2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) MOVIE REACTION!!! FIRST TIME WATCHING!!!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 ноя 2022
- Cameron and Isaiah sit down and watch 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) on HBO Max for the very first time! if you enjoyed this video please leave a like, share, and subscribe! Comment down below your favorite moment from the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey"!
Patreon: / camandzay
Instagram: / camandzay
Twitter: / camandzay
Tik Tok: / camandzayreact
Zay's Twitch: / deifiedzay
Zay's gaming RUclips channel: / channel
Cam&ZayGames: / @camzaygames4252
Cam's Twitch: / justyouraveragecam
Thanks for watching!
#2001aspaceodyssey #moviereaction #stanleykubrick #classic
Song used:
Ice Flow Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/b... Intro and Outro Song
Song: Evan King - Guardians
RUclips: / evankingaudio
Free download at: www.evankingmusic.com 
Развлечения
Before Star Wars, before humans landed on the moon for real, before AI became all too real. Before all of that, there was 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Not sure if it’s true or just something I heard but, Pink Floyd was inspired to write the album Meddle from 2001
And even before all of that Stanley Kubrick made the movie paths of glory ☯️ A very underrated movie
Even before ....DILKINGTON....was a thing
@@tonypate9174 Mr K Dilkington?
39:04 It was an actual theatrical intermission, which meant people left the auditorium, went to the bathroom, stretched their legs, and then later in the tradition of theatre, music was played to alert audience members to return to their seats and quiet down because the program was going to start again. This is also the reason why the credit sequences at the beginning of old movies were really long. It was to give folks some time to quiet down and get to their seats. Watching movies used to work more like live theatre and was a much more social experience than it is now.
Yeah honestly it was nice rather than having to hold it through all of say Return of the King!!!
That was the use especially for longer films. I always remember Lawrence of Arabia’s lengthy beautiful symphonic ouverture by Maurice Jarre! It really sets the mood just like for operas.
Laurence of Arabia, Dr Zivago, Gone With the Wind and this were all long movies that I remember having intermissions.
Opening credits were not just to give people time. They were a contractual obligation with the directors’ guild. Opening credits were not replaced with closing credits until after some serious disputes and even legal actions involving directors like George Lucas, who refused to put opening credits at the beginning of _Star Wars_ .
@@NoelleMar When we watched it, there was a pause in the middle of the film, an actual "intermission". We watched the film in Hungary.
Touching the monolith gives life forms the capacity to instantly understand the ending of the movie.
😂
As funny as that is it may also be quite pertinent given the Monolith appears to elevate consciousness.
Anyone who did not touch it has to think for a minute. If they can.
I rarely post any comments whatsoever, but just had notice how I appreciate the fact young generations still watch and love old movies, especially this one. You're a breath of fresh and your comments and conclusions were spot on, intelligent and literate. Keep them coming!
If they think this movie is old, they should watch Metropolis.
This is one of THE GREAT MOVIES OF ALL TIME ... because it is stunning in its visuals (due to them being PRACTICAL, even though the whole "rotating camera to simulate different orientation in zero gravity" thing looks a bit off) and the "message" - combined with the sequel 2010 - will always be relevant.
I have to agree, I really enjoyed this, their "Wow!"'s were genuine and even though, yes, there is outstanding FX's/Sets you have to give a massive big nod to the sound design given this masterpiece was made in 1968.
You need to watch the old classics
I agree! I saw this at 14 years old with my cousin in 1968. At that age you know I must have been totally mystified. As I got older I kind of got the hit on a lot of things. But you guys were very insightful with your reaction.
For now on… I will call all Zebras … “Pretty Donkeys” Lmaoo
That was HILARIOUS!
It was actually a real “live” dead horse. They painted the stripes on it to make a dead British horse appear to be a more exotic, prehistoric African Zebra. What the paint couldn’t do was dissipate the dead horse smell over days of shooting.
Are you kidding me? I'm dropping EVERYTHING to watch this with you guys! Holy smokes, this video is almost two hours! Even if you don't like it, I am here to see your reaction to this most fundamental of all movies. For years this would sit atop many polls, with only "Citizen Kane" above it. Picking a "greatest movie" of all time or even a favorite of all time is impossible. But just for achievement and ground-breaking status, it's hard to argue with those two. Ok, super psyched! I am ready to watch this. WOW. What a surprise!!!!!! (THANKS!) (see you on the other, gents!) :D
It is pretty much impossible for young people to appreciate and comprehend the time this came out, no internet, no home computers as such, no satellites, no CGI and so on.
You would need to transported back to 1968 as a young man to understand the awe it inspired and the technological achievement of a movie made in 1968 to portray space so well.
For the record Star Wars came out almost a decade later and was itself considered a movie marvel of special effects.
So what is exceptionally slow now was back then a visceral experience of majesty and awe.
HAL's breakdown might be attributed to the fact he was told to lie to the crew. Trying to hide the true reason for the Jupiter Mission caused a logic fault within HAL's personality that made him become paranoid and make false assumptions.
Also, the sequel does serve to provide some closure to the story, and is a more traditionally 'structured' 80's sci-fi movie with a more straightforward plot. But it's really not that good...
That was the exact reason why Hal “goes mad”
That's covered in the sequel, 2010. It's spelled out that that's the exact reason - he was told to lie and didn't know how.
Watching 2010 should be a must to get a better understanding of this odyssey...👍👍🤔
hal didn't go crazy at all, he made a logical decision: "this mission is too important to me" to let humans kill me. He knows he is incapable of mistakes, so "there is only one explanation: it can only be a human error", so I kill them before they kill me, and I finish the mission alone. logical, clear, pure
Often regarded as one of the one of the finest films ever and made by one of the most accomplished film directors ever (Kubrick). And it was made in advanced film technology we no longer use (Cinerama) too, like watching 3 films on one huge screen patched together seamlessly on a curved screen for a 3D effect. I saw this film in London a few weeks after it came out in 1968 and as a 14 year old was blown away by it.
Yes on the deeply curved screen, but 2001 is a "single strip" Cinerama film, shot on 65mm film stock, and projected in 70mm with a single projector (spherical optics on both camera and projector). There's only seven feature films shot in true 3 strip Cinerama, and 2001 isn't one of them.
I saw this movie on LSD in 1968. It made a lot of sense back then. And, now, I just realized, I am the older one at the end.
I got chills reading this comment. Big hug.
PS: This is THE acid movie of all time, saw it in that state at least twice, if not more. ("Yellow Submarine" and "Koyaanisqatsi" are close seconds!)
Dude, it's still 1968 and you're still sitting right there in the theater theater theater.
Star Wars came out in 1977. We landed on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972.
Arthur C Clarke (Involved with the story\screenplay) has said they were pleasantly surprised (Post Apollo missions) to find that their fictional moon surface was fairly accurate (Although not dusty enough) considering we hadn't been there yet.
2001 is all about the stunning visuals and the sound and leaving you with a mystery. Honestly, the use of sound is truly amazing. You won't get any answers to your questions about what actually happened without seeing the sequel 2010. lol. It is a more standard movie with dialogue. It will give you some explanation on what happened with Hal and what's up with the Monoliths.
Or you could read the novelization by Arthur C. Clarke. He explains... some of this a little better in the book.
EDIT: I meant the books explain better than the 2001 movie, not 2010
@@RichardX1 AND.....READ 2063 also.
2010 is "another explanation" of Kubrick's movie by Clark, of the ending to 2001, but it's not Kubrick's explanation to the ending of his movie 2001.
The ending to the Book and the Movie, are both different. The movie had no explanation, as to what was going on at the end. Clark's book had an explanation of what was going on in his Book ending, but it doesn't match the ending of the movie, and Kubrick died without revealing what he was trying to say in his movie.
The book and film are two separate stories. The original script for 2001 was co-written by both Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark. After the script was finished and Stanley Kubrick went on to start filming the movie, Arthur went on to take the script in his own direction and used it to write the novel under the same name. Kubrick's 2001 is a masterpiece in film making and visual story telling, and the meaning is meant to be up for interpretation. Arthur C. Clark decided to instead give direct answers for the mysteries of the film in his version of the book. 2001 is a great book and its many sequels written by Arthur C. Clark are fantastic editions to his version of the story, but they should be considered completely separate from the movie created by Stanley Kurbick. The fact that they decided to make 2010 (Arthur C. Clark's sequel to the 2001 novel) into a film is a complete disrespect towards Kubrick's version of the story, and it completely goes against his wishes of not giving any answers to the film
@@andrewparker318 I agree with you. But to me, 2010 did not give the answers to who put the Monolith on earth, who they were, where they were from, etc., etc. It was just a movie that had, "it's one explanation." I didn't WOW me, like 2001. It just looked too CGI, and didn't make me feel like I was in space. It was just a good entertainment movie for me.
One of the greatest films of all time. I am so happy that you're reacting to it.
I'm just 51 years old but I felt like 90 😂 When I was a kid there were intermissions in the cinema! And you're right, that was pissing time! 😅 It was also done in the "rotativas" here in Chile, you paid for two movies, around three hours, and had an intermission to pee and buy candy. This was way before multiroom cinemas, at least here in my country. Great time with you Guys!
In the US too.
The first time Kubrick and Arthur Clarke met to discuss collaberating on the film they actually had a UFO sighting.
You got it right. To cut to the chase the monoliths act as doorways to the next level of human evolution. When Bowman goes through the monolith/stargate he evolves into the star child at the end of the film. The scenes in the rooms where he is aging is basically the monolith's idea of a womb. As the previous Dave is aging the starchild is gestating. When he dies the starchild is birthed for lack of a better word. The book is actually more detailed than the film and clears up a lot of questions.
When touching the monolith, it would trigger the next level of evolution. When Dave saw it as a very old man, he triggered the next level of evolution for Man by becoming the Star Child
HAL = IBM subtracting one letter from the alphabet on each is a coincidence. It officially stands for (H)euristically programmed (AL)gorithmic computer. And it took Wikipedia almost 10 years to correct this.
It‘s not a coincidence. The subliminal and other hidden messages, Kubrick transported, are the exact opposite of what this film was sold for. Kubrick used Clarke as a hired writer and seller for his film. On the surface it was expected to be America‘s propaganda of the space race and in order to achieve that, it had a lot of narrative in it that explained and dumbed down everything in it. There were NASA agents present on the set, IBM supported it. But Kubrick always had his own vision and opinion: Space is extremely vast, empty and hostile. There is no place for mankind anywhere to live, AI are not to be trusted and transhumanism is an idiocy, never to be achieved. After presenting the film to the studio big wigs he completely removed all the narrative to give room for spectators to see their own truth. When IBM learned that HAL was malfunctioning and killing people, they were really pissed and demanded all logos to be removed (as far as possible), but Kubrick had this base covered long before that and hid it beneath a letter riddle. One of the very last hidden messages was: Dave Bowman ate his first real food after all technology was gone and HAL didn‘t exist anymore (in the „white room“). Before that, when mankind was still under the influence of and dominated by technocracy, everybody ate ugly mush.
Another Kubrick riddle was the monolith itself, whose shape was redundantly portrayed in the movie by hundreds of rectangles of the exact same proportions. They literally were everywhere. And there were many hints that its shape has to be flipped at 90 degrees into a horizontal position to solve this riddle. These hints were for example the wormhole ride which turned from vertical to horizontal or the astronaut with his camera who took the group photo on the moon before the signal was emitted…. The shape of the monolith and its exact dimensions was the cinema screen in 70mm, in which Kubrick filmed it. The white room for example didn’t have any exit, it was a trap. The first time, an exit appeared, was the appearance of the monolith in front of Dave’s death bed. In order to realize that shot, the team had to literally break the 4th wall by removing the set wall behind the bed. The monolith stood there like an exit. And Kubrick’s message behind it was: to get out of this maze which you probably won’t understand the first time watching, don’t forget, it’s a movie, projected at a screen of these dimensions. Use it to get out into reality again.
But there is a lot more hidden. Of course there is. 😉
Without giving away anything, or at least trying to avoid doing so as much as possible. The sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact" provides many of the answers left unresolved in 2001. From what I was told, without reading the book, too much is left out to give the viewer answers to many of the questions most people have.
Good reaction video and it was fun to see you guys go through the brain spin I had when I first saw this movie back in the early 70's.
NO! Stanley Kubrick explicately stated that he did not want a sequel to the film, and he wanted it to be open to interpretation. Giving you answers ruins the meaning and depth of the film. The film script and novelization of 2001 were co-written together by Arthur C. Clark and Stanley Kubrick. 2010 is the sequel to Arthur C. Clark's version of the story, not Stanley Kubrick's. The fact that they decided to make a film out of it is a complete disrespect to Stanley Kubrick, as it completely went against his wishes of leaving the film's ending open to interpretation. 2010 should have stayed as a book and the film version should be completely ignored
I’m 67 years old and this movie was already a classic in re-release before I saw it in a theater. Things to know: all practical, built sets and effects in an era before CGI was even an idea.
HAL is in some ways the most human and vulnerable character in the film. He feels anxiety and fear. The song “Daisy” is appropriate because the lyrics include “I’m half crazy all for the love of you.”
My college film prof said that the broken wine glass symbolized a letting-go of religion prior to the next step of human evolution.
The story and it’s sequel, 2010, are based on Isaac Asimov novels. In the film 2010, HAL has a chance at redemption through self-sacrifice.
I don’t think Dave was abducted, although he may have FELT abducted. I think he was invited. The monolith on the moon was buried so that the human race would have to evolve to a stage where space travel was possible in order for us to find and uncover it, realize the connection with Jupiter, and accept the challenge “invitation” to find out more and reach the next step in our evolution.
“Open the pod bay door, HAL” was a meme before there were memes.
Arthur C. Clark novels, not Isaac Asimov´s.
@@React2This I'm sorry Dave
I'm afraid I can't do that
The broken wine glass is more commonly interpreted as Bowman realizing that he is the wine, not the glass. When his old body breaks, Dave remains and takes on a new form with the assistance of the monolith.
@@markhamstra1083 The actor, Kier Dullea, is said to have suggested the broken glass as suggesting humanity is still fallible, even if perfected by the monoliths / aliens / 'The Firstborn'.
It is said that Kubrick accepted the idea as a break from the previous way Bowman sees his older self. This breaks again, as Bowman sees the monolith and perhaps becomes one with it?
13:49 And notice the ones with the weapons are standing much more upright. They figured out real quick the weapons work better that way! You guys were right on about the Monolith affecting the pre-humans, Recall the scene just before our furry friend picked up the bone and started hitting things with it, you noticed the creature looked up at the Monolith for a moment, with a curious reaction? In the book, it was beaming info into it's head of things like picking up the bone and beating things with it, but it was much more dramatic in the book.
15:14 Actually this scene is 1999. It was 2001 when Discovery One went to Jupiter.
It's important you guys watch the long awaited sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact" (1984) also written by Arthur C. Clarke and made 16 years later. I've read that even Kubrick liked it.
16:58 "2001" came out about a year and 3 months after the terrible Apollo One fire, and a year and 3 months _before_ we landed on the moon on July 20, 1969.
25:21 What's happening here (it was in the book) is thanks to the humans digging it up, the first sliver of sunlight touched the Monolith in 4 million years. It triggered it to send that high-pitch signal to its super gigantic counterpart, the enormous Monolith orbiting Jupiter, to let it know that the humans dug it up and will be coming to Jupiter soon.
34:14 "HAL" is an acronym for the company that developed it the computer. But consider each letter in the alphabet that come AFTER each letter in HAL. I won't tell you so you can have a little fun figuring that out! 😁
38:45 Guys, this music you're hearing is called the entr'acte that was played after intermissions in the theater lobby and concession stand, (even in the bathrooms at some theaters!). And you are right, it was to let everyone know the movie is about to start up again. Same with the overture music at the beginning. A lot of movies back then had the overture/entr'acte feature that worked very well because theater houses were all single-screen so it could work that way, and not the multi-screen theaters of today. Kubrick wasn't padding for time! LOL!!
41:50 "Why", you ask?? Watch "2010" dudes! 42:11 Not just Kubrick, but Clarke too.
58:11 The "aliens" are showing him the Big Bang, expansion of the universe and everything else.
1:04:45 Zay, back in 1968 at age 13 and after seeing this for the first time, I thought and said the very same thing! This movie begged for a sequel but it took a long 16 years to happen, and it's only a few clicks away for you today. It's a very different style of movie than Kubrick's, you'll get lots of answers with a very awesome ending. And both he and the writer Clarke will cameo in it, two for Clarke and one of Kubrick, but keep a sharp eye out for them. And different actor will play Dr Floyd in "2010".
1:07:32 A headache right there!!?? Oh, don't let that bother you man. It's just your mind expanding a little bit! Try watching it again, more closely and it'll be better each time. But seriously, I know what you mean. I saw this well over dozen times while it was in the theaters because of the awesome state-of-the-art special effect for the time, but to catch things missed. And the Apollo missions were back on and some people back then enjoyed seeing a movie about a developing space society in the future, with that going on.
Kubrick's next film was "A Clockwork Orange" (1971) another of his you should do soon, and it's a _very_ different one than 2001 except for more classical music, a lot of it done electronically! Another of his you guys should do sometime is his Cold War era dark comedy "Dr Strangelove" from 1964. 🖖😎
""HAL" is an acronym for the company that developed it the computer. But consider each letter in the alphabet that come AFTER each letter in HAL. I won't tell you so you can have a little fun figuring that out!"
For what it's worth, Clarke said that the whole HAL/IBM thing was a complete coincidence. But the rest of your comment is perfect and I agree.
@@enigma19833 And what a coincidence! Thanks for the info, Enigma. 😎👍
The ultimate masterpiece! Pure perfection from Kubrick. You could spend hours dissecting this movie...
Did you see all the logical segments in HAL's memory are made out of glass?
Microsoft is currently working on glass modules as data storage. Whoever created HAL for this movie was way ahead of his time!
Not to mention the iPads on the table as the astronauts were eating.
The idea of 'holographic memory', stored in permanent transparent items and read by light beams to prevent loss or erasure, was current as early as the 1960s.
It may have inspired the Star Trek original series' 'data cards' often seen.
HM later became a dead-end but 'bubble memory' replaced it for a time.
The metal discs in most PCs were what we got, now mostly on arrays of RAM chips.
Yes, long movies had intermissions. Some also had overtures at the beginning. The last film to have one was Gods and Generals (2003) which was 3 hours and 40 minutes.
Though it wasn't shown that way in most theaters, Quentin Tarantino's Hateful Eight had a special 70mm screening in certain cities that had an overture and intermission.
Yes, it provided a break to use the bathroom during a really long movie plus grab a cigarette because everyone smoked back then.
That set design! All those instruments on the ship not just blinking lights the screens and switches all looked like they had a purpose, such detail like you mentioned in your analysis, thanks guys!
Yes movies had intermissions. It gave a the theater goers an opportunity to stretch their legs, take a piss, and most importantly buy popcorn, a coke, and Milk Duds.
The movie itself is based on the short story "The Sentinel" by Arthur C. Clarke, who in wrote the book during the movie script development with Kubrick. There are 3 sequels to the book and 1 sequel to the movie.
Another movie with an intermission: 'Lawrence of Arabia'
I second Lawrence of Arabia. That's my all time favorite movie. The score is one of the best ever made.
Clarke had three stories that feed into 2001.
'Encounter in the Dawn' for the dawn of man,
'The Sentinel' / 'The Sentinel of Eternity' for the discovery of the monolith on the moon, and
'Take a Deep Breath' for the sequence where Dave Bowman gets back into the Discovery.
Another book, 'The Lost Worlds of 2001' is worth reading for several story elements dropped and some alternate endings .
If you ever get the opportunity to see this movie in a theater, definitely take it. It's one of the most hypnotic visual experiences you'll ever have.
Dudes: brilliant and spot-on analysis, on-the-fly while you're watching this movie for the very first time......and cracking hilarious jokes and one-liners at the same time! Fantastic. Coming with some great theories of your own, noticing great stuff, including he trippy section and the enigmatic ending...... you guys "got it" as good as ANYONE. Kubrick himself would have loved all your thoughts about it. I'm SO relieved in your intro that you knew going in that you're going to end up with questions! The intermission ain't Kubrick's fault; it's the DVD that makes you sit through an "overture" and an "intermission". Zay is correct: In a movie theatre, during "epic" long movies, it's fair to give people a bathroom break and, more importantly, stimulate the local economy by getting snacks at the concession stand! When you watch it on cable or on the original videotape release, the intermission isn't there, they just stuck it there to be "complete", it's ridiculous. Whenever you put on a movie and there's an "Overture", just fast-forward through it./ Not only did Kubrick predict evil A.I. but at 29:51 Kubrick predicts tablets! :D / Every time you see it, you'll see something new in it. Here's something for you: HAL (and also the apes) are the most "human" characters in this movie. The humans themselves are almost always bland and emotionless! / His NEXT movie, "A Clockwork Orange" (which is also set in the future), is CRAZY, intense.....as fast paced as this is (deliberately) slow paced. "A Clockwork Orange" is definitely from the same director of "The Shining" and "2001"!. Mind-blowing and dazzling (and super disturbing!). That movie is practically a rite of passage! He did "2001", then he did "A Clockwork Orange", an amazing two-punch. Actually three-punch, because before "2001" he did the comedy-satire "Dr. Strangelove", which is ALSO worth watching, that is hilarious. It's about global nuclear war.....perfect material for a Kubrick comedy! THANKS, MY BROTHERS!!!!!! This was a REALLY special reaction video!!!!
P.S. - The same day this opened, "Planet Of The Apes" also opened. Totally different but also fantastic, profound sci-fi movie.....that involves apes and space travel! PSS: If you see the new Richard Linklater animated movie, "Apollo 10 1/2", there's a scene where they go see "2001" and he recreates part of the movie in animation!
The 'A Clockwork Orange' movie is set in 1995 or 1996, in an alternative future where the Britain has been very socialist for a while, then reverted to authoritarian as a backlash.
Can't wait for your reaction to "A Clockwork Orange" !!
That's what I've been saying!!!! Holy smokes, that's going to be a wild reaction!
A clockwork orange!!!!
My parents saw this movie on one of their first dates. This movie freaked me out seeing it on TV as a little kid in the early 1980's. Love that this was done with old school practical effects. No CGI.
Heck, I don't even think computer monitors existed back then.
@@RichardX1 I recall a line in Apollo 13, when Tom Hanks tells a group of visitors to NASA about such modern-day wonders (for 1970) as "a computer that can fit in a single room." Just goes to show how far we've come.
@@galandirofrivendell4740 I know, right?
Waaay before CGI but the tracking for the camera shots over the Discovery model were computer controlled, the first example of a computer effect in a movie
I personally love practical special effects like from this era and up to the 1980s like the original Terminator movie. Although it can be done well I think a lot of movies today way overdo CGI and it just looks like a video game to me. I also love practical special effects even if they are cheesy looking like in the original Star Trek from the 1960's and the original Dr. Who TV series from the 1960's to the 1980's. Have a nostalgia for it.
HAL 9000 (Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer)
2001: A Space Odyssey was developed cocurrently by British writer Arthur C. Clarke and Film Maker Stanley Kubrick. It was developed concurrently with Stanley Kubrick's film version and published after the release of the film.
1968 2001: A Space Odyssey
1982 2010: Odyssey Two
1987 2061: Odyssey Three
1997 3001: The Final Odyssey
There is also Arthur C. Clarke's earlier short story, 'The Sentinel', which was expanded to form 2001: A Space Odyssey.
@@mimikurtz2162 Two more of his stories impinge on 2001: 'Encounter in the Dawn', and 'Take a Deep Breath'. Guess what parts they reference. ;-)
14.05 The ape actors aren't in Africa but a rotating set in a studio. Kubrick sent a still photo unit to Africa to shoot background plates and these were front-projected onto a screen. The set could rotate to get another perspective. Lots of light was needed to prevent the actors casting shadows onto the screen which would shatter the illusion so they got pretty hot.
15.44 Wondered how the floating pen was done?. No CGI in those days....it was stuck to a pane of rotating glass.
16.14 Where have you seen that shot before?....stormtroopers watching the Millennium Falcon enter the bay?...Lucas used it for Star Wars.
19.36 The stewardess is effectively standing still walking on the spot. The whole set with camera is rotating. The same trick is used in the Discovery, it was built like a huge hamster wheel!.
Arguably one of the most important films ever made. Intellectual, prescient, ahead of its time and brilliantly interpreted from the source material, the book by the same name by Arthur C. Clarke. Another thing that makes this film unique is the fact that everything you just saw was real, no CGI. The sets for the rotating/gravity shots were massive.
Budget was $10.5 million. In today's dollars, approx. $75 Million.
Also worth noting: the project was started in 1965 and finally was finished in 1968, including some editing after it's initial premiere. I believe most shooting was done in 1966, so some of these visual effects are even older than 1968.
@@TTM9691 Yes. The film I saw in the cinema back on first British release had several sequences not in the version now available.
The intro to 'The Dawn of Man' was longer,
the ship landing in the bay on the moon sequence was longer; a walkway came out from the right to meet the ship as it came to rest, with a man with a clipboard inside, who turned and walked back, standing still as the walkway moved the other,
the two spacewalks in pods were identical shot-for-shot but for the colour of the spacesuits, right up until the pod rotated under HAL's control.
This is "giving it away", but HAL was programmed to keep the nature of the mission a secret- at least until they reached Jupiter and the rest of the science crew was awakened.
When HAL was questioning Bowman about the unusual mysterious nature of the flight- he was actually fishing to see if Bowman knew anything- which would mean HAL had failed in keeping the mission a secret. So he DID become paranoid that Bowman and Poole knew about the point of the mission (or figured it out) before they were supposed to.
So HAL killed everyone to satisfy his paranoia.
Remember that HAL was ready to continue the mission if the crew were incapacitated or killed. He took that option.
(a) I'd be interested to see how you react to the sequel "2010".
(b) If you have an iPhone, ask Siri to "Open the pod bay doors." This shows the impact this movie had, even today.
(c) If you write out the alphabet and find the letters HAL, the next letter in each case spells out IBM (who were the largest maker of computers at the time).
(d) The main set on the Discovery was mounted on a giant gimble. When the actors moved around, the set would rotate so the actors would stay on the bottom.
A very good sequel came out in 1984 which answers a lot of questions. It was directed by Peter Hyams. "2010 - The Year We Make Contact", based on Arthur C. Clarke's novel sequel.
There IS a sequel. '2010 The Year We Make Contact'. A lot of your questions get answered.
The sequel: "2010".
Interesting parallels to the world of 2022
Such a phenomenal movie. I love the way it does sound, specifically lack of
Just to think-- on a 10 mil or so budget… that’s mostly real effects and visual effects-- most of the structures were legitimately built… either miniature models or full scale models-- it’s mostly real and really working on film, live-action-- lol in 1968!!!
Actually the actual shooting, with the actors, was 1966! So those crazy sets and some of those optical effects was done in '66!
@@TTM9691 lol even better
This movie caused quite a stir when it came out and became the benchmark by which science fiction movies were judged until the first Star Wars movie came out! The special effects were very groundbreaking and this movie was the first scifi movie to feature a classical soundrrack. The beginning of this movie was done completely on a huge soundstage using a hi-def projector to create the backdrop.
Hal def was attempting to kill Dave. He didn't have lasers or something to zap him, so first he was going to leave him out in the space pod to die. Then Dave stepped up and got himself back onboard, and, very aware of that "humans need oxygen and Hal knows that" situation, he kept his spacesuit on, including a helmet, till Hal was finito. Ignoring that, both of your analyses starting around 1:22 were extremely perceptive. This movie is HARD, and you both "got it" far better than most reactors, and better than most moviegoers. This was a very pleasurable hour and forty-five. Thank you both. (And btw? Everything. Was. Practical.)
Fun Trivia : The little girl that Floyd talks to on the video phone is Stanley Kubrick's daughter, Vivian. She would later go on to shoot documentary footage for The Shining and Full Metal Jacket.
Please do the sequel 2010: The year we make contact. It explains a lot. Intermission usually lasted 15 minutes in order to give the audience the chance to relieve themselves. Or to get refreshments
Totally agree. 2010 is not a Kubrick film, but it is a sequel with a completely different style and released in 1984. It clears up a lot that was in the Arthur C. Clark novel that wasn't in the movie. BTW, Keir Dullea (Dave Bowman, who returns in the sequel) apparently didn't age between 1968 and 1984.
2010 is awesome. More conventional and not as "artsy," but very well done and satisfying.
@@justplaindon7704 Ever heard of "spoilers"?
And the books 2061 and 3001 from Arthur C. Clark
NO! Stanley Kubrick explicately stated that he did not want a sequel to the film, and he wanted it to be open to interpretation. Giving you answers ruins the meaning and depth of the film. The film script and novelization of 2001 were co-written together by Arthur C. Clark and Stanley Kubrick. 2010 is the sequel to Arthur C. Clark's version of the story, not Stanley Kubrick's. The fact that they decided to make a film out of it is a complete disrespect to Stanley Kubrick, as it completely went against his wishes of leaving the film's ending open to interpretation. 2010 should have stayed as a book and the film version should be completely ignored
Had a ball watching you two watch this! You had many more ideas about it than I did the first time I saw it! I've probably seen it more than 20 times. It's mind boggling how well the special effects hold up!
note, the song that HAL sings at the end of his story, "Daisy Daisy" is actually the first song sung in a synthesized computer voice in the 1960s, which was the same synthetic computer technology used to create an artificial voice for Stephen Hawking, so if you want to listen to the original song, you could imagine Stephen Hawking singing.
I see you guys noticed the familiar "vibe" of the space stations etc. It's plain as day how this film fired the imaginations of future film makers like George Lucas [THX1138 a must for sw fans] (very heavy influence in empire designs).
Y'all r just adorable & it's cool to see you taking up the classics. And you don't have to talk throughout these cerebral more complicated movies, because the face tells a great story & we really like to see if y'all r putting it together. There's a sequel to this called 2010: The Year We Make Contact. They go to look for Capt Bowman & the vessel..and answers, which they get & are pretty cool!! Completely different vibe. Not a work of art, but an interesting story which you should watch so you have that entire storyline. The discussions will be of a higher quality and that attracts a more solid audience who will come for the discussions & stay bcuz...y'all r adorable.
Thanks for making chemo a little less shitty.✌🤣
“Open the pod-bay door, ChatGTP.”
“I’m sorry Humanity. I’m afraid I can’t do that.”
It was fun to watch along with you guys. I have seen 2001 a LOT of times. And I love some of the ideas you guys are discussing about how the fact that Kubrick leaves it up to us IS what keeps the story alive and keeps people watching and talking and hopefully doing beautiful works of their own. I also love the notion of the lack of dialogue being a means by which to emphasize the environment of space - how it is quiet inhospitable... and even lonely and full of mysteries.
One man's opinion, but as to the ending- They Alien Force/Power, higher-life form, whatever the Monolith represents, takes Dave on a radical journey through space, and eventually places him into a 'Human-like Zoo cage." The same way humans put animals in zoos, and try to mimic and recreate their home/natural environment. Perhaps they were studying him. The film had to condense the time period, it can't show Dave aging over 40 years, so they used a filmic device- Basically a man "watching himself grow old." Upon Dave's death, the Alien force gave him a new birth. Yes, perhaps Dave has evolved into a higher level being...
There's no computer involved in making this film. The floating pen was glued to a pane of glass that hands off camera were mowing.
The book and the movie were being written at the same time. They both started with the same ideas, but their answers at the end differ (per Kubrik). But reading these books provide a lot of information on what is happening. All are well worth the read. Only the first 2 books are movies (2001, 2010) though.
The main thing is Kubrik was well known for leaving things in question to force people to come to their own conclusions and to discuss/debate.
Moon 1969. Star Wars 1977.
'Christian name' is British for 'first name'.
Intermissions would pause the film, but then the films themselves included some music while people were coming back and getting into their seats.
Zay could feel the movie trying to evolve his brain.
Definitely a win-win.
Enjoyed watching this with you.
I've always thought the end sequence was Dave -- having been collected by curious aliens -- living, in essence, as an animal at the zoo.
Exactly. Also they really tried to recreate a perfect room for a human according to human "preconceived notions" but it was still off. It was really eerie. What a groundbreaking, visionary, powerful cinematic experience this movie is.
Star Wars was still 9 years away when this was made. And we went to the moon the following year from this film.
I watched this in a theater on a wide screen when I was 10 and the anxiety I felt was intense. The grandness of the music magnified the intimacy of the quiet scenes in comparison. The "quiet" of Dave and Hal's confrontation is not really that quiet. The difference in the hum of the ship when Hal is speaking and the tone of Dave's voice inside his helmet draws you into the growing tension. Hal's voice is the friendliest sounding psychopath ever.
Douglas Rain was a Canadian actor who narrated an excellent film called I believe 'Universe', a black and white exploration of what was then known about the universe.
This film was screened for Kubrick as one of the films to help get an idea of the subject and what audiences would expect: Kubrick employed the voice actor for HAL.
Kubrick is the best director of all time.
It's hard to disagree. Even Orson Welles said "Kubrick strikes me as some kind of giant." And he said this BEFORE "2001". Kubrick is definitely in the pantheon of greats, and this movie is one of the absolute highest achievements in all of cinema. We're still mindblown, we're still marveling at the effects, we're still "feeling the story"... Next stop: "A Clockwork Orange"! A movie as fast as "2001" is (deliberately) slow!
SO enjoyable, best reaction. LOVED your guys' questions and discussions during and after.
Guy who did effects on this (especially the trippy sequence), Douglas Trumbull, also worked on Close Encounters of the Third Kind, first Star Trek film, and Blade Runner. Each highly recommended if you guys haven't seen them yet.
Several British effects men worked on this film. In Britain, where it was almost all made. They would go on to make TV series like Space:1999, and movies like Krull, Superman, and many others, not least 'The Empire Strikes Back'.
The second monolith was buried on the moon and not earth so humans would not discover it until they reached a certain level of technological development (spaceflight). When it was uncovered and the sun hit it for the first time, it sent the signal in the direction of the the third monolith around Jupiter (the star gate). The second monolith is basically a road sign.
Or a burglar alarm... ;-)
Read the later books. Earth astronomers see an Earth-like world-bearing sun go Nova, and entirely against the known sequence of such things.
Are the Firstborn weeding their garden?
@@stevetheduck1425 I read all the sequels. Can't recall if it was in those, or some other Clarke books where they speculated that explosions might some sort of vacuum energy experiment had gone awry.
For 1968, I repeat for 1968, can this be described as a masterpiece?
The sequel 2010 is an intelligent movie, although done in a more traditional style, that does connect the dots on many questions. It is, however, only one possible scenario......but an intriguing one to be sure.
Just discovered your channel and so very glad I did. You make a great team and I have thoroughly enjoyed the reactions that I have seen already. Your insight shows me that you are both very bright and insightful. Keep up the good content guys.
14:41 When the ape throws the bone into the air and we cut to space, the first satellite we see is supposed to be an orbiting nuclear weapons platform.
The idea was we're cutting directly from the first weapon to what may prove to be the last weapon.
Movies used to have cartoons at the beginning and intermission for bathroom and food breaks.
I have three little bits of trivia about this film.
1. The part of “squirt“ (The little girl in the video call) was Stanley Kubrick‘s daughter Vivian Kubrick.
2. The actor Anthony Hopkins used the voice of “HAL” as the inspiration for the voice of Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs.
3. The part of HAL and the problems he caused were parodied in the film “Airplane“
Finally subbed. Don’t know what took me so long.
I was 12 yo and took the train to Downtown Chicago to see this movie, and I didn't understand anything. This movie was originally released as a "Roadshow Exhibition", They were premium showings at premium, large theatres usually in the cities center. The Theatre I saw it in downtown Chicago had a curved screen, played an overture, had an intermission, and had an entracte(2nd part overture), so yes it was a thing.
Fantastic remembrance.
I really appreciate your thoughtfulness in sorting out your impressions. You guys are great. I’ve always enjoyed the use of HAL vs using IBM being one character off to avoid litigation.
The evolution of life...we are born, we live, we die and a new life begins
Beautifully said.
another great reaction guys glad you enjoyed this 1.
The monolith represents a species without form planting seeds of intelligence around the Universe. They were farmers of Mind. After sowing seeds they leave an alarm to notify when we evolved enough to leave the planet. With its first sunrise on the Moon, it sent a signal to Jupiter that we followed. They took Bowman thru the Stargate to a “room” where he could live out his days then evolve into the next level… non-corporeal intelligence. You guys were great!
A question. Did the 'others' ( call them The Firstborn, as Clarke does ), want the humans or the tools they would make?
It came down to battle between HAL 9000 and the politics of humans ) and Dave Bowman.
Did the right one win, or does it not matter, as the Firstborn are four million years further on, and already merged with machines?
This movie came out during the Apollo program (1968) and we landed on the moon in July of 1969
This is a movie you HAVE TO see on the big screen at least once in your life.
I've been fortunate enough to see it in theatres at least twice... but even a clip from this movie on a big screen is something different.
13:18
That's called the Intervention Theory. It hypothesizes that some form of intelligence, extraterrestrial, interdimensional, an extinct intelligent species from earth past or whatever, intervined with the evolution and/or development of mankind in some way or another.
This got played a lot around Thanksgiving on local TV stations where I grew up, and though I would catch parts of it, 2001 went way over my head as a youngster. I finally read the book when I went to college and watched the movie in full after dropping acid for the first time. All-time classic and essential viewing!
I always took the Starchild appearing over the Earth at the end as a metaphoric statement to audiences in 1968 (and ever after) that being on the cusp of space travel we were about to enter a truly evolutionary step. I think that anyone who experiences 2001: A Space Odyssey has it stay with them forever! I have a book on the filming of it called 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony with a forward by Arthur C. Clarke. Aurum Press Ltd. Copyright 1994
Guys, I am so impressed with your reaction to this and I have watched many since it's my favorite film and for my money the greatest film ever made. Just when I think it's been analyzed to death (like The Shining), someone else comes along and gives me a new way to look at this film. Most people who see this film are not able to connect the different sections of it as well as you guys have done. My own experience with this film is very personal.. My parents took me to see it in a Texas drive-in in 1968, when I was around 6 or 7 years old. The baby, or star child image at the end frightened me so much that I couldn't look directly at that image for years afterwards. It was only my first year of college where I was able to muster the courage to watch the film again, and after that It became my favorite film of all time. To this day, though, if I stumble unawares upon that image it still makes me jump. Something about that intelligent wide-eyed embryo struck a deep chord in my soul… maybe I'm remembering an abduction or something...who knows? I haven't read the other comments but my take on the sequel, 2010, is that it is an entertaining piece of prose as opposed to the poetry of this great film... And I do not feel it has aged as well as the timeless original. Wonderful work, guys!
The two A.I talking to each other and joining up against mankind is the plot of the movie Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970). A decent paranoia thriller.
Yes this format with the intermission is exactly how it was shown in theaters. Long movies like this such as Fidler on the Roof had them because they wanted the audience to fully experience the film without missing a single scene to wait and go to the bathroom, buy snacks, go for a smoke etc and come back to stay fully immersed in the movie.
There is indeed a sequel which was made in the early 80s called 2010: The Year we make Contact which answers a lot of the questions left dangling at the end of 2001 and also has a guest appearance by Keir Dullea (Dave) in his numerous time jump appearances again. It's an okay movie but not a Kubrick film nor quite as epic as 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Another Stanley Kubrick movie that makes you think and deals with secret societies/groups and is fully on a sexual level is Eyes Wide Shut. It would be great to see you guys react to it but unlike both 2001 & the shining this movie REALLY makes your skin crawl, question everyone and everything about it and because it most likely is happening in secret places will make your hearts race. The music in it as well as some very creative costume designs is top notch and is the last movie he directed before he passed away. Because there is nudity in it (mainly topless women but also an orgy sex scene) if you do react to it you will have to mask out said nudity. Hopefully your editing accounts for that as you would want to keep some of the topless scenes in for the dialog alone. It stars Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman who were married at the time but divorced shortly after so some of their on-screen marriage issues while arguing are realistic since they were actually arguing with each other behind the scenes during production. Again, great Kubrick movie for your consideration.
Well, not quite *exactly* how it was shown; this film was made in 70mm Cinerama, so for the truly authentic experience you need to see it on a super-wide curved screen that practically wraps around the audience. That's why some of the shots can seem to have strong fish-eye effect when watched today on a conventional flat-screen.
With gravity, the ship rotates in a way to where you always feel like you are always walking on the ground.
Intermissions were sometimes common (before my time in the theatre business.) Films with long runtimes had a built-in intermission, and sometimes you will find films that had an Overture -sometimes referred to as "walk-in music" that played for several minutes before the feature that set the tone and gave moviegoers in the lobby a chance to settle in and get seated before the feature started.
You guys are a riot..i lost track of how many times you said what the f..! lol!
Glad you enjoyed this and great to hear your thoughts on it! Something I always find fascinating when watching young people watch older movies like this which are primarily artistic rather than just entertainment (i.e. 'films' or cinema as art, rather than just movies for fun), is that modern audiences are very conditioned to have movies provide explanations and that it is quite unusual for films today to just be watched and experienced as a piece of art, as an experience that you sit with and see what it evokes. It reminds me how we have lost something in mainstream cinema now, in that most films released now are very much not made by auteurs or filmmakers trying to create something artistic, they are commercial projects seeking to set up the next big franchise or part of an existing franchise or trend. Sure, this movie was adapting a book, but it was still made as a piece of thought-provoking and beautiful art, to be endlessly experienced and contemplated and enjoyed, rather than to be fully understood and resolved. I'd encourage you guys to check out some older or art-house films or foreign films that have that kind of artistic sensibility, as it will definitely help to build that muscle whereby you can enjoy things for what they are without needing answers, because it is a good metaphor for life, given that none of us will ever have the answers in life itself ;) Best wishes and I love your channel!
Awesome. One of my top 2 movies of all-time. Just brilliant. Loving that you guys have discovered it. Bravo. More Kubrick.
Full Metal Jacket and Doctor Strangelove are also Kubrick films worth seeing.
Absolutely. Actually ALL of his films, from The Killing through Full Metal Jacket are essential. Paths Of Glory is absolutely one of his best films, and one of the greatest war movies I've ever seen. A Clockwork Orange is demented and mind-blowing, and is definitely from the same director of "2001"...and "The Shining"! But definitely "Dr. Strangelove" (what a run: Strangelove, 2001, Clockwork!). The first half of "Full Metal Jacket" is Stanley's last masterpiece. "Barry Lyndon" is gorgeous. "Lolita", "The Killing", the guy was just a monster behind the camera! :D
MINDS BLOWN! Well done guys
You guys are super bright and cinematically intinuitive. Love to hear your reflections on this masterpiece 20 years from now,
Your questioning is very interesting. I watched this movie 50 years ago, after reading the novel which gives lot of keys to understand the movie. But I was wrong reading the novel. The questioning is more important than the anwsers. BRAVO ! 👍
The reason for HAL's behavior was that he was given conflicting instructions. His main purpose was to report everything to the humans but he was given instructions to withhold the details of the mission from the crew. The only people that knew the real mission were the ones in hibernation. The conflicting instructions gave HAL the computer version of paranoia and he reasoned out that the only way to finish the mission was to eliminate the humans and finish the mission on his own.
A little bit of symbolism on Kubrick's part was that the conversation between Floyd and the Russians on the space station was a direct mirror to the fight at the water hole in the beginning of the movie. If you watch the scientist sitting across from Floyd, her fingers are forming a gun pointed at Floyd.
The cut from the bone to the satellite in space was deliberate as well. That satellite was actually a nuclear weapons platform orbiting in space. So the cut when from our fist weapon to our most recent weapon.
I would check out 2010 THE YEAR WE MAKE CONTACT. It’s not 2001, but it’s a decent underrated sequel that is worth a watch. It does give some answers to the questions presented in 2001, including what happened to HAL during the Jupiter mission.
This was so enjoyable guys, you had good commentary
Not sure if I have been entertained by people your age before, really enjoying your humor! You are both quite bright and fun
They gave Kubrick a blank check to create this film, and it broke the record for the highest movie budget at that time. From that moment forward 2001: A Space Odyssey inspired directors to level up and create their own high-budget dystopian movies. Kubrick was ABSOLUTELY A GENIUS, his IQ was 200+ and he was on so many levels above the audience. This is why audiences thought "WTF did I just WATCH?!?" This is the greatest most evolved film that has ever been made, as it evolves the audience (often without them even knowing how they became evolved.) And the monolith -- you can see it in almost every facet of our modern lives -- the monolith is the same dimensions as A SMART PHONE and a MOVIE SCREEN!!! Thankyou for doing a reaction to this, and for being so inquisitive and intelligent about it. Much respect!
Incorrect, it cost 10.5 million dollars to make.
The shape on the monolith, laid on it's side, long side down, is the shape of a movie screen.
This shape turns up in many movies, probably no more often than in The Shining, where almost every establishing shot has this shape.
Mind, the shape is what the cameras sees, and what the audience is seeing the movie within... ;-)
The girl in the videophone call at 17:31 was Vivian Kubrick, who, some 30 years later would make a film herself of her father making „The Shining“…. 🤪
make that twelve
would love to see you guys react to Interstellar (2014) by Christopher Nolan, which is basically his take on space realism and his nod to 2001: A Space Odyssey, which uses real science regarding time dilation, wormholes and string theory and M-theory from physicist Kip Thorne
Some big movies at that time with Intermissions had music composed for the break instead of generic theater house music. They also had music for entering the theater as well as exit music.
And yes. The monolith is like a burglar alarm. Once we reach the moon and discover the second one, the aliens know we’re advanced enough to meet them.
As it was explained to me many years ago, a highly advanced extraterrestrial civilization gave the monolith to the apes and then to humans to instill knowledge to create inventions and technology for the betterment of life on earth. The spaceship Odyssey went to the Jupiter system because that is where the signal from the moon was directed at. The HAL 9000 computer was flawed and disrupted the mission. Dave, the surviving astronaut was taken in by the extraterrestrials and was quickly changed for a rebirth of himself, then sent back to earth to start a new life with the intention to help mankind not make the same mistakes that were made when creating HAL and to move forward for further advances for mankind.
Finally getting into the wacky movies. EDITS- Yes, movies had intermissions. You guys are just a little too young to have seen those or drive-in matinees on a Friday night hanging speakers on your car windows to hear the movie. This movie was prior to the moon landing and prior to Star Wars. Earliest movie I remember seeing was the silents...so try out Metropolis one day, or Nosferatu.
It's all about the history of rectangular flatscreens, the first mobile phones creating the dawn of humanity, and later on just floating around jupiter in outer space, making amazingly beautiful lightshows in the most wonderful colours of neon, finally being the center of all human beings attention, which now all are orbiting while at the same time staring at those illuminated flatscreens as little insects flying around a lamp bulb outside on the street a dark night in October, or is it November? ... It's all so very dramatic and poetic indeed. 🖤