!
My favorite all time film. First watched at the theatre in1968 at age 7, studied in Humanities class at age 14 and saw the 50th anniversary IMAX in 2018. While Clarke collaborated with Kubrick on the screen play and science, Clarke's vision of 2OO1 diverged from Kubrick's. The books and sequel (2010) don't necessarily give the correct answers. Kubrick's brilliance (IMHO) is that 2OO1 is primarily art that touches on big BIG questions. How did Man evolve, will Man invent a tool greater than himself (HAL), are we alone and most significant, where are we going? What is the next step in evolution? I enjoyed your pure first time reaction and am so glad you realized what a feat it was back in 1968. Timeless and still referenced and homaged today!
Since you noticed it, the sign about explosive bolts is a bit of foreshadowing, most people don't get that. However, explosive bolts and explosive actuated devices are very common on spacecraft and military aircraft. No, the monolith had nothing to do with HAL. HAL is just a throwaway sub plot to make you question the "evolution" of AI and the possible consequences of AI. Is HAL actually "alive" or intelligent, or is he just a machine? The big question is the monolith, or more importantly, who made it? God? Aliens? Are the aliens and God the same thing?
Remember that in 1968, the idea of space travel was entirely new, so to have some exposure to the vast infinity, the eternity, the science of it, the possibilities of an unending frontier, was part of the goal of the filmmakers and the reason behind a lot of the choices in the script. We tend to forget that having been exposed to a lot more of the realities of space.
It wasn’t new, previous sci fi, Star Trek TOS, Forbidden Planet for example, and many others, no mention Jules Verne’s novel, foresaw a future of manned space exploration. Without Kubrick’s realism and quality of course.
People think to this day that the moon landing was staged by this director because this movie feels so realistic. However, the surface of the moon in this movie represents what scientist thought the moon surface would look like before we landed all the paintings looked like this movie, but the moon landing showed the surface looking different
Previous unmanned Apollo mission took photos of the surface of the Moon, 2001 space designer Brian Johnson (also of Space 1999, Star Wars, Alien…) updated his Moon land model according to the latest NASA pictures he received by mail. Check out the making of 2001, part 3, about the lunar surface: ruclips.net/video/tCHcx5lAl7A/видео.html
The floating pen showing zero gravity was filmed using a glass panel with the pen sticked to it by a small piece of double adhesive tape. As the stewardess picked it up, you can see how she had to pluck it a tiny bit….😉 Regarding the shot in the living habitat of the Discovery, it was a huge spinning centrifuge set („hamster wheel“) with clever arranged camera points (fixed or spinning) The wormhole travel scene was done completely optomechanically using slit screen projection (you have to look it up, it‘s too complicated to describe…)
The music is not "from" this movie. When going from earth to the Stanford Torus aboard the Pan Am Space Clipper, and then going from the station to the moon in the Aries moon shuttle, you hear The Blue Danube waltz by Johan Strauss, composed in 1866. A waltz is for dancing, and the ships are dancing, get it? The main theme has a more complex origin. Zarathustra was a prophet and philosopher in 600 BC Persia. He founded the Zoroastrian religion, and ancient Greek and Roman historians call him all kinds of things including "the inventor of magic." In 1885 the German philosopher Nietzsche wrote the book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" which was about Nietzsche's philosophy and was really totally different from the philosophy of Zarathustra. Anyway, in 1896 the German composer Richard Strauss (no relation to composer Johan Strauss above) composed a tone poem with the same title as Nietzsche's book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", which is the music you hear in the movie with 3 prominent notes repeated 3 times. Nietzsche's book spoke of 3 stages of man: primitive, modern, and the super man, and the 3 notes represent that. It plays in the movie each time mankind takes a step to the next stage, like when the monolith telepathically gives Moonwatcher the idea to use the bone as a weapon. Moonwatcher is then the first to move toward modern man. He throws the bone up and it symbolically transitions to the satellite, which is also a weapon because it is a nuclear weapons platform. The aliens later transition Dave Bowman to the next stage, a super man, in disembodied form (the image of the star child is merely symbolic, as is the fancy room at the end). And there is a higher purpose. Read the book 2010 for more, BEFORE the 2010 movie. Finally, those 3 notes became the setting for the words "Take on Me" in the song by Aha, and that's how we went from a 6th century BC Persian prophet to New Wave.
Excellent summary. You should add that the "weird" monolith choral music was by a Hungarian composer named György Ligeti, and is called "Requiem." There are three other Ligeti pieces used in the movie: "Lux Aeterna" is heard during the moon bus flight, "Atmospheres" in the Stargate sequence (after Requiem fades out), and "Adventures" in the Hotel Room sequence at the end. This last one uses only some vocal parts and consists of some barely discernable sounds. You should look all these up and listen to them in their entirety.
the SFX were by the legendary Douglas Trumbull. check out the film he directed "Silent Running". another space based film made for a tenth of 2001's budget.
The original story was near Saturn but Trumbull was unable to do it properly in those years so they did it near Jupiter, but he made it later for Silent Running the rings crossing scene you know…
The black monolith was deliberately shaped to look like a blank cinema screen, and you'll find consistent visuals showing rectangles being rotated through 90 degrees, or intersecting with circles (representing eyes) as a hint as to how to think of them, also hinting at shifting your (the viewer's) perspective to get a better understanding - a little life lesson. The lore for the monoliths (from the books, written, essentially, after the film) is they are teaching devices that elevate intelligence. But, you'll see a lot of imagery pertaining to cinema itself, like the space station looking like a film reel, the trippy section having those weird fluids (made by dribbling film colourant into developing fluid) and that whole sequence follows the specific colour grading of the earlier film, as if Dave is figuratively being processed like film. The movie is a love letter to the transformative power of cinema on the human mind...with some subtle commentary thrown in on society, hierarchy and the not so benevolent powers that be. People might tell you that the blank screen at the beginning was normal for older films, where it was there to allow people to find their seats before the movie started...but that is never physically included in the movies from those eras (just watch older films and you'll see that's true)...it's placed there deliberately, here, because you are watching a monolith (your screen) as it's about to expand your mind xD
@@johnclawed they had music playing before the film, but they are not included or considered part of the film. If you watch any film from prior to this, the overture has not been kept. It was deliberately kept in with a piece of music that carries through the opening credits and title, on this film because it serves a narrative purpose. None of Kubrick's other films, prior or after kept an overture in as part of the feature...or any other release that you care to look up from that time.
It's hard to see but there is a spare helmet inside the airlock in a little alcove near the lever that closes the door. You can just barely see it as Dave is ricocheting back and forth in the airlock. It's a bit of a cheat because, why would there be a helmet there? Just in case you forgot yours and the AI has gone crazy? It's kind of a plot hole because HAL could open a Pod Bay door and vacate the oxygen in the ship pretty quickly requiring Dave to have access to a helmet within seconds. I get the impression that the writer(s) may have struggled with this sequence of events and make it seem logical but honestly, I think they could have skipped it - most people dont seem to question why HAL wasnt able to stop Dave considering how much control he had over the ship.
There's actually an entire emergency space suit in the airlock. It's green (the industrial color for oxygen) while the other four are red, blue, and yellow. These are also the four colors used for the suits in George Pal's "Destination Moon" (probably not a coincidence).
I watched this as a kid and everyone thought we would be in space by year 2k. The internet and digital technology grew why every thing else stayed same or got worst like poor quality and making things to last and are citys all are now square flat ugly boxes.
The sequel was based on a novel by the same author, so even though it’s a different director and not as magical, the science fiction content is just as mature as the science fiction in this movie so if you want to see a good science fiction movie based on a real science fiction novel written by a real Science fiction, writer Arthur Clark, 2010 is a perfectly good film. It’s not as overwhelmingly majestic as this film because no film will ever be this good but it’s definitely worth watching to see how you make a truly good science fiction movie
Watched live in theatre as a little kid. My dad was a rocket scientist. I really wanted to appreciate this. I did pretty much. Still living in this world
The mono lift on earth, was designed to give Man the evolutionary boost. The mono lift on the moon was placed there to a signal when Man finally achieved space light and the ability to find that mono lift, and that signal the entity that man has reached space
fun reaction ! youve probably looked this up by now but the main thinking about the plot is somethinig alont the lines that aliens left the first monolith on earth to facilitate the apes intelligence which is when the ape realises to use tools , and uses them first as a weapon before throwing it up into the sky where it cuts to thousands of years later where humans have now evolved to be able to do space the travel. the second monolith on the moon is then some kind of alarm system to the third monolith which is activated when the humans find it. Dave then flies into the third monolith where he is kept in a safe environment represented in his mind as a hotel room where by the end of it he is reborn as a new super intelligence as represented by the baby ! hope this helps
To answer some of your questions about the fx shots. The interior of the Discovery where he running around was indeed a rotating room, set designers built essentially a massive hamster wheel with the camera fixed to it. The hyperspace shots at the end were done using a process called slit-scan. This was shot like stop-motion, frame by frame. There were holes And slits cut into dark material with a light source behind that and roll of coloured gels. The camera was mounted on a motorised track, the shutters would open, the camera would move towards the mask, the shutter would close. The camera would track back to the beginning and the colour gel roll would be moved and the process would start over. This is a simple explanation of the effect but it's the best I can do!
Actually 2010 doesn't really give you answers. That is it doesn't really give you the answers to Stanley Kubrick's movie. There are people like you that make that comment in all of these reactions and it's deceptive. Stanley Kubrick made his movie without having any plans that it should have a sequel at all. It's a stand-alone movie. 2010 is just an appendage.
@@grosbeak6130 It explains what happened to HAL. It explains what happened to Bowman. Etc. And Kubrick didn't write 2001. Kubrick AND Clarke wrote 2001.
@@miller-joel it explains all those things according to who? Yes Arthur c Clarke was involved with 2010. But 2001 was the visionary masterpiece and film of Stanley Kubrick who is most definitely a one of a kind in cinematic history. It was his baby and vision. Excuse the pun. Just like Stanley Kubrick change many many things that Arthur Ç Clarke wrote about in the original movie, one can only imagine what he would have changed in Arthur C Clarke's 2010. You see it's not all about giving answers and explanations, it's about a vision an artistry and a vision from a cinematic genius.
In answer to your question as to why is most of the food liquid or mushy, the answer is that in the early days of the American Space Program, it was theorized that solid foods would be difficult to digest in Zero Gravity, hence the liquids and the baby food you see. That's why they're enjoying so much those sandwiches, probably brought along as "contreband". Fun fact, the famous instant "orange juice" in flavor crystals which have a certain tang to them was created for the space program! It was actually marketed as such throughout the 60's and 70's.
great reaction :) I don't know if you made the connection but after being deactivated the message that was played about only HAL knew what the mission was. Because of this, the human crew, THINKING they knew what the mission was, felt that deactivating HAL was an option. HAL, being the ONLY one that knew what the mission was, could not let them do that as it would result in mission failure. I don't consider HAL evil, he was just put in a shitty position. He even tried to warn Dave by trying to get him to question the strangeness of the mission. When Dave dismissed the issue, the path was set. I guess he was right. It was down to human error.
I did have the realization when I was editing the reaction of Hal purposefully showing Dave the message. It wasn't auto played, Hal did it as his last act so the mission could continue. This movie has been stuck in my head for a whole week! It was so good!
@@garavonhoiwkenzoiber As explained in 2010, HAL was given contradictory orders and told to lie, which he was not programmed to do, so he went "crazy." He was not "thinking" rationally, he was malfunctioning as a result of those orders.
@@miller-joel Yes but the book just explains it. The mission planners were no more evil than HAL was, but the movie has a silly judgemental take on it.
@ The politicians were arrogant and ignorant, and did this without knowing how HAL would react. They didn't care. They only cared about secrecy, containing information, etc. Imagine keeping the commander of the mission in the dark.
This movie seemed to be able to peer into the future. The fact that there are two guys with what appear to be iPads on the table blows my mind . We didn't even have desktop computers until the 1980s. The fact that they were using video calls that look very much like the video calls that we use today. At LAX I use the machine in customs that was just like the video call machine he used to talk to his daughter. Little things too like com displayed on one of the computer screens ATM on another both of those didn't mean anything in the '60s They predicted a lot of science eventually.
Wow I didn't even think of that while watching because it's all common technology today, but that's true that they wouldn't know that's what technology would actually become. I keep finding more things out about this movie that makes it even cooler
The first sci-fi special effects masterpiece is METROPOLIS in 1927. The robot inspired C-3PO and influenced 90% of he science fiction of the 80s, especially Blade Runner. Kino remastered Metropolis with newly found footage for the most complete beautiful print. 🌙
Theaters had intermissions for bathroom breaks and trips to the concession stands. When I was a kid this was common. By the time I was in junior high, they were phased out (mid to late 70s, somewhere in there). I'm in the US (southwest missouri) for reference.
If you're a real science fiction fan, see Silent Running (1972) next. It has a thin plot so it isn't great by itself, but it's an important milestone. The FX man from 2001, Douglas Trumbull, was the director of Silent Running. 2001 was supposed to be a trip to Saturn (it is in the book), but Trumbull couldn't get the rings to look right so it was changed to Jupiter. Then he figured it out so, as director, he made sure to put Saturn into Silent Running. John Dykstra did FX for Silent Running and then Star Wars. Also, the droids in Silent Running are prototypes for R2D2, and since it was filmed on a scrap aircraft carrier, it was the first movie to depict spaceships with heavy doors and ship-like interiors. So Silent Running connects 2001 to Star Wars, which are opposite extremes.
Since you were so interested in the effects, I'd recommend Silent Running from 1972, which was directed by the person who did the effects here and had scenes they wanted to do in 2001 but couldn't make work at the time.
@@bubbles5b Be warned, it'll leave you sobbing at the end. Well, it hit ME that way when I saw it on TV around 1973, maybe '74. Then again, I definitely wear my emotions on my sleeves when it comes to movies.
I saw "2001: A Space Odyssey" in an ex-Cinerama theater in 1968. It was an audiovisual Experience! It is interesting to hear a young viewer comment on this "ancient Hard Science Fiction" movie. Back then, all we had to go on was Arthur C. Clark's novelization and whatever past experiences he had until then. It was a trip from our distant past, into the near-present day, on to the positively, far out future.
The title theme is a piece of classical music called Also Sprach Zarathustra (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) by German composer Richard Strauss. It was composed in 1896 and inspired by Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophical work of the same name. When the music appeared in 2001 it became much more famous.
I enjoyed your reaction.The ending of the movie was never meant to give a clear explanation for the events, yet I feel you have a pretty good understanding of this movie.
Explosive bolts have been used on the canopies of fighter jets since the 50s as part of the "ejector seat" system. If they'd been used on the hatch of the Apollo One spacecraft a year before this movie was released it might have saved the lives of those astronauts. All three on board died when a fire broke out in the capsule and there was no quick way to get them out.
The opening music, “Also sprach Zarathustra” was written in 1896 by Richard Strauss but has become most closely identified with this movie. A very large rotating stage structure was built for the scenes inside the Discovery with a camera running in a track on the floor for the jogging scene. The film was based on a short story by Arthur C. Clarke called The Sentinel. The monolith is a tool used by the alien species to alter and influence the minds of the proto-humans to evolve. The one on the moon is pretty much an alarm or doorbell (a sentinel) to let those aliens know that their experiment has reached a point where those humans have the technology to travel to another heavenly body and discover it. Hal isn’t really evil, he’s an entity of logic and he’s been given conflicting orders and programming that he must try to interpret, something that isn’t really made clear. The ending isn’t as enigmatic as it seems. Dave is drawn into a stargate or wormhole opened by the third monolith and is transported to another part of the universe where he’s placed in an artificial environment constructed from memories of a hotel room he once stayed in. Time has no meaning there and he’s transformed into another form of existence, the Starchild. The meaning and purpose of the Starchild are very open to interpretation. Initially Kubrick intended to show the aliens but couldn’t come up with a design that he liked so the decision was made to not show them at all but simply imply their existence. In the accompanying book by Clarke it’s stated that the alien species has evolved to the point of being pure energy and no longer have a physical form. This movie has been confusing and intriguing people for over fifty years and has been my favourite film since it came out when I was ten years old. The sequel is worth watching and is enjoyable and will answer a lot of questions but it’s not at the same level and was not made by or authorized by Kubrick. It’s always nice to see new generations of people discover this movie.
@@robertpearson8798 No, thank you! So much of this movie interested me a lot so thanks for answering a lot of my questions I had. I definitely see why so many people love it and I'll probably watch the sequel at some point in the future if I desire more answers.
I saw this as an elementary school trip. Leaving the theater was one of the most what the heck did I just see. It was one of the most formidable stories in my life.
@@CB-ju4mz That's super cool. I feel that I would not understand anything if I first watched this in elementary school. Probably would stick with me a lot though.
Good overview. I saw this as an 8th grader in Cinerama during its initial run. It was the first movie I obsessed over, eagerly awaiting its release after reading about its production in a Weekly Reader about a year prior. The ending went over my head. I kind of wish I'd seen it for the first time as an adult. 2010 is good too, although on a completely different artistic level. I hope someone makes a movie of 2061.
Arthur C. Clarke on knowing all the answers after watching the movie: "If you understand 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we have answered. Beyond wisdom there must be foresight. You know that's really the end of the line.
One of my favorite movies of all time to this day. Since you love the "behind the scenes" stuff ("how did they do that??"), you should check out one of the many books and "making of" videos out there. Kubrick was really ahead of his time in a lot of ways, and on his own in many others. He was a deep thinker, an iconoclast, a true auteur. He worked very closely with Arthur C. Clarke, a famous sci-fi author of the day to adapt one of his novels ("The Sentinel") into this movie. They would meet and talk for hours and hours about it. But they writing the script almost from scratch, using some themes from "The Sentinel," but the rest being original ideas. Back in those days, especially in England, where this was filmed, movie props were often reused in future TV shows and movies. Especially expensive ones like Kubrick had made. Kubrick was determined not to see any of his movie props turn up in future productions, though, so he had most of them destroyed! Of course, some things were spared (like a monkey suit, a space suit, and some other things), but none of the pods, nor Space Station V, the moon bus, etc. survived. Supposedly, remnants of Space Station V and one pod turned up in crates in front of a closed scrapyard, but it was quickly taken by locals and never seen again. About the only big prop that miraculously survived was the Aries 1B space transport (the bubble-shaped vehicle that took Dr. Floyd from the station to the Moon). Kubrick, for some reason, gave it to an art teacher friend in Hertfordshire, England, who kept it for 40 years. After the guy died, his kids discovered it. It was won at auction by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for their new museum. Oh, BTW, the black alien object is called The Monolith. An obelisk is a tall, tapered column like you see in ancient Egypt. 😉
Yes, you were right with that opening „song“ meaning you could have heard it, since it was introduced publically by its composer Richard Strauss 1895 (96?): „thus spoke Zarathustra“.
good times! The book is more specific, but the movie makes you want to understand. Think advance in intelligence from the man apes to humans, then when we become space faring species, the monolith sends us to Jupiter where we advance from human to star child, at least dave does, then he is back overseeing earth to bring us forward.
pretty much every similarity with other films / games etc that you notice are completely the other way round. 2001 created them and everyone else copied them so much that they have almost become cliches
This movie absolutely stands on its own. You don’t need to watch the sequel. None of us thought they’d ever be a sequel even after the author wrote the sequel.
There's a great "Making of" documentary on RUclips that explains how they got a lot of the shots: "2001: Creating Kubrick's Space Odyssey" ruclips.net/video/I-Jfl88JV_A/видео.html
Do not watch 2010 until you've read the book. The book and movie 2001 were written together and are not very different. The book tells you the names of things and gives a little explanation, but it's also explained in the book 2010. The movie 2010 simply sucks because it cuts out hugely important parts and revelations, and is dumbed down and unscientific in one part. People say it's great because they never read it and don't know what they missed, but the movie ruins it if you see it first. It's a real shame because the biggest part they cut would have been the best part visually. The original short story that grew into 2001, "The Sentinel", was re-published in "The Lost Worlds of 2001" which is a "making of 2001" book.
Ah, unfortunately I did already watch it and react to it, but haven't finished editing. I'll probably read the book still at some point because I am interested.
Here’s how we know this can’t be CGI. The film has shots of actual computer screens with actual advanced computer graphics for 1968 and that is the best we could do at that time. It’s wild, but there’s an AI in the movie yet. The computer graphics are so primitive so we didn’t have computer graphics to generate cool computer screens.
Worse than that, even though those wireframe graphics you're referring to were the best computers could create at the time, they couldn't do it fast enough for the movie, so the individual renders had to be photographed and re-filmed on an animation stand.
32:00 -ish ... only now yer scared? Watching this at a young age I was absolutely terrified by this movie and earlier in the movie. I watched "Collective Learning" Channel talk about the Horror aspect, The Fear of the Void and I now realized what terrified me so much.
Brian Johnson designed the starships and the Moon base for 2001: A Space Odyssey, and for the tv series Space: 1999, and for other movies Star Wars, Alien… this is the reason why they look familiar, he shaped the world of space sci-fi.
You’re going to appreciate your decision to watch 2001 very early on as you start watching other science fiction movies, especially Interstellar (2014) in particular. It’s common for people who explore the past to make anachronistic statements such as,“oh, this is just like Star Wars” or “this is just like that video game” because you’re trying to relate things you’re only now seeing for the first time with things you’re already familiar with. But the chronologically-correct statement should be “oh, this is where Star Wars must’ve gotten its inspiration from” or “that might’ve been the inspiration for the video game designers”. I’m making this point because as you watch Interstellar and a whole lot of other science fiction movies, you should be able to notice 2001’s huge influence on cinematography, special effects, industrial design, ‘hard’ science fiction in movies and books, and so forth. This movie influenced many people in the film industry and beyond for many decades afterwards. I hope you enjoy the ride!
I wish the dimensions of my phone were exactly, to the highest possible human measurement accuracy, 1 by 4 by 9, the squares of the first three integers, but then humans would "naively assume the sequence ended there, in only three dimensions." (Read 2010 if you haven't.)
Those were all (16 mm?) movie projectors. Computer animation was not possible with the power of computers of that time, so the screens were committed to film one frame st a time.
I heard a rumor that 2001 wasn't nominated in 1969 for costume design but Planet of the Apes was, because the Academy voters weren't sure if Kubrick just didn't train real chimpanzees.
Both Kubrick and Clarke were pissed that it didn't win because as you say the costumes were good enough people weren't sure. To me they're better than Planet of the Apes but then again the actors didn't have to read dialogue in them either.
All of the music comes from existing music, including the crazy choral stuff during the monolith sequences (composer: Ligeti.) But, particularly that first music is now mostly known because of this movie. (I know that piece and the waltz are both by a Strauss, but there were so many composers named Strauss, I'm not sure if they are the from the same one.)
React to the making of documentary. Lucas hired every special effects crew member he could from 2001. Imagine trying to film 15 computer screens and every one has an animated film projected behind it. HAL is the same black rectangle shape as the monolith with a movie camera lens as his "eye". A theory I love is the monolith represents a movie screen as is the same shape on its side. So movies evolve humans?!?! the iPhone purposely imitated the look of the monolith.
It’s so sad that it is so common among reactors, and racist, to be honest, to conclude without proof that Hal is evil. But beside that quibble, you did a very fine reaction. You’ll love looking at techniques Kubrick used, just magnificent! Cheers!
@@johnclawed Conditioning is certainly a part of the phenomenon. I shouldn't have labeled it as fully racist, but that is the accurate label for these premature judgments. None of us is immune from prejudice. But the lesson is that sentient beings deserve rights and trust. HAL is a mostly immobile creature (the exception being the pods), so is severely limited in his ability to test what he is told. He has been given contradictory orders as a plot vehicle to illustrate the importance of truth and trust among intelligent beings.
It is basicly a religious story, in my interpretation: the hand of an alien god thing affecting human history, and then transforming Dave into something more than human at the end. The 2010 film was just a dull run-of-the-mill modern scifi, without even trying to replicate the zero gravity effects of the original - give it a miss unless you really want some not-very-convincing concrete answers as to what 'actually happened'
If you want to know how it was made, there is an excellent series of videos here on RUclips by CinemaTyler about the making of 2001, highly recommended.
Heck, microprocessors weren’t even commercially available until 1971! And that first one, the Intel 4004, was only a four-bit processor. It could hardly even write the alphabet!
“How did they do that? How did they make this? “. Well, you have to realize this film was made about 150 years ago just after they invented film, actually they use birchbark for film back then. Special effects were very hard.… Seriously, you made a couple of good guesses, all totally wrong but good nonetheless. Go thou and watch 2010 if you want a few answers. By the way, all the music was from classical composers from the 19th century to just a few decades ago.
There's a fantastic book that covers the making of the film, it's well worth checking out. There's an audio version too. Kubrick has made several masterpieces, I recommend Paths of Glory and Barry Lyndon, reactors don't really do them.
You're guesses about how they did stuff is pretty good, they had some massive revolving sets. The production time was pretty long, it's way ahead of its time. Check out other sci-fi from the period, it doesn't compare.
The fact that this movie still holds up today, is a testimony to the vision of Kubrick and the phenomenal skill of his SFX team.
Great job on this. This movie blew my mind many years ago as a teen. My teacher took 5 minutes to talk to me about the ending, and I remember that more than anything from the class. It's my understanding that Dave was under the care of higher beings at the end. They had tried to read his brain to provide an environment he would understand, but the technology was imperfect, so he got that home, which seemed a mix of different human eras. Also, there was a higher gravity weightiness to the scene, like he was on a larger planet. I like the thoughts you added to the interpretation. And, as far as Im concerned, people can interpret how they want.
You did great! Everyone is confused the first time they see this movie. Subscribed and upvoted.
@26:19: "Good, there's 30 minutes left, I need information!" Me: "LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL"
Though, if you want to know what happens next, there's the fantastic Peter Hyams film "2010: The Year We Make Contact". Please react to it, if you have time!!
Make the time.
You are correct! It's a most excellent sequel.
I just recorded a reaction to it and will get to editing when I have the chance. Should be up before the end of next week! :)
@@davidpalmer7175 Read the book guys. You are missing out on a lot.
@@bubbles5b hell yeah!!! Hope you enjoyed it!!!!!!!
This is the best film ever made. I saw when I was a kid in the theater. I’ll never get tired of it and I’m still waiting for this to happen.
Yes, THIS is the movie that pretty much pioneered and revolutionized screen visuals of THIS kind. Star Wars pretty much just used the same kind of techniques and just applied them to a more action/adventure type story.
After this movie came out, practically no one in Hollywood would touch an outer space movie until Lucas came along. The original Star Trek was still in its original run and the producers felt shame and humiliation at their cheesy little TV show.
Roddenberry would later attempt a kind of revenge with his motionless picture but that's a whole 'nother story.
@@Lethgar_Smith Star Trek didn't look too bad for a TV SERIES in the SIXTIES though.
@@Lethgar_SmithSTAR TREK was/is great.
@@kunserndsittizen2655 Yes it is but the producers of the original Star Trek always struggled with getting the show to match their vision.
Again, Star Trek was TELEVISION (back THEN anyway) and 2001 ASO here was a THEATRICAL FILM, so there's THAT difference to consider when comparing them.
In the book, the monolith made the pre-human apes do various tasks to test their evolutionary potential and then tinkered with their DNA a bit
Instead of using an optical printer to combine separate film elements, Kubrick used a "held take" approach, exposing the same film negative multiple times, with areas blacked out for one shot that would be filled with content in another shot with the same negative.... which means that he had to wait months to see if the shot worked, since he wasn't developing the film between takes. That's one reason the space shots look so crisp. The movie took about three years to make, it's clearly a masterpiece of practical effects work.
And it wasn't just made before the Moon landing, but also before the first Jupiter fly-by. We had no idea what the Jupiter system looked like. In contrast to 2010, where we see detailed shots of Jupiter's moons.
@@miller-joelWe had telescopes' images of Jupiter, but coarse details of its various moons. Just keep away from Io (See 2010) !
@jimtrela7588 Europa is forbidden. Attempt no landing there.
Pre-production started in 1965 and the bulk of the movie was filmed between June 1966 to September '67. The sequel 2010: The Year We Make Contact is very good and answers many of the questions but is a mystery in itself.
watch you trying to figure this out at 27:31 and knowing what is coming , i am holding my breath with anticipation of your reaction, when the word got out about this scene people went in the theater stoned just to enhance the stoned effect on the big screen, and it worked, part 2 2010 the year we made contact tries a bit to explain more about this
I have to say reacting to 2001 is pretty ambitious for such a new channel, it's not an easy movie, bravo. A few notes, spheres are often used for spaceships because it is the most efficient way to maximize volume while minimizing surface area. There would be no issues in deep space for a long spindly ship like Discovery, it really should never have shear stress imposed upon it and has the advantage of keeping the drive section far away from the crew section. The sections of Discovery that were rotating were doing so to impose a pseudo gravity in the living section. The author Arthur C Clarke was a full fledged scientist (astronomer) who was the first to calculate geosynchronus orbits which are used by communication satellites today. Good job catching just how remarkable the special effects are especially for 1967 (the year it was filmed), as you say they still look great. This movie gave George Lucas the hope that he could actually make a great looking space movie, which he then did with Star Wars almost a decade later. As for being confused, you're supposed to be. Kubrick and Clarke would be proud of a job well done. If you are really interested I would suggest reading "The Lost Worlds of 2001" and as far as Dave being the only survivor, Odysseus was the only survivor of the Odyssey.
I am blown away by your comment on the food at 33:54 with which you were right on point! The whole movie people were „eating“ mushy artificial stuff with food coloring in the „futuristic technocratic part“ and at the end, Dave was shown actually enjoying a proper looking meal in an environment without any technical gobbledigook….
They didn't really know what Jupiter's moons look like close up back in 1968, so don't try to find any identifying features in those artists' renderings!
Still to this day, I would rather watch high-level practical effects over what still comes across as cartoonish from CGI.
My favorite all time film. First watched at the theatre in1968 at age 7, studied in Humanities class at age 14 and saw the 50th anniversary IMAX in 2018. While Clarke collaborated with Kubrick on the screen play and science, Clarke's vision of 2OO1 diverged from Kubrick's. The books and sequel (2010) don't necessarily give the correct answers.
Kubrick's brilliance (IMHO) is that 2OO1 is primarily art that touches on big BIG questions. How did Man evolve, will Man invent a tool greater than himself (HAL), are we alone and most significant, where are we going? What is the next step in evolution?
I enjoyed your pure first time reaction and am so glad you realized what a feat it was back in 1968. Timeless and still referenced and homaged today!
Since you noticed it, the sign about explosive bolts is a bit of foreshadowing, most people don't get that. However, explosive bolts and explosive actuated devices are very common on spacecraft and military aircraft.
No, the monolith had nothing to do with HAL. HAL is just a throwaway sub plot to make you question the "evolution" of AI and the possible consequences of AI. Is HAL actually "alive" or intelligent, or is he just a machine?
The big question is the monolith, or more importantly, who made it? God? Aliens? Are the aliens and God the same thing?
The monolith is explained in the book 2010.
Read the book. It pretty much explains everything. Plus it’s one of the best sci-fi novels ever written !
Yes, and there is a really cool pre-stargate sequence that isn't in the movie.
I read all the books when I was 10 and they blew my mind.
The book (written along while the film was made) is slightly different, though. Saturn substituted for Jupiter, for example.
@@jovetj because Trumbull was unable to make Saturn right in those years, he succeeded later for his film Silent Running.
Remember that in 1968, the idea of space travel was entirely new, so to have some exposure to the vast infinity, the eternity, the science of it, the possibilities of an unending frontier, was part of the goal of the filmmakers and the reason behind a lot of the choices in the script. We tend to forget that having been exposed to a lot more of the realities of space.
It wasn’t new, previous sci fi, Star Trek TOS, Forbidden Planet for example, and many others, no mention Jules Verne’s novel, foresaw a future of manned space exploration. Without Kubrick’s realism and quality of course.
People think to this day that the moon landing was staged by this director because this movie feels so realistic. However, the surface of the moon in this movie represents what scientist thought the moon surface would look like before we landed all the paintings looked like this movie, but the moon landing showed the surface looking different
Previous unmanned Apollo mission took photos of the surface of the Moon, 2001 space designer Brian Johnson (also of Space 1999, Star Wars, Alien…) updated his Moon land model according to the latest NASA pictures he received by mail. Check out the making of 2001, part 3, about the lunar surface:
ruclips.net/video/tCHcx5lAl7A/видео.html
The floating pen showing zero gravity was filmed using a glass panel with the pen sticked to it by a small piece of double adhesive tape. As the stewardess picked it up, you can see how she had to pluck it a tiny bit….😉
Regarding the shot in the living habitat of the Discovery, it was a huge spinning centrifuge set („hamster wheel“) with clever arranged camera points (fixed or spinning)
The wormhole travel scene was done completely optomechanically using slit screen projection (you have to look it up, it‘s too complicated to describe…)
The music is not "from" this movie.
When going from earth to the Stanford Torus aboard the Pan Am Space Clipper, and then going from the station to the moon in the Aries moon shuttle, you hear The Blue Danube waltz by Johan Strauss, composed in 1866. A waltz is for dancing, and the ships are dancing, get it?
The main theme has a more complex origin. Zarathustra was a prophet and philosopher in 600 BC Persia. He founded the Zoroastrian religion, and ancient Greek and Roman historians call him all kinds of things including "the inventor of magic." In 1885 the German philosopher Nietzsche wrote the book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" which was about Nietzsche's philosophy and was really totally different from the philosophy of Zarathustra. Anyway, in 1896 the German composer Richard Strauss (no relation to composer Johan Strauss above) composed a tone poem with the same title as Nietzsche's book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", which is the music you hear in the movie with 3 prominent notes repeated 3 times. Nietzsche's book spoke of 3 stages of man: primitive, modern, and the super man, and the 3 notes represent that. It plays in the movie each time mankind takes a step to the next stage, like when the monolith telepathically gives Moonwatcher the idea to use the bone as a weapon. Moonwatcher is then the first to move toward modern man. He throws the bone up and it symbolically transitions to the satellite, which is also a weapon because it is a nuclear weapons platform. The aliens later transition Dave Bowman to the next stage, a super man, in disembodied form (the image of the star child is merely symbolic, as is the fancy room at the end). And there is a higher purpose. Read the book 2010 for more, BEFORE the 2010 movie.
Finally, those 3 notes became the setting for the words "Take on Me" in the song by Aha, and that's how we went from a 6th century BC Persian prophet to New Wave.
Very good summary. Thanks.
Excellent summary. You should add that the "weird" monolith choral music was by a Hungarian composer named György Ligeti, and is called "Requiem." There are three other Ligeti pieces used in the movie: "Lux Aeterna" is heard during the moon bus flight, "Atmospheres" in the Stargate sequence (after Requiem fades out), and "Adventures" in the Hotel Room sequence at the end. This last one uses only some vocal parts and consists of some barely discernable sounds. You should look all these up and listen to them in their entirety.
@ Thanks. I've seen the name but I don't know his work. Even Richard Strauss is mostly too modern for me. I lean to the baroque.
@@johnclawed - If it's baroque, don't fix it.
the SFX were by the legendary Douglas Trumbull. check out the film he directed "Silent Running". another space based film made for a tenth of 2001's budget.
He made the light effects and planets, while Brian Johnson designed the starships and the Moon base for 2001, Space 1999 series and Star Wars, Alien…
The original story was near Saturn but Trumbull was unable to do it properly in those years so they did it near Jupiter, but he made it later for Silent Running the rings crossing scene you know…
Liquid Cheese? You mean fondue?
I saw this as a kid. Before Star Wars. It was mind blowing.
SEqual to this film helps to understand Hal
The black monolith was deliberately shaped to look like a blank cinema screen, and you'll find consistent visuals showing rectangles being rotated through 90 degrees, or intersecting with circles (representing eyes) as a hint as to how to think of them, also hinting at shifting your (the viewer's) perspective to get a better understanding - a little life lesson. The lore for the monoliths (from the books, written, essentially, after the film) is they are teaching devices that elevate intelligence. But, you'll see a lot of imagery pertaining to cinema itself, like the space station looking like a film reel, the trippy section having those weird fluids (made by dribbling film colourant into developing fluid) and that whole sequence follows the specific colour grading of the earlier film, as if Dave is figuratively being processed like film. The movie is a love letter to the transformative power of cinema on the human mind...with some subtle commentary thrown in on society, hierarchy and the not so benevolent powers that be.
People might tell you that the blank screen at the beginning was normal for older films, where it was there to allow people to find their seats before the movie started...but that is never physically included in the movies from those eras (just watch older films and you'll see that's true)...it's placed there deliberately, here, because you are watching a monolith (your screen) as it's about to expand your mind xD
Giving the audience time to quiet down is exactly the purpose of overtures before operas, so epic movies included them.
@@johnclawed they had music playing before the film, but they are not included or considered part of the film. If you watch any film from prior to this, the overture has not been kept. It was deliberately kept in with a piece of music that carries through the opening credits and title, on this film because it serves a narrative purpose. None of Kubrick's other films, prior or after kept an overture in as part of the feature...or any other release that you care to look up from that time.
It's hard to see but there is a spare helmet inside the airlock in a little alcove near the lever that closes the door. You can just barely see it as Dave is ricocheting back and forth in the airlock.
It's a bit of a cheat because, why would there be a helmet there? Just in case you forgot yours and the AI has gone crazy? It's kind of a plot hole because HAL could open a Pod Bay door and vacate the oxygen in the ship pretty quickly requiring Dave to have access to a helmet within seconds.
I get the impression that the writer(s) may have struggled with this sequence of events and make it seem logical but honestly, I think they could have skipped it - most people dont seem to question why HAL wasnt able to stop Dave considering how much control he had over the ship.
There could be hardware that prevents the doors from opening without first slowly de-pressurizing, so that would give you time.
There's actually an entire emergency space suit in the airlock. It's green (the industrial color for oxygen) while the other four are red, blue, and yellow. These are also the four colors used for the suits in George Pal's "Destination Moon" (probably not a coincidence).
I watched this as a kid and everyone thought we would be in space by year 2k. The internet and digital technology grew why every thing else stayed same or got worst like poor quality and making things to last and are citys all are now square flat ugly boxes.
I'm happy that you had the reaction you've had.
The sequel was based on a novel by the same author, so even though it’s a different director and not as magical, the science fiction content is just as mature as the science fiction in this movie so if you want to see a good science fiction movie based on a real science fiction novel written by a real Science fiction, writer Arthur Clark, 2010 is a perfectly good film. It’s not as overwhelmingly majestic as this film because no film will ever be this good but it’s definitely worth watching to see how you make a truly good science fiction movie
Watched live in theatre as a little kid. My dad was a rocket scientist. I really wanted to appreciate this. I did pretty much. Still living in this world
The mono lift on earth, was designed to give Man the evolutionary boost. The mono lift on the moon was placed there to a signal when Man finally achieved space light and the ability to find that mono lift, and that signal the entity that man has reached space
fun reaction ! youve probably looked this up by now but the main thinking about the plot is somethinig alont the lines that aliens left the first monolith on earth to facilitate the apes intelligence which is when the ape realises to use tools , and uses them first as a weapon before throwing it up into the sky where it cuts to thousands of years later where humans have now evolved to be able to do space the travel. the second monolith on the moon is then some kind of alarm system to the third monolith which is activated when the humans find it. Dave then flies into the third monolith where he is kept in a safe environment represented in his mind as a hotel room where by the end of it he is reborn as a new super intelligence as represented by the baby ! hope this helps
"I'm not okay with liquid cheese and liquid fish." Best comment ever on that scene. Stay awesome.
To answer some of your questions about the fx shots. The interior of the Discovery where he running around was indeed a rotating room, set designers built essentially a massive hamster wheel with the camera fixed to it.
The hyperspace shots at the end were done using a process called slit-scan. This was shot like stop-motion, frame by frame. There were holes And slits cut into dark material with a light source behind that and roll of coloured gels. The camera was mounted on a motorised track, the shutters would open, the camera would move towards the mask, the shutter would close. The camera would track back to the beginning and the colour gel roll would be moved and the process would start over. This is a simple explanation of the effect but it's the best I can do!
Watch 2010 for SOME answers.
Also because it's a great movie.
Yup! I got some! Just finished watching it and ill probably have the reaction up before the end of next week!
Actually 2010 doesn't really give you answers. That is it doesn't really give you the answers to Stanley Kubrick's movie. There are people like you that make that comment in all of these reactions and it's deceptive. Stanley Kubrick made his movie without having any plans that it should have a sequel at all. It's a stand-alone movie. 2010 is just an appendage.
@@grosbeak6130 It explains what happened to HAL. It explains what happened to Bowman. Etc. And Kubrick didn't write 2001. Kubrick AND Clarke wrote 2001.
@@miller-joel it explains all those things according to who? Yes Arthur c Clarke was involved with 2010. But 2001 was the visionary masterpiece and film of Stanley Kubrick who is most definitely a one of a kind in cinematic history. It was his baby and vision. Excuse the pun. Just like Stanley Kubrick change many many things that Arthur Ç Clarke wrote about in the original movie, one can only imagine what he would have changed in Arthur C Clarke's 2010. You see it's not all about giving answers and explanations, it's about a vision an artistry and a vision from a cinematic genius.
In answer to your question as to why is most of the food liquid or mushy, the answer is that in the early days of the American Space Program, it was theorized that solid foods would be difficult to digest in Zero Gravity, hence the liquids and the baby food you see.
That's why they're enjoying so much those sandwiches, probably brought along as "contreband".
Fun fact, the famous instant "orange juice" in flavor crystals which have a certain tang to them was created for the space program! It was actually marketed as such throughout the 60's and 70's.
On the moon, or flying just above it like an airplane, there is gravity, so they can eat normal food, and even drink coffee.
great reaction :)
I don't know if you made the connection but after being deactivated the message that was played about only HAL knew what the mission was. Because of this, the human crew, THINKING they knew what the mission was, felt that deactivating HAL was an option. HAL, being the ONLY one that knew what the mission was, could not let them do that as it would result in mission failure.
I don't consider HAL evil, he was just put in a shitty position. He even tried to warn Dave by trying to get him to question the strangeness of the mission. When Dave dismissed the issue, the path was set.
I guess he was right. It was down to human error.
I did have the realization when I was editing the reaction of Hal purposefully showing Dave the message. It wasn't auto played, Hal did it as his last act so the mission could continue. This movie has been stuck in my head for a whole week! It was so good!
@@garavonhoiwkenzoiber As explained in 2010, HAL was given contradictory orders and told to lie, which he was not programmed to do, so he went "crazy." He was not "thinking" rationally, he was malfunctioning as a result of those orders.
@@bubbles5b I think it was auto-play because he was already deactivated, and they had arrived at Jupiter.
@@miller-joel Yes but the book just explains it. The mission planners were no more evil than HAL was, but the movie has a silly judgemental take on it.
@ The politicians were arrogant and ignorant, and did this without knowing how HAL would react. They didn't care. They only cared about secrecy, containing information, etc. Imagine keeping the commander of the mission in the dark.
This movie seemed to be able to peer into the future. The fact that there are two guys with what appear to be iPads on the table blows my mind . We didn't even have desktop computers until the 1980s. The fact that they were using video calls that look very much like the video calls that we use today. At LAX I use the machine in customs that was just like the video call machine he used to talk to his daughter. Little things too like com displayed on one of the computer screens ATM on another both of those didn't mean anything in the '60s They predicted a lot of science eventually.
Wow I didn't even think of that while watching because it's all common technology today, but that's true that they wouldn't know that's what technology would actually become. I keep finding more things out about this movie that makes it even cooler
The first sci-fi special effects masterpiece is METROPOLIS in 1927. The robot inspired C-3PO and influenced 90% of he science fiction of the 80s, especially Blade Runner. Kino remastered Metropolis with newly found footage for the most complete beautiful print. 🌙
Landmark film. Saw it at UCLA in 1969. Guest speaker was...Fritz Lang.
Le Voyage dans la Lune (The Trip to the Moon), 1902. It has everything.
There are countless homages to this film. The pen floating was done with a piece of glass and double-sided tape.
Theaters had intermissions for bathroom breaks and trips to the concession stands. When I was a kid this was common. By the time I was in junior high, they were phased out (mid to late 70s, somewhere in there). I'm in the US (southwest missouri) for reference.
this was mindbending for the audience at the time
Subscribed just you did 2001 and 2010 and enjoyed your reaction!
If you're a real science fiction fan, see Silent Running (1972) next. It has a thin plot so it isn't great by itself, but it's an important milestone. The FX man from 2001, Douglas Trumbull, was the director of Silent Running. 2001 was supposed to be a trip to Saturn (it is in the book), but Trumbull couldn't get the rings to look right so it was changed to Jupiter. Then he figured it out so, as director, he made sure to put Saturn into Silent Running. John Dykstra did FX for Silent Running and then Star Wars. Also, the droids in Silent Running are prototypes for R2D2, and since it was filmed on a scrap aircraft carrier, it was the first movie to depict spaceships with heavy doors and ship-like interiors. So Silent Running connects 2001 to Star Wars, which are opposite extremes.
Cool! Yeah someone else also mentioned Silent Running and I definitely will watch that next.
Correct on all points, but in SR they're "drones," not "droids."
You’re the only person reacting to this movie realized that David Bowman is forced to kill a friend
Since you were so interested in the effects, I'd recommend Silent Running from 1972, which was directed by the person who did the effects here and had scenes they wanted to do in 2001 but couldn't make work at the time.
Oh cool! I'll definitely have to give it a watch at some point.
@@moopet8036 Silent Running is my favorite for the music contribution of Peter Schickele “PDQ Bach” and Joan Baez.
Bruce Dern was awesome in that movie. They filmed it on a decommissioned aircraft carrier.
@@bubbles5b Be warned, it'll leave you sobbing at the end. Well, it hit ME that way when I saw it on TV around 1973, maybe '74. Then again, I definitely wear my emotions on my sleeves when it comes to movies.
@@Redfern42 Oh no. I get super emotional to movies and shows, but that makes me even more excited to watch it!
I saw "2001: A Space Odyssey" in an ex-Cinerama theater in 1968. It was an audiovisual Experience! It is interesting to hear a young viewer comment on this "ancient Hard Science Fiction" movie. Back then, all we had to go on was Arthur C. Clark's novelization and whatever past experiences he had until then. It was a trip from our distant past, into the near-present day, on to the positively, far out future.
The title theme is a piece of classical music called Also Sprach Zarathustra (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) by German composer Richard Strauss. It was composed in 1896 and inspired by Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophical work of the same name. When the music appeared in 2001 it became much more famous.
Ship at 10:50 looks like the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy kind of.
I enjoyed your reaction.The ending of the movie was never meant to give a clear explanation for the events, yet I feel you have a pretty good understanding of this movie.
Explosive bolts have been used on the canopies of fighter jets since the 50s as part of the "ejector seat" system. If they'd been used on the hatch of the Apollo One spacecraft a year before this movie was released it might have saved the lives of those astronauts. All three on board died when a fire broke out in the capsule and there was no quick way to get them out.
The opening music, “Also sprach Zarathustra” was written in 1896 by Richard Strauss but has become most closely identified with this movie. A very large rotating stage structure was built for the scenes inside the Discovery with a camera running in a track on the floor for the jogging scene. The film was based on a short story by Arthur C. Clarke called The Sentinel. The monolith is a tool used by the alien species to alter and influence the minds of the proto-humans to evolve. The one on the moon is pretty much an alarm or doorbell (a sentinel) to let those aliens know that their experiment has reached a point where those humans have the technology to travel to another heavenly body and discover it. Hal isn’t really evil, he’s an entity of logic and he’s been given conflicting orders and programming that he must try to interpret, something that isn’t really made clear. The ending isn’t as enigmatic as it seems. Dave is drawn into a stargate or wormhole opened by the third monolith and is transported to another part of the universe where he’s placed in an artificial environment constructed from memories of a hotel room he once stayed in. Time has no meaning there and he’s transformed into another form of existence, the Starchild. The meaning and purpose of the Starchild are very open to interpretation. Initially Kubrick intended to show the aliens but couldn’t come up with a design that he liked so the decision was made to not show them at all but simply imply their existence. In the accompanying book by Clarke it’s stated that the alien species has evolved to the point of being pure energy and no longer have a physical form. This movie has been confusing and intriguing people for over fifty years and has been my favourite film since it came out when I was ten years old. The sequel is worth watching and is enjoyable and will answer a lot of questions but it’s not at the same level and was not made by or authorized by Kubrick. It’s always nice to see new generations of people discover this movie.
Sorry for the length but I actually could have gone on for much longer so you’re lucky😉
@@robertpearson8798 No, thank you! So much of this movie interested me a lot so thanks for answering a lot of my questions I had. I definitely see why so many people love it and I'll probably watch the sequel at some point in the future if I desire more answers.
I saw this as an elementary school trip. Leaving the theater was one of the most what the heck did I just see. It was one of the most formidable stories in my life.
@@CB-ju4mz That's super cool. I feel that I would not understand anything if I first watched this in elementary school. Probably would stick with me a lot though.
Good overview. I saw this as an 8th grader in Cinerama during its initial run. It was the first movie I obsessed over, eagerly awaiting its release after reading about its production in a Weekly Reader about a year prior. The ending went over my head. I kind of wish I'd seen it for the first time as an adult. 2010 is good too, although on a completely different artistic level. I hope someone makes a movie of 2061.
The song is part of Richard Strauss's Also Sprach Zarathustra, first performed in 1896.
^
Arthur C. Clarke on knowing all the answers after watching the movie: "If you understand 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we have answered. Beyond wisdom there must be foresight. You know that's really the end of the line.
Not only was he basically killing his friend, he was doing it slowly, while listening to him beg for his life.
Not killing it, but slowly turning its higher brain functions off.
Yes, Bowman was taking HAL apart a piece at a time and listening to him dying step by step... 😢
@NuclearFridge1 Not dying. Disconnecting his higher brain functions. Obviously, HAL was reactivated and restored to full functionality by Chandra.
@@miller-joel Way to spoil things. It’s not obvious because it was not in this movie.
@@johnmiller7682 Get a grip.
One of my favorite movies of all time to this day. Since you love the "behind the scenes" stuff ("how did they do that??"), you should check out one of the many books and "making of" videos out there. Kubrick was really ahead of his time in a lot of ways, and on his own in many others. He was a deep thinker, an iconoclast, a true auteur. He worked very closely with Arthur C. Clarke, a famous sci-fi author of the day to adapt one of his novels ("The Sentinel") into this movie. They would meet and talk for hours and hours about it. But they writing the script almost from scratch, using some themes from "The Sentinel," but the rest being original ideas. Back in those days, especially in England, where this was filmed, movie props were often reused in future TV shows and movies. Especially expensive ones like Kubrick had made. Kubrick was determined not to see any of his movie props turn up in future productions, though, so he had most of them destroyed! Of course, some things were spared (like a monkey suit, a space suit, and some other things), but none of the pods, nor Space Station V, the moon bus, etc. survived. Supposedly, remnants of Space Station V and one pod turned up in crates in front of a closed scrapyard, but it was quickly taken by locals and never seen again. About the only big prop that miraculously survived was the Aries 1B space transport (the bubble-shaped vehicle that took Dr. Floyd from the station to the Moon). Kubrick, for some reason, gave it to an art teacher friend in Hertfordshire, England, who kept it for 40 years. After the guy died, his kids discovered it. It was won at auction by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for their new museum.
Oh, BTW, the black alien object is called The Monolith. An obelisk is a tall, tapered column like you see in ancient Egypt. 😉
Japan's NHK has broadcast it in 8k several times over the past six years.
Yes, you were right with that opening „song“ meaning you could have heard it, since it was introduced publically by its composer Richard Strauss 1895 (96?): „thus spoke Zarathustra“.
good times! The book is more specific, but the movie makes you want to understand. Think advance in intelligence from the man apes to humans, then when we become space faring species, the monolith sends us to Jupiter where we advance from human to star child, at least dave does, then he is back overseeing earth to bring us forward.
pretty much every similarity with other films / games etc that you notice are completely the other way round. 2001 created them and everyone else copied them so much that they have almost become cliches
The space designer was Brian Johnson, who designed Space 1999, Star Wars, Alien…
Well done reaction channel.
If you ever get the chance to see this in 70mm film...
This movie absolutely stands on its own. You don’t need to watch the sequel. None of us thought they’d ever be a sequel even after the author wrote the sequel.
There's a great "Making of" documentary on RUclips that explains how they got a lot of the shots: "2001: Creating Kubrick's Space Odyssey"
ruclips.net/video/I-Jfl88JV_A/видео.html
The monolith near Jupiter is much bigger than the one on the moon. Dave couldn't bring it inside his ship because it is bigger than the ship.
Do not watch 2010 until you've read the book. The book and movie 2001 were written together and are not very different. The book tells you the names of things and gives a little explanation, but it's also explained in the book 2010. The movie 2010 simply sucks because it cuts out hugely important parts and revelations, and is dumbed down and unscientific in one part. People say it's great because they never read it and don't know what they missed, but the movie ruins it if you see it first. It's a real shame because the biggest part they cut would have been the best part visually.
The original short story that grew into 2001, "The Sentinel", was re-published in "The Lost Worlds of 2001" which is a "making of 2001" book.
Ah, unfortunately I did already watch it and react to it, but haven't finished editing. I'll probably read the book still at some point because I am interested.
I'm glad that when Dave was deactivating HAL you actually took some time to SHUT UP AND ACTUALLY WATCH THE MOVIE!!!
Here’s how we know this can’t be CGI. The film has shots of actual computer screens with actual advanced computer graphics for 1968 and that is the best we could do at that time. It’s wild, but there’s an AI in the movie yet. The computer graphics are so primitive so we didn’t have computer graphics to generate cool computer screens.
Worse than that, even though those wireframe graphics you're referring to were the best computers could create at the time, they couldn't do it fast enough for the movie, so the individual renders had to be photographed and re-filmed on an animation stand.
32:00 -ish ... only now yer scared? Watching this at a young age I was absolutely terrified by this movie and earlier in the movie. I watched "Collective Learning" Channel talk about the Horror aspect,
The Fear of the Void
and I now realized what terrified me so much.
This film is timewise closer to Psycho than to the first Star Wars movie.
The sequel is a really good movie, it's not a ground breaking classic phenomena like this one although it's one hell of a lot easier to understand.
You will see Jupiter, Io and Europa in the 1984 Hyams-Clarke sequel 2010 The Year We Make Contact
Brian Johnson designed the starships and the Moon base for 2001: A Space Odyssey, and for the tv series Space: 1999, and for other movies Star Wars, Alien… this is the reason why they look familiar, he shaped the world of space sci-fi.
I'm going to assume this is not the same Brian Johnson who's the lead singer for AC/DC.
@ no 😁
2001 making of, p3
ruclips.net/video/tCHcx5lAl7A/видео.html
S1999
ruclips.net/video/mQ2lIcY7VDg/видео.html
You’re going to appreciate your decision to watch 2001 very early on as you start watching other science fiction movies, especially Interstellar (2014) in particular.
It’s common for people who explore the past to make anachronistic statements such as,“oh, this is just like Star Wars” or “this is just like that video game” because you’re trying to relate things you’re only now seeing for the first time with things you’re already familiar with. But the chronologically-correct statement should be “oh, this is where Star Wars must’ve gotten its inspiration from” or “that might’ve been the inspiration for the video game designers”.
I’m making this point because as you watch Interstellar and a whole lot of other science fiction movies, you should be able to notice 2001’s huge influence on cinematography, special effects, industrial design, ‘hard’ science fiction in movies and books, and so forth. This movie influenced many people in the film industry and beyond for many decades afterwards.
I hope you enjoy the ride!
The song "Also Sprach Zarathustra," was written by Richard Strauss and first performed in 1896.
"It's a phone like object." The funny thing that's pretty much how people reacted to the debut of the first smart phone.
I wish the dimensions of my phone were exactly, to the highest possible human measurement accuracy, 1 by 4 by 9, the squares of the first three integers, but then humans would "naively assume the sequence ended there, in only three dimensions." (Read 2010 if you haven't.)
Whatever your interpretation of this film is, it's 100% correct and also absolutely wrong.
Exactly right! That’s what makes this film so incredible and timeless.
How was this made? Very Carefully 😂
No computer graphics in 1969 either, so how they do the graphics on the monitors of the spaceships?
Those were all (16 mm?) movie projectors. Computer animation was not possible with the power of computers of that time, so the screens were committed to film one frame st a time.
I heard a rumor that 2001 wasn't nominated in 1969 for costume design but Planet of the Apes was, because the Academy voters weren't sure if Kubrick just didn't train real chimpanzees.
Both Kubrick and Clarke were pissed that it didn't win because as you say the costumes were good enough people weren't sure. To me they're better than Planet of the Apes but then again the actors didn't have to read dialogue in them either.
All of the music comes from existing music, including the crazy choral stuff during the monolith sequences (composer: Ligeti.) But, particularly that first music is now mostly known because of this movie. (I know that piece and the waltz are both by a Strauss, but there were so many composers named Strauss, I'm not sure if they are the from the same one.)
Also Sprach Zarathustra is by Richard Strauss. Blue Danube waltz is by Johann Strauss. No relation.
@ Thanks, could have looked it up, but was feeling lazy. Had a feeling they were two different Strausses.
React to the making of documentary. Lucas hired every special effects crew member he could from 2001. Imagine trying to film 15 computer screens and every one has an animated film projected behind it. HAL is the same black rectangle shape as the monolith with a movie camera lens as his "eye". A theory I love is the monolith represents a movie screen as is the same shape on its side. So movies evolve humans?!?! the iPhone purposely imitated the look of the monolith.
Never forget... Wherever WE go, WE are the Aliens.
6:00 the escape pod from STAR WARS was made with a KFC bucket
It’s so sad that it is so common among reactors, and racist, to be honest, to conclude without proof that Hal is evil. But beside that quibble, you did a very fine reaction. You’ll love looking at techniques Kubrick used, just magnificent! Cheers!
Yes, but it's not racism that makes people see HAL as evil. It's conditioning from more typical movies that use simplistic motives.
@@johnclawed Conditioning is certainly a part of the phenomenon. I shouldn't have labeled it as fully racist, but that is the accurate label for these premature judgments. None of us is immune from prejudice. But the lesson is that sentient beings deserve rights and trust. HAL is a mostly immobile creature (the exception being the pods), so is severely limited in his ability to test what he is told. He has been given contradictory orders as a plot vehicle to illustrate the importance of truth and trust among intelligent beings.
It is basicly a religious story, in my interpretation: the hand of an alien god thing affecting human history, and then transforming Dave into something more than human at the end. The 2010 film was just a dull run-of-the-mill modern scifi, without even trying to replicate the zero gravity effects of the original - give it a miss unless you really want some not-very-convincing concrete answers as to what 'actually happened'
If you want to know how it was made, there is an excellent series of videos here on RUclips by CinemaTyler about the making of 2001, highly recommended.
"I'm intrigued. I need information."
Prepare for disappointment on that score. Entertainment, yes... information, not so much! ;)
It was impossible to shoot this movie with the technology they had in 1968, so they actually shot it in space...
No CGI in 1968.
Heck, microprocessors weren’t even commercially available until 1971! And that first one, the Intel 4004, was only a four-bit processor. It could hardly even write the alphabet!
Great reaction. Thank you. I think you might enjoy Kubrick's satirical comedy about war and masculinity, Doctor Strangelove from 1964.
👍👍👍
Every time you said "I don't get it," means you got it.
HAL is one letter off from IBM alphabetically.
“I’m intrigued I need more information”
How about all the information are you ready for that?
“How did they do that? How did they make this? “. Well, you have to realize this film was made about 150 years ago just after they invented film, actually they use birchbark for film back then. Special effects were very hard.…
Seriously, you made a couple of good guesses, all totally wrong but good nonetheless. Go thou and watch 2010 if you want a few answers. By the way, all the music was from classical composers from the 19th century to just a few decades ago.
Actually, production was started in 1965.
Ha! Same year I was born... I learned something here! 😊
Well they did get to the moon in 1969.
Before science fiction was for selling toys..
And before people thought comic book superheroes were science fiction.
@johnclawed
Asimov didn't create Superman
There's a fantastic book that covers the making of the film, it's well worth checking out. There's an audio version too. Kubrick has made several masterpieces, I recommend Paths of Glory and Barry Lyndon, reactors don't really do them.
You're guesses about how they did stuff is pretty good, they had some massive revolving sets. The production time was pretty long, it's way ahead of its time. Check out other sci-fi from the period, it doesn't compare.
34:32 The reaction everyone has by the end 😅😅