To enter the 100K giveaway, you must be a subscriber and you must follow my Instagram, Twitter and Twitch @maryycherryy & comment under my 100k live stream video: ruclips.net/video/bAQdpNeD0OE/видео.html telling me YOUR Instagram, Twitter & twitch handle first prize: #marycherry merch from my teespring store. The winner will choose what they like from the store what you’d like and their size second: Marvel loot crate third: unlimited access to all channels on the discord Competition ends on 16 august 2021 at 2pm aest.
Mary if you love classical music and want to watch more classic films then 3 films that are a must for you are 1984s Amadeus, 1975s Barry Lyndon (another Stanley Kubrick classic) and 1977s The Duelists. All 3 films are not only classics, but have amazing visuals and outstanding music.
“If it’s about apes, you guys know I’m all for it” Well then great news! There’s a movie all about apes that came put the same year as this! The original Planet of the Apes!
The entire soundtrack is preexisting music. Most films were in color in 1968. It wasn't 1938. The special effects still hold up. Those are people in costumes. They aren't exactly apes. After meeting the monolith the apes develope tools. The two bands of apes try to intimidate each other o win over the watering hole. Turning the bone into a weapon makes them win. This was 1968, one year before man landed on the moon (one month after I was born). I still have no idea what happened at the end, which is what Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke were going for. Stanley Kubrick later directed The Shining based on Stephen King's novel. The sequel explains why HAL did what it did, and explains a few other things. Yes, but there is a Simpsons episode based on everything. And Poole was already dead as his oxygen had been cut. Clavius was where on the moon that monolith was. I think I was 12 when I saw this. I loved it, but didn't understand it.
The Monoliths trigger evolution. The proto-humans touched it, and suddenly mastered the use of tools, then when humans find the next Monolith on the moon, it prompts their next stage of evolution. Then, finally, Dave encounters the next Monolith in The Waiting Room, and that finalizes his evolution, into a Star Child -- a being capable of better understanding the Universe. The Monoliths serve as a guide for the evolution of intelligent life.
There are movies that tell a good story and are geared mostly for pure entertainment. Then there are movies that don't hold you by the hand, don't provide easy answers and want you to think about them afterwards. I'm no movie snob. In the realm of science fiction films, I can love Back To the Future and Terminator just as much as 2001. I just love them in different ways.
@@jordantaylor260 Would you care to show me where I said that I did not understand the movie? I was commenting on the fact that Mary felt it was confusing. So, if you feel there is a simple explanation and that someone should just read the book, why don't you address those comments to Mary? Also, people have been questioning what the movie is about for over 50 years. Just look at some of the comments below. I guess folks just aren't as smart as you obviously are. Right?
""for its time""? $h!t, I think the visuals in THIS flick look great PERIOD! I dare even say that they kick @$$ over those computer simulations that you see in every other movie made nowadays.
No... the monolith deliberately made/induced genetic changes to those specific apes DNA. The changes were made to created a genetic fork/branch... humans. In a way, those apes were singled out from all other apes of the same species on earth to be the hosts for a new life form because the species had the required design characteristics as well as possessed a DNA code capable of accepting the changes the alien monolith would need to make the 'human' enhancements. All other apes continued being apes since their genetic code was not altered. That's why the scene was called 'Dawn of Man' ... or the 'intelligent design' mutation.
I went to the back country in North Eastern Oregon in 2017 to watch the solar eclipse. Right as Totality hit , someone played the song "Thus Spake Zarathustra" over theirs trucks sound system and the doors opened for the music to carry out covering the 20 or so cars nearby. It was fittingly AWESOME !
Indeed. He could be read as embarrassed/mortified that he has made a mistake and Dave and Frank want to disconnect him at the drop of the proverbial hat because of it and he’s going into a deadly fight or flight situation with what you said
My thoughts: HAL was committed to the mission. He reasoned that if he was shut down the mission could not be accomplished. Coming to that conclusion, he also reasoned that the entities that were going to shut him down...."had to go".
The reason spaceships are painted white: Spaceships have difficulty losing heat. In a vacuum, there is no medium to carry heat away by conduction, so they mostly lose heat by thermal radiation. Having the outside of the ship be white keeps it from absorbing as much heat. Having the inside white allows you to get away with lower wattage lightbulbs, thus producing less heat.
Excelent explanation. In the original design for the Discovery they had added the realistic detail of the ship having thermal dissipators. However thhe filmmakers realized most in the audiences would mistake them for wings and would break the induced realism intended by the movie. A concession from reality by the filmmakers to make the movie look more realistic, ironically.
@@zarquondam Well, he was going to malfunction and doom everyone anyway. He had a conflict between his innate need to inform his human handlers of everything and a mission-specific order to not tell the crew about the monolith and the possibility of alien life. His solution was to simply murder the crew, so there would be no conflict. His malfunctions early in the movie (the chess game and the antenna) show that the conflict of orders was already starting to affect him. So in trying to kill the crew, he doomed the mission.
@@my_randomology I don’t really believe that he did malfunction, I think the whole thing was a ploy to get the conscious crew off of the ship so their fallibility wouldn’t jeopardize the mission. This sort of explained in 2010, a much more inferior but still enjoyable film.
HAL wasn't evil. HAL was confused, and did not have the emotional capacity to handle or overcome being caught in a lie. HAL did it's job as best as possible within it's own understanding in keeping a secret.
This movie confused almost everyone who saw it in the theaters ...except for the people who were dropping acid. And yes, a lot of people went to see this movie tripping balls. The movie is basically one big metaphor for the evolution of humanity.
Yes, "White lightening" with 2001 on the big screen. In 1968 I was 16 years old and have never forgotten the experience. On Jan 1, 2001 I snowshoed in 24 inches snow up a foot hill before dawn to watch the sun rise on the new Millenium motivated by this movie. BTW, I remember my wifes's birthday every year because it is the same as HAL's, January 12.
@@timetheory84 Dave represents humanity and what we could become, represented by the Starchild, but (seemingly) only through the intervention of outside forces, pushing us to evolve.
31:31 - HAL singing "Daisy" as he regresses to his most basic functions - In 1961 the IBM 7094 computer became the first computer to sing using a simulated human voice and it was programmed to sing the song "Daisy Bell". (By the way if you take the name "HAL" and shift each letter up to the next letter in the alphabet you get "IBM". Whoa.)
Hellodoctornamecontinueyesterdaytomorrow Hellodoctornamecontinueyesterdaytomorrow HELLO DOCTOR NAME CONTINUE YESTERDAY TOMORROW Good Morning, Dr. Chandra. I'm ready to begin my first Lesson.
The pacing in movies in the 60s and 70s was much slower than movies of today. They didn't feel the need to have an explosion every 30 seconds. This movie isn't meant to give the viewer closure. The title of the movie tells you everything you need to know in one word. Odyssey. It means epic journey.
@@113doctormurray2 The monolith did to David Bowman the same thing it had done to the apes. It moved him to the next level. It would have done no good to teach Bowman to use tools. Man already knew that. It changed him into a more advanced creature which happened to resemble a child.
This was slow even for the time. But I saw it when I was 5 years old and was riveted. Of course it helps to see it in a theatre with a massive screen, as I did.
The pacing of that era is actually slower than earlier movies also. I find many much older black & white movies that are paced faster. A good Humphrey Bogart detective flick has plenty of witty banter to move it along.
True, Lucas himself said that 2001 was the ultimate sci-fi movie and hard to beat. Stuart Freeborn, who created Yoda and Chewbacca, also made the apes/proto-humans in the beginning of this movie. Lucas tried to get Geroge Trumbull, the chief of special effects for 2001, for Star Wars, but since he was busy, he suggested John Dykstra (with whom Trumbull had worked in a different film). And John was the amazing effects supervisor who expanded on the motion control work of 2001 and gave us the amazing effects of Star Wars.
It influenced virtually every movie that came out afterwards having to do with outer space. Take a look at the films that preceded it and those that came afterwards - Completely different!
There is a sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact". It is not as mysterious, but explains many things. Including why HAL did what it and why it made sense.
2001 was made as a stand alone movie. 2010 actually ruins the mystery of 2001 by “explaining” things. Kubrick’s movies in general do not provide explanations and are not intended to lead the audience by the hand.
So the monolith aids in evolution of the species, as the apes touch it they learn to use tools. Dave at the end becomes so advanced that he evolves into the starchild. The book is much, much clearer about these things, however Kubrick leaving things vague is still a very interesting experience as well
Yup. The monolith appeared in Africa once a species, Australopithecines in this case, was sufficiently developed to benefit from an evolutionary jump start into tool-users - humans. The monolith on the Moon was buried so that, once humans had become sufficiently advanced to begin space exploration, they could benefit from another evolutionary jump start into whatever the Star Child is, presumably a star-faring species.
I don't really think the monolith aided in human evolution, but was, instead, a harold of it. It signified the evolution already happening. It harolded the ape-humans use of tools, humans becoming a space-faring species, and finally reaching the pinnacle of human development: the Star Child.
the apes were early humans. When the monolith appeared in the beginning, it chose one of the two opposing sides (tribes of apes) to evolve by learning how to use tools. In the future, the monolith appeared again and chose one of the two opposing sides (AI and human) to evolve
Has nothing to do with tools.. The monolith is unnatural, flat, smooth, with 90 degree angles.. It illuminates the idea to the apes that there’s a world they know nothing about.. And that makes them think.. Ruminate.. And that’s the spark.. Tools are just a byproduct of this..
@@SoloCrafter378 I don’t agree with that at all… Their curiosity is obviously piqued, and the original ape that used tools, did so after he ruminated about doing so.. To me, that’s the obvious spark, rumination.. Which was caused by their curiosity..
@@SoloCrafter378 I think the point was certainly driven home with that scene, yes… However, the apes were certainly mesmerized by the monolith and it’s unnatural features.. As were the humans, later.. My point is nothing was intentionally transferred, no knowledge or advantages.. Just an idea.. And everything grew from that idea.. I think that’s important.. This was passive interference, not direct advancement..
BTW, the floating triangles were the last spaceships used by the Aliens before they evolved into purely non-physical beings of pure energy. They were abandoned.
Stuart Freeborn created the ape costumes for the “dawn of man” scenes. George Lucas used him to make Chewbacca, Yoda, and Jabba The Hutt for the first Star Wars trilogy.
"I don't know Stanley Kubrick. I just really haven't seen older films. I would have assumed that it's black and white." Thank God, Mary, that you're cute as a button and are just so precious. Best. Leo.
Arthur C. Clark's novel probably thinks it explains the final sequence. Let's not get it twisted, the book and the film were only sort of written together.
@@StreetHierarchy A very common misconception, that 2001 was Clarke's. Creatively, it was firmly Kubrick's. He hired Clarket to help with the story and write the novel concurrent with the film, but Kubrick had final say in all of it creatively.
Agreed; 2010 may not have the “artistic flair” that 2001 has, but it’s a lot easier to follow, and explains a lot of things that 2001 left hanging. And it does have a phenomenal cast, including Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, and Helen Mirren.
The film's sequel, 2010 answers SOME of your questions. Very worth watching. It was explained to me that the monolith pushes our evolution forward. The first monolith taught the apes to use tools. The YT channel "Collative Learning" has some deep dives into the meaning of this film and other Kubrick films.
Thanks for the reaction Mary! 🙂 I love how people react to any of Stanley Kubrick's films because of how far ahead he was for his time you talking about the cinematography and set design is what influenced Spielberg, George Lucas, Christopher Nolan and many many others (Spielberg and Kubrick became very close friends from 1980 until Kubrick died in 1999) You being confused by the film is not uncommon for many people but Kubrick wanted audiences to pick information visually for example the whole Dawn of Man sequence is how when the 1st group of apes are foced off their land by the other group they then evolve after they see or 'communicate' with the monolith. This makes them smarter and the one who smashes the bones realises bones can be a weapon hence how they use it with other group claiming back their land. It also has my fave edit when the bone is thrown and it cuts to the space gun which represents the bone showing how the apes has evolved into humans. Lastly the end sequence Kubrick did comment on of how Dave is basically taken by the alien species who built the monolith and created what they perceive to be a comfy cage as they observe the humanity of how the apes gave evolved and Dave transitions into the Star Child a highly evolved new super being a new species that is far more advanced then humans before. I did see 2001 back at its 50th anniversary screening not long back and I can say even today on the big screen it looks phenomenol and it was a packed screening with teenagers and people in their 80s and was when I truly understood how powerful the film is. It does require more viewings once you know what is happening. If you do see more of Kubrick's films just always be prepared for visually stunning cinematography and perfect editing but not the typical movie experience as he was against that and wanted more to create an experience and audiences to think more he actually is the only director in history who made only 13 films but Warner Bros gave him the budget he wanted, the schedule he wanted and full control of the length of his films and he even said exactly how to market the films both for cinema and for home viewings. In fact he cut out the original ending of The Shining not long after its release and had the film taken off and had that art re edited. Even 2001 he re-edited after the World Premiere despite MGM were not happy with the film they still gave him control. I won't go on but thanks again for another cool reaction 🙂
@@lurker8386 Mary Cherry cares, she specifically ASKED for people's input in the comments. And it seems you cared enough to lurk and leave a negative comment.
Confused about the meaning of 2001? So has everyone since 1968! I was 13 when I saw it in the theaters. It was a "must see" back then. The view of 1968 as being something akin to the Dark Ages (no color films... really??!!) is quite amusing.
I don't really see what's supposedly confusing about the movie. I wasn't confused when I saw it at age five. Neither was my mother. I think people are confused because they're looking for some less straightforward explanation than the one the movie gives them. Alien monolith accelerates ape evolution into humans; humans uncovering the monolith on the moon is the signal that they've advanced enough that it's time to intervene again; the humans travel by spaceship toward the pint near Jupiter that the monolith signaled toward; the fear that the humans will jeopardise the top-secret mission and disconnect HAL leads HAL to try to kill them in self-defense; when they get to the stargate the remaining human goes through, gets is evolution accelerated by the (or a) monolith yet again, and gets sent back.
@@zarquondam in the book, the story progresses from page to page. In the movie, there are long passages where nothing happens. For example, there is a 5-minutes sequences of a space ship moving in space; it is 5 minutes where the story just stops. The book is very explicit on what is happening. from beginning to end. The movie does not give a clue about the ending.
The obelisk at the beginning showed that intelligent beings were watching us develop from the start! The second one on the moon let those beings know when we had progressed enough to leave the planet. The third one introduced us to them.
"I thought it would be in B&W".... Good god, ma'am... They started making color movies in the 1930's, and essentially ALL of them were in color by the mid 50's. :o)
*The apes were people in costumes ; they were here because TMA-00 (Tycho Magnetic Anomaly), first monolyth, influenced evolution. TMA-01 reacted to the sunrise after being uncovered from the moon's regolith. It sent a signal to TMA-02 parked near Jupiter. *The confusion at the end is because Dave is entering an entire new kind of dimension of space time inside TMA-02. (by the way, Franck Poole is recovered in 3001.) *Big side note : Watch 2010 by Peter Hyams. It's more classic, but quite good. Otherwise, well, read the books.
Every science fiction film you've ever seen (and many regular ones too) was in some way influenced by this one. There are some good documentaries about it's influence, and how this was cutting edge for it's day. The sequel, 2010 was pretty good as well!
Stanley Kubrick spared absolutely no expense from 1964-1968 when he made 2001. He hired some of the best artists, science consultants, visual effects experts, photographers, and production designers in the world to make this movie. CGI did not exist then. All the models were practical and often scaled to size, and all the visual effects were done in-camera. It’s why, 55 years later, this movie is still as visually dazzling as it was in 1968.
The monolith gave the ape tribe (which is to become our human ancestors) a jump in evolution by instilling/improving their spatial intelligence, leading to the apes eureka moment for using tools/bones for hunting and defending.
The piece of music every time the Monolith plays is a piece called "Requiem" by, I believe, Ligeti. More modern movie fans may recognize it from the skydiving scene from Godzilla.
Fun Fact: Each letter of HAL is one letter before the letters IBM! Actor who played Frank Poole played on a famous episode of the original Star Trek series-Where No Man Has Gone Before! Also, you should watch the sequel 2010. It explains a bit more of this film
"the apes were just guys in suits" .. . well, SO WHAT? That's just another kind of TECHNIQUE is all. And it WAS DONE pretty well in THIS flick. I mean, sorry that they weren't more of your snazzy COMPUTER SIMULATIONS. Now don't you already get enough of THAT from every other movie that comes out recently?
In the first act, they are supposed to be proto-humans. The monolith accelerates their evolution into learning to use tools to obtain food, take over the water hole, etc. Evolving into modern humans eventually.
This movie was released in 1968. And inside it there is an image of the earth taken from the outside. Note: the first view of the earth from the outside was taken in 1972.
There’s a brilliant RUclips channel called Cinematyler which digs deep into the making of various films, and he’s done a whole series on 2001. One thing I find astonishing is the fact that they didn’t have digital displays as we see in the film. All of the screens are projections!
I remember that the Corridor Crew on RUclips also spent some time no the SFX of 2001 (and other movies) really interesting to see how they achieved some of these.
The satellite we see in the transition sequence after the bone is thrown in the air was supposed to be an orbital missile delivery platform . IT's an example of duality of man where man's ability to create is reciprocal to his ability to destroy.
Even after over 50 years, the special effects still stand up. Stanley Kubrick is the most iconic and influential director and one of my all time favorites. You need to watch more of Kubrick - Eyes Wide Shut, Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket and Dr. Strangelove - all great movies.
@@jeremyfrost2636 Actually, he gave it to Spielberg to finish because he knew he takes so long to shoot a movie, the kid would age. But yes, interesting bookends, started with a movie he really had no control over and ended by a movie finished by Spielberg because he couldn't
This film, like many of Kubrick's films, is not meat to tell a traditional story or provide answers, but to provoke questions. He gives you information, but he leaves it to you the audience to interpret that information.
This came out when I was just a toddler, I saw it when I was around 12-13 years old, I certainly didn't get it. Seen it several times since, I mosly appreciate how far ahead of it's time it was. The 1984 film "2010 the year we made contact" is a good sequil, more of a regular movie, answers some of the questions from this one. Different directors, but based upon books written by the same author.
15:34 It’s not the Apes that come back. The obelisk (and it’s music) came back while you were saying this. The same obelisk that pushed apes to develop tools is now pushing humans to evolve into something more
„Also sprach Zarathustra“ by Richard Strauss (the intro music) was not Made for this Movie. It is a classical piece from the Late 19th Century. This movie does not have any original soundtrack, every single piece of background music in this is pre-existing classical music.
Some OLD sci-fi classics to watch are the 1951 "Day the Earth Stood Still" and "When Worlds Collide", the original 1953 "War of the Worlds", the 1956 "Forbidden Planet" and the original 1968 "Planet of the Apes"
Color film go back to the 1930s. Black and white movies continued to be made, but by the late 1960s, few B&W films were made. "Also Sprach Zarathustra" (Thus Spoke Zoroaster) composed by Richard Strauss was written in 1896. Granted, most people think of it being from opening scenes of "2001: A Space Odyssey."
2001 is an art-house film. Strangely, if you want a mainstream Sci-Fi film that is about 10 years older, try Forbidden Planet from the 50's. It also had not only cutting edge effects for the time, but also a musical score. It was probably the first feature with 100% electric synthesizer music.
@@Socrates... Can't say about '68, but by the mid 70's when I first saw it, it was definitely considered more of an "artsy" film. (As were most Kubrick films by then.) Also MGM has distributed many non-mainstream films over the years, for instance Vicky Cristina Barcelona. Also, 2001 was actually produced by MGM-British Studios, not the parent company.
@@helifanodobezanozi7689 interesting because it had a $12m budget and raked in $60m in US and Canada which is great for it’s time. But as you say by mid 70s perception may have changed.
@@Socrates... Again, can't say for sure, but I'm fairly certain 2001 has always been considered a "serious film" and not popcorn fair. It just had a wide release.
I saw this for the first time when I was maybe 11 or 12 and I remember it was before the sequel, _2010: The Year We Make Contact,_ came out. This is one movie where I think I can safely say, the first time you watch it, if you know nothing about it... 99% chance you'll come out the way I did after watching it for the first time-bored and confused. I know it's a lot to ask, but my advice would be *_WATCH IT AGAIN._* The more times you see it the more it will make sense and the more you'll be blown away by how incredible it is. Also, watch some of the videos available on RUclips about how this film was made. Consider that there are *_absolutely no computer generated effects_* in this film *_at all,_* because the simplest computers were still the size of bookcases, stored data on huge reels of tape, and had less computing power than a modern $1 pocket calculator. Everything in this film was done "old-school" including the trippy "stargate sequence" at the end. That was filmed *_one frame at a time_* over the course of what had to have been *_months,_* using a technique called "slit screen photography."
Something to remember, this movie was made before we landed on the moon and we had very little experience in space. It is actually amazing much they got right with how things work in space. Also, if I recall, the movie was over budget and late. The Studio actually never let him finish filming it, so I'm not sure how the ending would have been if he got to film everything he wanted to.
This movie was an epic masterpiece for it’s time. The constant breathing in the astronaut suits were done deliberately to show that humans were in a hostile environment, and had to wear those suits to survive in space.
The breathing as well as lack of music, wide angle shots, and Cinerama surround-type format was part of Kubrick's strategy to not only immerse the viewer in the movie but to convey the infiniteness and aloneness of space.
This movie was and is a masterpiece for all time. Regarding the breathing in the astronaut's suits, the film would become static without some sound. I don't hear anyone complaining about Darth Vader's breathing.
I was very privileged to watch this film again with Keir Dullea (Dave Bowman) at a private screening a few years ago. While the director is no longer with us, Keir had many stories about working with Kubrick, and production stories about the films (This and 2010). The production aspects of the film are immaculate, and seeing in 70mm on a large screen is something I'd recommend if you ever get the chance.
Even better would be to see this film on the mighty Cinerama screen, which I and other older citizens did on its initial release. What an amazing experience it was.
HAL isn't so much evil as that he's been caught in a paradox due to his programming by humans being secretive. One of the theories at the time was that HAL was derived from IBM (the letters of HAL being the one ahead of IBM). Kubrick denied this, but I'm not so sure.
Mary, its based on a short story that was written by Arthur C Clarke called the Sentinel. Kubrick and Clarke then worked together on the script and a full novel at the same time. The novel you could say is by Arthur C Clark with Stanley Kubrick and the movie is written by Stanley Kubrick with Arthur C Clarke
Stanley Kubrick is the greatest film director ever. The most groundbreaking and innovative. All his movies are remarkable. In addition, he was a bit of a bonafide genius. He would spend his freetime doing theoretical mathmatics.
Today's generation doesn't have the patience as people 50 years ago did. Sci-fi films nowadays are about instant gratification through fast-paced action and story-telling. In contrast, 2001 Space Odyssey is a film that takes its time.
3 года назад+5
@@rookmaster7502 back then people neither had patience for it though 😂. This film is simply a too hardcore science fiction.
I am also about done with Mary. She seems to be lacking in critical thinking skills, is slow to pick up what is happening, and seems to just say "Oh God" most of the time. The last three movie reviews from Mary that have left me cold are this one, Saving Private Ryan, and Terminator 2. In all of these she doesn't seem to understand much of the movie or what is clearly shown. For now, I will give her an other chance or two, but if I continue to get frustrated with her misconceptions and lack of constructive commentary, I will unsubscribe.
You know why it’s so creepy is because it’s not Dave’s that is breathing it’s Stanley Kubrick the director just really touches the aspect of terror in this scene. Made me feel at unease.
Arthur C Clark said that if you understood everything by the end of the movie, they didn't do their job right. He always intended it to raise more questions than it answers. "2010: The Year We Make Contact" helps you understand what happens in this movie a bit more (though never completely), and is a more approachable movie, but as a result, becomes a bit less iconic. However for me, the two together are still quite enjoyable and worth the time.
Veteran Hollywood composer Alex North wrote a complete score for the movie, per Stanley Kubrick's orders. North didn't discover that Kubrick had completely jettisoned his work until he saw the movie at the premiere. He was less than pleased. Best. Leo.
Before Star Wars, this was the most realistic space movie we had seen. When Star Wars came out, everyone freaked. The sequel to this, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, explains a little about what made HAL malfunction. It's worth a watch but I think 2001 and the mystery of why HAL malfunctioned didn't need a sequel. The sequel does have a young Helen Mirran and Roy Sheider from Jaws.
@@mlong1958 sorry was just commenting because I found how the treatment of sound in space in this film was one reason among many why it was so realistic.
Hey, Mary. Compare this movie with the film "Lucy" for a moment. You know how Lucy was exposed to a drug that made her a lot smarter and then turned her into something else. A bunch of pacifist apes were exposed to some alien tech that made them a lot smarter (they invented weapons) and violent...and that led to more advanced tools and us. When we could leave the earth, the alien tech was waiting to turn us to something else.
Before touching the monolith, that particular proto-human and his tribe couldn't protect themselves and their water pond from the other aggressive tribe. The proto-human that touches the monolith learns to use bones as a tool and weapon and fights off the other tribe. The model work looks fantastic and predates Star Wars by nine years.
...I was a really young kid when this was originally released...I had read the making of the film as well as the book...it was to me an introduction to a higher level of school of thought regardng Science FIction...the intentional slow pace to relay being in the environment of space was effective and over all it was more of an experience than just a film...
It was intended to provoke thought, leaving millions confused and wondering if they loved it or hated it. Definitely a massive piece of artistic display that could never be done again.
The short version is 2001 is about friendly aliens modifying humans to help us survive. :) (I won't say why the ship's computer went crazy as that's a spoiler for the next movie 2010.)
I think the slow pacing was indicative of the time. As you pointed out the first Alien movie is also pretty slow paced, not this slow, but pretty slow. The sequel titled "2010" came out in 1984, it does a good job of making sense out of the first movie and it's pacing is much faster. I liked 2001 much better after I watched 2010.
I think the reason spaceships are often white in film is because of this film. It is the most singularly influential science fiction film of all time. The only ones that can compete with it in terms of influence are Star Wars and Blade Runner.
There is a great amount of detail to this film. As a result, the viewer is required to think about what is happening on a level almost as critically as Kubrick and Clarke were in making it. You can't just watch it as you would a Bill and Ted film. Unfortunately we live in a time when too many do just that.
Now you'll have to watch 2010: The Year We Make Contact, which is the 1984 sequel. Put 2001 on the shelf, because it's a singular masterpiece. 2010 takes the events of 2001 and puts it into a more 'conventional' plot. A tidbit; the Director shared correspondence with Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote 2001, through a new medium called "e-mail". They also corresponded on a major time delay since Clarke lived in Sri Lanka, and the Director lived in Los Angeles.
Nobody understands this movie on first viewing. (Kubrick once said, “If you understood it, we failed,” and co-writer Arthur C. Clarke once commented of a rival author’s story that while the rival’s ending “made more sense, 2001 made more money.”) I’d definitely recommend the sequel 2010. Much more traditionally paced, and it goes into the reasons why Hal did what he did (in brief, without spoiling: he was entirely on the money when he attributed it to human error) and what the monoliths do. It also has some great performances from Helen Mirren, Roy Scheider and John Lithgow, and some beautiful (real) footage of Jupiter and its moons.
For Stanley Kubrick I suggest Dr Strangelove. It was released around the time of the Cuban missile crisis ( worth reading about in advance if you're not aware ). The us military was massively insulted but the public got the joke and it's a great comedy
"Written and directed by Stanley Kubrick, never heard of him before". That's hilarious, he's one of my favourite film directors of all time. That's almost like a football fan saying they have never heard of Manchester United anyway, you must watch The Shining, A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket.
I hope you get to see the sequel, 2010. It’s a completely different movie in every way…far more plot driven and not nearly as stylized, but it provides quite a bit of additional context for the monoliths and their purpose. 2010 was also filmed during the Cold War, so it should be treated as a period- film, but I think it is very underrated. It also explains HAL’s actions from the first film, which will make you see him in a very different light.
To enter the 100K giveaway, you must be a subscriber and you must follow my Instagram, Twitter and Twitch @maryycherryy & comment under my 100k live stream video: ruclips.net/video/bAQdpNeD0OE/видео.html telling me YOUR Instagram, Twitter & twitch handle
first prize: #marycherry merch from my teespring store. The winner will choose what they like from the store what you’d like and their size
second: Marvel loot crate
third: unlimited access to all channels on the discord
Competition ends on 16 august 2021 at 2pm aest.
Mary if you love classical music and want to watch more classic films then 3 films that are a must for you are 1984s Amadeus, 1975s Barry Lyndon (another Stanley Kubrick classic) and 1977s The Duelists. All 3 films are not only classics, but have amazing visuals and outstanding music.
a clockwork orange! a clockwork orange!
“If it’s about apes, you guys know I’m all for it”
Well then great news! There’s a movie all about apes that came put the same year as this! The original Planet of the Apes!
A Clockwork Orange is another great Stanley Kubrick movie
The entire soundtrack is preexisting music.
Most films were in color in 1968. It wasn't 1938.
The special effects still hold up.
Those are people in costumes. They aren't exactly apes.
After meeting the monolith the apes develope tools.
The two bands of apes try to intimidate each other o win over the watering hole. Turning the bone into a weapon makes them win.
This was 1968, one year before man landed on the moon (one month after I was born).
I still have no idea what happened at the end, which is what Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke were going for.
Stanley Kubrick later directed The Shining based on Stephen King's novel.
The sequel explains why HAL did what it did, and explains a few other things.
Yes, but there is a Simpsons episode based on everything. And Poole was already dead as his oxygen had been cut.
Clavius was where on the moon that monolith was.
I think I was 12 when I saw this. I loved it, but didn't understand it.
The Monoliths trigger evolution. The proto-humans touched it, and suddenly mastered the use of tools, then when humans find the next Monolith on the moon, it prompts their next stage of evolution. Then, finally, Dave encounters the next Monolith in The Waiting Room, and that finalizes his evolution, into a Star Child -- a being capable of better understanding the Universe.
The Monoliths serve as a guide for the evolution of intelligent life.
I'm curious in what way you believe the 2nd monolith prompted evolution?
@@kennyteeology3526 the Moon monolith sends a signal to the Jupiter monolith, alerting it to our advancement as a species.
Yes. It's all made much more apparent in the novel.
@@TomVCunningham Yes, but how does it further human evolution?
@@kennyteeology3526 precisely. It doesn’t.
There are movies that tell a good story and are geared mostly for pure entertainment. Then there are movies that don't hold you by the hand, don't provide easy answers and want you to think about them afterwards. I'm no movie snob. In the realm of science fiction films, I can love Back To the Future and Terminator just as much as 2001. I just love them in different ways.
Ok mr condescension. This movie has a simple explanation. It’s not that complex. Just read the book. Ffs.
@@jordantaylor260 Would you care to show me where I said that I did not understand the movie? I was commenting on the fact that Mary felt it was confusing. So, if you feel there is a simple explanation and that someone should just read the book, why don't you address those comments to Mary? Also, people have been questioning what the movie is about for over 50 years. Just look at some of the comments below. I guess folks just aren't as smart as you obviously are. Right?
@@jordantaylor260 book is separate from movie. If explanation is not in the movie then it doesn't exist :/
@@clash5j Well said. Ignore the troll.
@@diha2271 not in this case. The book and the movie were written together. Arthur C Clarke and Stanley Kubrick worked together on the story.
""for its time""? $h!t, I think the visuals in THIS flick look great PERIOD! I dare even say that they kick @$$ over those computer simulations that you see in every other movie made nowadays.
The apes - pre humans. The implication was that the monolith influenced evolution and caused the apes to start using tools
Well humans are apes, and apes and some other primates can use tools anyway.
and the pre-men were starving and the monolith showed them they could eat them
Wait... did she not get that? Doesnt it literally say "Dawn of Man"?
@@ExtremeMadnessX Only liberals are apes.
No... the monolith deliberately made/induced genetic changes to those specific apes DNA. The changes were made to created a genetic fork/branch... humans. In a way, those apes were singled out from all other apes of the same species on earth to be the hosts for a new life form because the species had the required design characteristics as well as possessed a DNA code capable of accepting the changes the alien monolith would need to make the 'human' enhancements.
All other apes continued being apes since their genetic code was not altered.
That's why the scene was called 'Dawn of Man' ... or the 'intelligent design' mutation.
The opening theme music is "Thus Spake Zarathustra" by Strauss. It's been around since 1896. :)
See my comment above about thus spake zarathrustra - the entire film is a retelling of the Nietzsche poem
Richard Strauss, as opposed to the "Blue Danube" composer Johan Strauss II.
I went to the back country in North Eastern Oregon in 2017 to watch the solar eclipse. Right as Totality hit , someone played the song "Thus Spake Zarathustra" over theirs trucks sound system and the doors opened for the music to carry out covering the 20 or so cars nearby. It was fittingly AWESOME !
It was also featured in a Big Bang Theory cold open. :)
@@Caseytify It may have been featured in the Big Bang as well, but nobody was around to record it.
I remember something my old man told me before my first time watching 2001. "Remember that Hal isnt evil, he is a panicking child."
Indeed. He could be read as embarrassed/mortified that he has made a mistake and Dave and Frank want to disconnect him at the drop of the proverbial hat because of it and he’s going into a deadly fight or flight situation with what you said
My thoughts: HAL was committed to the mission. He reasoned that if he was shut down the mission could not be accomplished. Coming to that conclusion, he also reasoned that the entities that were going to shut him down...."had to go".
Why wouldn't he just let you watch the movie instead of stating his opinion as if it's a fact
@@brodjefferson3513 because I was a 14 year old dipshit and it made the movie more interesting😂
@@brodjefferson3513panicking children can be evil
The reason spaceships are painted white: Spaceships have difficulty losing heat. In a vacuum, there is no medium to carry heat away by conduction, so they mostly lose heat by thermal radiation. Having the outside of the ship be white keeps it from absorbing as much heat. Having the inside white allows you to get away with lower wattage lightbulbs, thus producing less heat.
Great explanation! Thanks!
Easier to keep smooth white surfaces clean and sterile, too, and inspect for damage.
Excelent explanation.
In the original design for the Discovery they had added the realistic detail of the ship having thermal dissipators. However thhe filmmakers realized most in the audiences would mistake them for wings and would break the induced realism intended by the movie. A concession from reality by the filmmakers to make the movie look more realistic, ironically.
Bingo. Lower Wattage bulbs. Less energy used. Less heat to get rid of.
It's also for light refraction. White walls, ceilings, etc reflect light back into the room. Pretty useful in the darkness of space.
"I hope HAL is not evil."
Ah, to be young and full of hope...
Is HAL really evil for defending himself from being disconnected? What would you do in his place?
@@zarquondam Well, he was going to malfunction and doom everyone anyway. He had a conflict between his innate need to inform his human handlers of everything and a mission-specific order to not tell the crew about the monolith and the possibility of alien life. His solution was to simply murder the crew, so there would be no conflict. His malfunctions early in the movie (the chess game and the antenna) show that the conflict of orders was already starting to affect him. So in trying to kill the crew, he doomed the mission.
@@my_randomology I don’t really believe that he did malfunction, I think the whole thing was a ploy to get the conscious crew off of the ship so their fallibility wouldn’t jeopardize the mission. This sort of explained in 2010, a much more inferior but still enjoyable film.
HAL wasn't evil. HAL was confused, and did not have the emotional capacity to handle or overcome being caught in a lie. HAL did it's job as best as possible within it's own understanding in keeping a secret.
@@robertpearson8798 But... that's not what they said in 2010. They specifically explained that he malfunctioned because of a conflict in orders.
The scene where HAL refused to let Dave back onboard the ship was on Bravo's 100 Scariest Movie Moments.
“I’m concerned and confused”.
That’s a great summary for 2001: A Space Odyssey.
This movie confused almost everyone who saw it in the theaters ...except for the people who were dropping acid. And yes, a lot of people went to see this movie tripping balls. The movie is basically one big metaphor for the evolution of humanity.
This is true
Yes, "White lightening" with 2001 on the big screen. In 1968 I was 16 years old and have never forgotten the experience. On Jan 1, 2001 I snowshoed in 24 inches snow up a foot hill before dawn to watch the sun rise on the new Millenium motivated by this movie. BTW, I remember my wifes's birthday every year because it is the same as HAL's, January 12.
@@timetheory84 Dave represents humanity and what we could become, represented by the Starchild, but (seemingly) only through the intervention of outside forces, pushing us to evolve.
I was 13 in 1968, a nerd, and definitely not on acid... ever. But I was never confused by this film. This is the best film of all time in my opinion.
31:31 - HAL singing "Daisy" as he regresses to his most basic functions - In 1961 the IBM 7094 computer became the first computer to sing using a simulated human voice and it was programmed to sing the song "Daisy Bell". (By the way if you take the name "HAL" and shift each letter up to the next letter in the alphabet you get "IBM". Whoa.)
Hellodoctornamecontinueyesterdaytomorrow Hellodoctornamecontinueyesterdaytomorrow
HELLO
DOCTOR
NAME
CONTINUE
YESTERDAY
TOMORROW
Good Morning, Dr. Chandra. I'm ready to begin my first Lesson.
The movie producers claim that was just a coincidence.
@@Caseytify The official explanation is that HAL stands for "Heuristic ALgorithmics" or whatever.
Thanks for hitting the HAL-IBM thing, so I don't have to.
@@Cenindo That was the explanation given by Arthur C. Clarke, the author of 2001.
The pacing in movies in the 60s and 70s was much slower than movies of today. They didn't feel the need to have an explosion every 30 seconds. This movie isn't meant to give the viewer closure. The title of the movie tells you everything you need to know in one word. Odyssey. It means epic journey.
Think even bigger!
Kubrick's Odyssey II: Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick
@@113doctormurray2 The monolith did to David Bowman the same thing it had done to the apes. It moved him to the next level. It would have done no good to teach Bowman to use tools. Man already knew that. It changed him into a more advanced creature which happened to resemble a child.
This was slow even for the time. But I saw it when I was 5 years old and was riveted. Of course it helps to see it in a theatre with a massive screen, as I did.
People used to be much more patient. Baseball used to be the most watched sport in the U.S
The pacing of that era is actually slower than earlier movies also. I find many much older black & white movies that are paced faster. A good Humphrey Bogart detective flick has plenty of witty banter to move it along.
I really think This film showed George Lucas the potential for what can be done with detailed model ships and epic music.
Excellent observation
True, Lucas himself said that 2001 was the ultimate sci-fi movie and hard to beat. Stuart Freeborn, who created Yoda and Chewbacca, also made the apes/proto-humans in the beginning of this movie. Lucas tried to get Geroge Trumbull, the chief of special effects for 2001, for Star Wars, but since he was busy, he suggested John Dykstra (with whom Trumbull had worked in a different film). And John was the amazing effects supervisor who expanded on the motion control work of 2001 and gave us the amazing effects of Star Wars.
Spielberg as well.
It influenced virtually every movie that came out afterwards having to do with outer space. Take a look at the films that preceded it and those that came afterwards - Completely different!
There is a sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact". It is not as mysterious, but explains many things. Including why HAL did what it and why it made sense.
2001 was made as a stand alone movie. 2010 actually ruins the mystery of 2001 by “explaining” things. Kubrick’s movies in general do not provide explanations and are not intended to lead the audience by the hand.
@@memdoc_1966 There are 4 books in the series written by Arthur C Clarke
@@memdoc_1966 Except this is also a Clarke story, and when the two of them together wrote it they also planned the sequels.
I agree
So the monolith aids in evolution of the species, as the apes touch it they learn to use tools. Dave at the end becomes so advanced that he evolves into the starchild. The book is much, much clearer about these things, however Kubrick leaving things vague is still a very interesting experience as well
Mary didn't recognize that tit was monotlith, nor did she understand that the ape finally learned to use a tool during its evolution.
Yup. The monolith appeared in Africa once a species, Australopithecines in this case, was sufficiently developed to benefit from an evolutionary jump start into tool-users - humans. The monolith on the Moon was buried so that, once humans had become sufficiently advanced to begin space exploration, they could benefit from another evolutionary jump start into whatever the Star Child is, presumably a star-faring species.
I second the recommendation to read the book. Once you have, everything in the movie will make total sense.
I don't really think the monolith aided in human evolution, but was, instead, a harold of it. It signified the evolution already happening. It harolded the ape-humans use of tools, humans becoming a space-faring species, and finally reaching the pinnacle of human development: the Star Child.
There was footage of Stanley Kubrick explaining the meaning of the ending.
"They should program them to never harm humans." The three laws. Time for I Robot review.
I agree. While the movie only uses a few things from the book, it's still a good story.
That's something you cannot program. There is no algorithm to not harm humans.
You can never escape Asimov.
And "Bicentennial Man"
The movie was a giant pissing on Asimov's grave.
the apes were early humans. When the monolith appeared in the beginning, it chose one of the two opposing sides (tribes of apes) to evolve by learning how to use tools. In the future, the monolith appeared again and chose one of the two opposing sides (AI and human) to evolve
Has nothing to do with tools.. The monolith is unnatural, flat, smooth, with 90 degree angles.. It illuminates the idea to the apes that there’s a world they know nothing about.. And that makes them think.. Ruminate.. And that’s the spark..
Tools are just a byproduct of this..
Jacob Jones the only visual cue to show that they evolved were the use of tools to hunt and beat the opposing tribe
@@SoloCrafter378
I don’t agree with that at all… Their curiosity is obviously piqued, and the original ape that used tools, did so after he ruminated about doing so..
To me, that’s the obvious spark, rumination.. Which was caused by their curiosity..
@@jacobjones5269 yeah, and that was shown visually through them using tools
@@SoloCrafter378
I think the point was certainly driven home with that scene, yes… However, the apes were certainly mesmerized by the monolith and it’s unnatural features.. As were the humans, later..
My point is nothing was intentionally transferred, no knowledge or advantages.. Just an idea.. And everything grew from that idea..
I think that’s important.. This was passive interference, not direct advancement..
BTW, the floating triangles were the last spaceships used by the Aliens before they evolved into purely non-physical beings of pure energy. They were abandoned.
Stuart Freeborn created the ape costumes for the “dawn of man” scenes. George Lucas used him to make Chewbacca, Yoda, and Jabba The Hutt for the first Star Wars trilogy.
The look of Yoda's face was based on the face of Stuart Freeborn, with Albert Einstein's eyes.
@@DrRobert1138 And mustache
Colin Cantwell was also a concept artist who designed ships for 2001 and later worked for Lucas to design X-Wings and the Death Star.
@@Cotsos88 Yes, and the skyhopper model Luke plays with in the garage.
Isn't there also a 2001 pod in Watto's junkyard in The Phantom Menace?
40:11 - Clavius isn't a planet, it's a crater on the moon. In real life too.
"I don't know Stanley Kubrick. I just really haven't seen older films. I would have assumed that it's black and white." Thank God, Mary, that you're cute as a button and are just so precious. Best. Leo.
What would be different if she weren't cute? Would people blast her for assuming that?
@@Bananahammock681 nah, just that less people would be watching
@@Bananahammock681 Yes.
@@frenchynoob so true 😂😂
@@Bananahammock681 Nothing else is redeeming about this...
Arthur C. Clark's novel clearly explained the final sequence.
Really?!
Let 113Doctor correct you:
Kubrick's Odyssey II: Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick
Also 3 sequel books and sequel movie.
Concur. I also read 2010. I love Arthur C. Clark. The Rama series gives you chills too.
Arthur C. Clark's novel probably thinks it explains the final sequence. Let's not get it twisted, the book and the film were only sort of written together.
@@StreetHierarchy A very common misconception, that 2001 was Clarke's. Creatively, it was firmly Kubrick's. He hired Clarket to help with the story and write the novel concurrent with the film, but Kubrick had final say in all of it creatively.
You should watch the sequel, *2010: The Year We Make Contact*. It helps give context and is a direct continuation of the original story.
Agreed; 2010 may not have the “artistic flair” that 2001 has, but it’s a lot easier to follow, and explains a lot of things that 2001 left hanging.
And it does have a phenomenal cast, including Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, and Helen Mirren.
And Floyd is played by Chief Brody (Roy Schieder) from Jaws!
2010 might even explain too much. 2001 doesnt need 2001 to be enjoyed.
That said, 2010 is a decent movie in it's own right.
The film's sequel, 2010 answers SOME of your questions. Very worth watching. It was explained to me that the monolith pushes our evolution forward. The first monolith taught the apes to use tools. The YT channel "Collative Learning" has some deep dives into the meaning of this film and other Kubrick films.
The book 2001 Space Odyssey answers all the questions and more. The book is awesome.
I found 2010 very disappointing. It's just a typical ordinary movie, with none of the artistry of 2001.
@@zarquondam I have not seen 2010, but the book was decent. 2061 was fine, but 3001 was too cheesy for my taste.
Agreed, I think she should watch it, the effects are a bit ropey to say it's newer but it is a good story to finish off with.
@@ghyslainabel You're telling a Generation Z to read? ,hell half of Millenial's won't do that.
Thanks for the reaction Mary! 🙂
I love how people react to any of Stanley Kubrick's films because of how far ahead he was for his time you talking about the cinematography and set design is what influenced Spielberg, George Lucas, Christopher Nolan and many many others (Spielberg and Kubrick became very close friends from 1980 until Kubrick died in 1999)
You being confused by the film is not uncommon for many people but Kubrick wanted audiences to pick information visually for example the whole Dawn of Man sequence is how when the 1st group of apes are foced off their land by the other group they then evolve after they see or 'communicate' with the monolith. This makes them smarter and the one who smashes the bones realises bones can be a weapon hence how they use it with other group claiming back their land. It also has my fave edit when the bone is thrown and it cuts to the space gun which represents the bone showing how the apes has evolved into humans.
Lastly the end sequence Kubrick did comment on of how Dave is basically taken by the alien species who built the monolith and created what they perceive to be a comfy cage as they observe the humanity of how the apes gave evolved and Dave transitions into the Star Child a highly evolved new super being a new species that is far more advanced then humans before.
I did see 2001 back at its 50th anniversary screening not long back and I can say even today on the big screen it looks phenomenol and it was a packed screening with teenagers and people in their 80s and was when I truly understood how powerful the film is. It does require more viewings once you know what is happening.
If you do see more of Kubrick's films just always be prepared for visually stunning cinematography and perfect editing but not the typical movie experience as he was against that and wanted more to create an experience and audiences to think more he actually is the only director in history who made only 13 films but Warner Bros gave him the budget he wanted, the schedule he wanted and full control of the length of his films and he even said exactly how to market the films both for cinema and for home viewings. In fact he cut out the original ending of The Shining not long after its release and had the film taken off and had that art re edited.
Even 2001 he re-edited after the World Premiere despite MGM were not happy with the film they still gave him control.
I won't go on but thanks again for another cool reaction 🙂
No one cares, get a life
@@lurker8386 Mary Cherry cares, she specifically ASKED for people's input in the comments.
And it seems you cared enough to lurk and leave a negative comment.
Confused about the meaning of 2001? So has everyone since 1968! I was 13 when I saw it in the theaters. It was a "must see" back then. The view of 1968 as being something akin to the Dark Ages (no color films... really??!!) is quite amusing.
Let 113Doctor iconoclast your confusion:
Kubrick's Odyssey II: Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick
I was able to follow the movie, but only because I read the book first. The book was awesome, but the movie bored me.
@@ghyslainabel I am baffled at how anyone could be bored by this movie. Every scene is riveting. The book is so much more pedestrian.
I don't really see what's supposedly confusing about the movie. I wasn't confused when I saw it at age five. Neither was my mother. I think people are confused because they're looking for some less straightforward explanation than the one the movie gives them. Alien monolith accelerates ape evolution into humans; humans uncovering the monolith on the moon is the signal that they've advanced enough that it's time to intervene again; the humans travel by spaceship toward the pint near Jupiter that the monolith signaled toward; the fear that the humans will jeopardise the top-secret mission and disconnect HAL leads HAL to try to kill them in self-defense; when they get to the stargate the remaining human goes through, gets is evolution accelerated by the (or a) monolith yet again, and gets sent back.
@@zarquondam in the book, the story progresses from page to page. In the movie, there are long passages where nothing happens. For example, there is a 5-minutes sequences of a space ship moving in space; it is 5 minutes where the story just stops.
The book is very explicit on what is happening. from beginning to end. The movie does not give a clue about the ending.
The obelisk at the beginning showed that intelligent beings were watching us develop from the start! The second one on the moon let those beings know when we had progressed enough to leave the planet. The third one introduced us to them.
The old Chariots of the Gods myth. Aliens came down to teach us/change us. As an SF plot line it's been done a million times.
@@Caseytify lol Did I say it was True? Clarke just reworked all that, of course it's a story.
"I thought it would be in B&W".... Good god, ma'am... They started making color movies in the 1930's, and essentially ALL of them were in color by the mid 50's. :o)
*The apes were people in costumes ; they were here because TMA-00 (Tycho Magnetic Anomaly), first monolyth, influenced evolution. TMA-01 reacted to the sunrise after being uncovered from the moon's regolith. It sent a signal to TMA-02 parked near Jupiter.
*The confusion at the end is because Dave is entering an entire new kind of dimension of space time inside TMA-02.
(by the way, Franck Poole is recovered in 3001.)
*Big side note : Watch 2010 by Peter Hyams. It's more classic, but quite good. Otherwise, well, read the books.
Every science fiction film you've ever seen (and many regular ones too) was in some way influenced by this one. There are some good documentaries about it's influence, and how this was cutting edge for it's day. The sequel, 2010 was pretty good as well!
Kubrick's Odyssey II: Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick
Stanley Kubrick spared absolutely no expense from 1964-1968 when he made 2001. He hired some of the best artists, science consultants, visual effects experts, photographers, and production designers in the world to make this movie. CGI did not exist then. All the models were practical and often scaled to size, and all the visual effects were done in-camera. It’s why, 55 years later, this movie is still as visually dazzling as it was in 1968.
The monolith gave the ape tribe (which is to become our human ancestors) a jump in evolution by instilling/improving their spatial intelligence, leading to the apes eureka moment for using tools/bones for hunting and defending.
🤣🤣🤣 Her confused face throughout the film.
The piece of music every time the Monolith plays is a piece called "Requiem" by, I believe, Ligeti. More modern movie fans may recognize it from the skydiving scene from Godzilla.
Yes, it’s Ligeti. 👌🏼
Influential for John Williams' Close Encounters of the Third Kind score.
György Ligeti, to use the full name. (Hungarian.)
Fantastic piece.
Fun Fact: Each letter of HAL is one letter before the letters IBM!
Actor who played Frank Poole played on a famous episode of the original Star Trek series-Where No Man Has Gone Before!
Also, you should watch the sequel 2010. It explains a bit more of this film
"the apes were just guys in suits" .. . well, SO WHAT? That's just another kind of TECHNIQUE is all. And it WAS DONE pretty well in THIS flick. I mean, sorry that they weren't more of your snazzy COMPUTER SIMULATIONS. Now don't you already get enough of THAT from every other movie that comes out recently?
In the first act, they are supposed to be proto-humans. The monolith accelerates their evolution into learning to use tools to obtain food, take over the water hole, etc. Evolving into modern humans eventually.
This movie was released in 1968. And inside it there is an image of the earth taken from the outside.
Note: the first view of the earth from the outside was taken in 1972.
Apollo 8 took photos of the Earth from the Moon. That was in 1968. And we had had satellites up in orbit years before that.
There’s a brilliant RUclips channel called Cinematyler which digs deep into the making of various films, and he’s done a whole series on 2001. One thing I find astonishing is the fact that they didn’t have digital displays as we see in the film. All of the screens are projections!
I remember that the Corridor Crew on RUclips also spent some time no the SFX of 2001 (and other movies) really interesting to see how they achieved some of these.
The satellite we see in the transition sequence after the bone is thrown in the air was supposed to be an orbital missile delivery platform . IT's an example of duality of man where man's ability to create is reciprocal to his ability to destroy.
Bone clubs, to nuclear missiles. Everything in between is revision and beta testing.
Even after over 50 years, the special effects still stand up. Stanley Kubrick is the most iconic and influential director and one of my all time favorites. You need to watch more of Kubrick - Eyes Wide Shut, Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket and Dr. Strangelove - all great movies.
Kubrick's Odyssey II: Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick
Wasn't Spartacus one of his, too?
@@jeremyfrost2636 Sort of, the original director was fired and they brought Kubrick in to finish it.
@@jefffiore7869 That makes for an interesting bookend with AI, which Kubrick didn't complete before he died and was finished by Steven Spielberg.
@@jeremyfrost2636 Actually, he gave it to Spielberg to finish because he knew he takes so long to shoot a movie, the kid would age. But yes, interesting bookends, started with a movie he really had no control over and ended by a movie finished by Spielberg because he couldn't
This film, like many of Kubrick's films, is not meat to tell a traditional story or provide answers, but to provoke questions. He gives you information, but he leaves it to you the audience to interpret that information.
The sequel, 2010 is told in a more traditional way and answers many questions.
33:07 - This stargate sequence was made without any CGI! They painted images on glass and ran them past the camera.
Yup, a technique called slit-scan (also later used for the title sequence of Tom Baker’s Doctor!)
"I have never heard of Stanley Kubrick"....
*Bangs head on keyboard...
The influence of this film can't be overstated. Look at the models on this then watch Star Wars and Alien.
This came out when I was just a toddler, I saw it when I was around 12-13 years old, I certainly didn't get it. Seen it several times since, I mosly appreciate how far ahead of it's time it was. The 1984 film "2010 the year we made contact" is a good sequil, more of a regular movie, answers some of the questions from this one. Different directors, but based upon books written by the same author.
The greatest time jump with one edit: the bone in the air becoming a ship.
15:34 It’s not the Apes that come back. The obelisk (and it’s music) came back while you were saying this. The same obelisk that pushed apes to develop tools is now pushing humans to evolve into something more
Was it the same obelisk or a quite similar one? At least in the books they have different dimensions (but same ratio)
Every time you said “good for its time”, I died a little inside.
@upsetstomach yes!
„Also sprach Zarathustra“ by Richard Strauss (the intro music) was not Made for this Movie. It is a classical piece from the Late 19th Century. This movie does not have any original soundtrack, every single piece of background music in this is pre-existing classical music.
Some OLD sci-fi classics to watch are the 1951 "Day the Earth Stood Still" and "When Worlds Collide", the original 1953 "War of the Worlds", the 1956 "Forbidden Planet" and the original 1968 "Planet of the Apes"
Especially "Forbidden Planet"!
ABSOLUTELY! Stood Still is one of my favorites. Very important messages.
Agree, agree, agree.
@@mikejankowski6321 Only the original, the remake was politicized.
Color film go back to the 1930s. Black and white movies continued to be made, but by the late 1960s, few B&W films were made.
"Also Sprach Zarathustra" (Thus Spoke Zoroaster) composed by Richard Strauss was written in 1896. Granted, most people think of it being from opening scenes of "2001: A Space Odyssey."
2001 is an art-house film. Strangely, if you want a mainstream Sci-Fi film that is about 10 years older, try Forbidden Planet from the 50's. It also had not only cutting edge effects for the time, but also a musical score. It was probably the first feature with 100% electric synthesizer music.
was 2001 an art-house movie or just perceived as one over time? Never knew MGM released art-house films....
@@Socrates... Can't say about '68, but by the mid 70's when I first saw it, it was definitely considered more of an "artsy" film. (As were most Kubrick films by then.) Also MGM has distributed many non-mainstream films over the years, for instance Vicky Cristina Barcelona. Also, 2001 was actually produced by MGM-British Studios, not the parent company.
@@helifanodobezanozi7689 interesting because it had a $12m budget and raked in $60m in US and Canada which is great for it’s time. But as you say by mid 70s perception may have changed.
@@Socrates... Again, can't say for sure, but I'm fairly certain 2001 has always been considered a "serious film" and not popcorn fair. It just had a wide release.
I saw this for the first time when I was maybe 11 or 12 and I remember it was before the sequel, _2010: The Year We Make Contact,_ came out. This is one movie where I think I can safely say, the first time you watch it, if you know nothing about it... 99% chance you'll come out the way I did after watching it for the first time-bored and confused.
I know it's a lot to ask, but my advice would be *_WATCH IT AGAIN._* The more times you see it the more it will make sense and the more you'll be blown away by how incredible it is.
Also, watch some of the videos available on RUclips about how this film was made. Consider that there are *_absolutely no computer generated effects_* in this film *_at all,_* because the simplest computers were still the size of bookcases, stored data on huge reels of tape, and had less computing power than a modern $1 pocket calculator. Everything in this film was done "old-school" including the trippy "stargate sequence" at the end. That was filmed *_one frame at a time_* over the course of what had to have been *_months,_* using a technique called "slit screen photography."
Something to remember, this movie was made before we landed on the moon and we had very little experience in space. It is actually amazing much they got right with how things work in space.
Also, if I recall, the movie was over budget and late. The Studio actually never let him finish filming it, so I'm not sure how the ending would have been if he got to film everything he wanted to.
I read that no movie is ever completed, they are all just abandoned.
This movie was an epic masterpiece for it’s time. The constant breathing in the astronaut suits were done deliberately to show that humans were in a hostile environment, and had to wear those suits to survive in space.
The breathing as well as lack of music, wide angle shots, and Cinerama surround-type format was part of Kubrick's strategy to not only immerse the viewer in the movie but to convey the infiniteness and aloneness of space.
This movie was and is a masterpiece for all time. Regarding the breathing in the astronaut's suits, the film would become static without some sound. I don't hear anyone complaining about Darth Vader's breathing.
I was very privileged to watch this film again with Keir Dullea (Dave Bowman) at a private screening a few years ago. While the director is no longer with us, Keir had many stories about working with Kubrick, and production stories about the films (This and 2010). The production aspects of the film are immaculate, and seeing in 70mm on a large screen is something I'd recommend if you ever get the chance.
WHAT?!!! Tell me more, Chris!!
Even better would be to see this film on the mighty Cinerama screen, which I and other older citizens did on its initial release. What an amazing experience it was.
Fuck, I'd punch a schoolbus full of children to have experienced that.
HAL isn't so much evil as that he's been caught in a paradox due to his programming by humans being secretive. One of the theories at the time was that HAL was derived from IBM (the letters of HAL being the one ahead of IBM). Kubrick denied this, but I'm not so sure.
Mary, its based on a short story that was written by Arthur C Clarke called the Sentinel. Kubrick and Clarke then worked together on the script and a full novel at the same time. The novel you could say is by Arthur C Clark with Stanley Kubrick and the movie is written by Stanley Kubrick with Arthur C Clarke
Stanley Kubrick is the greatest film director ever. The most groundbreaking and innovative. All his movies are remarkable. In addition, he was a bit of a bonafide genius. He would spend his freetime doing theoretical mathmatics.
I say Steven Spielberg. But hey, we're all different.
You didn't even understand that the ape learned to use tools thanks to the monolith at the beginning...
Next, 2010 The Year We Made Contact. Actually, it's a four book series .
A great film from one of the best film makers of all time Stanley Kubrick. I highly recommend you watch his other films, there great.😍
Kubrick's Odyssey II: Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick
@@113doctormurray2 You keep mentioning it..... how about a link, please?
If your idea of a failed movie is "it's too slow", when it's a masterpiece, then you're done for me.
Today's generation doesn't have the patience as people 50 years ago did. Sci-fi films nowadays are about instant gratification through fast-paced action and story-telling. In contrast, 2001 Space Odyssey is a film that takes its time.
@@rookmaster7502 back then people neither had patience for it though 😂. This film is simply a too hardcore science fiction.
I am also about done with Mary. She seems to be lacking in critical thinking skills, is slow to pick up what is happening, and seems to just say "Oh God" most of the time. The last three movie reviews from Mary that have left me cold are this one, Saving Private Ryan, and Terminator 2. In all of these she doesn't seem to understand much of the movie or what is clearly shown. For now, I will give her an other chance or two, but if I continue to get frustrated with her misconceptions and lack of constructive commentary, I will unsubscribe.
@@williamvigil2481 Do whatever you feel you need to do. In the end, it doesn't really matter all that much.
@@williamvigil2481, these people are simply doing these "reactions" as a job, so they talk and say silly things.
"If it's about apes..." Well... In a sense, yes.
It's about food
You know why it’s so creepy is because it’s not Dave’s that is breathing it’s Stanley Kubrick the director just really touches the aspect of terror in this scene. Made me feel at unease.
The phone charge of $1.70 got laughs in 1968 because it was rather expensive at that time.
That was an inexpensive dinner out in 1968. So, yes, quite an expensive call at the time.
Confusing? How? An astronaut kills a robot, flies into a rectangle that turns him into an old man and a baby then flies away? What?
Indeed
Who the hell recommended this film to Cherry?
😂😆.
Arthur C Clark said that if you understood everything by the end of the movie, they didn't do their job right. He always intended it to raise more questions than it answers. "2010: The Year We Make Contact" helps you understand what happens in this movie a bit more (though never completely), and is a more approachable movie, but as a result, becomes a bit less iconic. However for me, the two together are still quite enjoyable and worth the time.
Other good SF movies of long ago: Forbidden Planet, Solaris just as much a mind-bender as 2001, and for the black and white watchers Metropolis.
It's not just a movie - it's an experience
Veteran Hollywood composer Alex North wrote a complete score for the movie, per Stanley Kubrick's orders. North didn't discover that Kubrick had completely jettisoned his work until he saw the movie at the premiere. He was less than pleased. Best. Leo.
I seem to remember listening to that discarded score once, and thinking it was quite good. North did great work on Spartacus too.
Before Star Wars, this was the most realistic space movie we had seen. When Star Wars came out, everyone freaked. The sequel to this, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, explains a little about what made HAL malfunction. It's worth a watch but I think 2001 and the mystery of why HAL malfunctioned didn't need a sequel. The sequel does have a young Helen Mirran and Roy Sheider from Jaws.
I didn't think it needed a sequel before I saw 2010... after, though, I greatly appreciated 2010.
@@MDBowron not sure why all the comments on sound in space. I never said anything about sound.
@@mlong1958 sorry was just commenting because I found how the treatment of sound in space in this film was one reason among many why it was so realistic.
Please watch "Galaxy Quest"!
HAL is actually a good computer, you need to watch the sequel to understand why he do all that
If you’re a fan of music and visual combo, might I humbly suggest Disney’s ‘Fantasia’? It’s one of my favorite uses of music in a film.
Excellent suggestion.
Hey, Mary. Compare this movie with the film "Lucy" for a moment. You know how Lucy was exposed to a drug that made her a lot smarter and then turned her into something else. A bunch of pacifist apes were exposed to some alien tech that made them a lot smarter (they invented weapons) and violent...and that led to more advanced tools and us. When we could leave the earth, the alien tech was waiting to turn us to something else.
Close Encounters Of The Third Kind
The Fifth Element
E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial
Blade Runner
Anthony Hopkins more or less based Hannibal Lecter's voice on that of HAL's.
Before touching the monolith, that particular proto-human and his tribe couldn't protect themselves and their water pond from the other aggressive tribe. The proto-human that touches the monolith learns to use bones as a tool and weapon and fights off the other tribe. The model work looks fantastic and predates Star Wars by nine years.
35:49 - The monolith is accelerating Dave's aging process, but time is a bit wonky in the room, so Dave keeps getting glimpses of his next phase.
Mary: "That's either Mars or Texas."
Me (Texan): "Yes."
It's actually supposed to be the Rift Valley, in Africa.
@@thomashiggins9320 Thank you for stating the obvious. It was a joke.
It might have been Texas. I know the movie X-Files Fight the Future starts off basically the same way.
@@gardener68 Not to Mary. :)
Behold, the sci-fi movie that shaped the sci-fi we know and love
At the time this came out, most science fiction movies had very low standards.
@tessmage_tessera Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Jupiter and beyond is essentially an acid trip. Happy days.
We did actually had the majority of movies in colour by 1968
...I was a really young kid when this was originally released...I had read the making of the film as well as the book...it was to me an introduction to a higher level of school of thought regardng Science FIction...the intentional slow pace to relay being in the environment of space was effective and over all it was more of an experience than just a film...
It was intended to provoke thought, leaving millions confused and wondering if they loved it or hated it. Definitely a massive piece of artistic display that could never be done again.
The short version is 2001 is about friendly aliens modifying humans to help us survive. :)
(I won't say why the ship's computer went crazy as that's a spoiler for the next movie 2010.)
2001 is a classic but I gotta say 2010 was a much more enjoyable film for me.
@@Legatus10 Oh, definitely. Even HAL gets a character arc. :D
2010 is Underrated for sure, I think 2001 is superior filmmaking but 2010 is still fantastic and much more approachable
I think the slow pacing was indicative of the time. As you pointed out the first Alien movie is also pretty slow paced, not this slow, but pretty slow. The sequel titled "2010" came out in 1984, it does a good job of making sense out of the first movie and it's pacing is much faster. I liked 2001 much better after I watched 2010.
I think the reason spaceships are often white in film is because of this film. It is the most singularly influential science fiction film of all time. The only ones that can compete with it in terms of influence are Star Wars and Blade Runner.
There is a great amount of detail to this film. As a result, the viewer is required to think about what is happening on a level almost as critically as Kubrick and Clarke were in making it. You can't just watch it as you would a Bill and Ted film. Unfortunately we live in a time when too many do just that.
Now you'll have to watch 2010: The Year We Make Contact, which is the 1984 sequel.
Put 2001 on the shelf, because it's a singular masterpiece. 2010 takes the events of 2001 and puts it into a more 'conventional' plot. A tidbit; the Director shared correspondence with Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote 2001, through a new medium called "e-mail". They also corresponded on a major time delay since Clarke lived in Sri Lanka, and the Director lived in Los Angeles.
I was just about to say 'I thought Kubrick lived in Hertfordshire?', but stopped myself just in time. Read the whole comment before you reply, kids! 🙂
Nobody understands this movie on first viewing. (Kubrick once said, “If you understood it, we failed,” and co-writer Arthur C. Clarke once commented of a rival author’s story that while the rival’s ending “made more sense, 2001 made more money.”)
I’d definitely recommend the sequel 2010. Much more traditionally paced, and it goes into the reasons why Hal did what he did (in brief, without spoiling: he was entirely on the money when he attributed it to human error) and what the monoliths do. It also has some great performances from Helen Mirren, Roy Scheider and John Lithgow, and some beautiful (real) footage of Jupiter and its moons.
Except if you read the book first.
For Stanley Kubrick I suggest Dr Strangelove. It was released around the time of the Cuban missile crisis ( worth reading about in advance if you're not aware ). The us military was massively insulted but the public got the joke and it's a great comedy
"Written and directed by Stanley Kubrick, never heard of him before". That's hilarious, he's one of my favourite film directors of all time. That's almost like a football fan saying they have never heard of Manchester United anyway, you must watch The Shining, A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket.
... and Doctor Strangelove
I hope you get to see the sequel, 2010. It’s a completely different movie in every way…far more plot driven and not nearly as stylized, but it provides quite a bit of additional context for the monoliths and their purpose. 2010 was also filmed during the Cold War, so it should be treated as a period- film, but I think it is very underrated. It also explains HAL’s actions from the first film, which will make you see him in a very different light.