55 years later and it still looks better than a lot of movies being released today.

@michaelminch5490

10 ай бұрын

True story.

@jazzmaan707

10 ай бұрын

That is so true. CGI, looks CGI, and not realistic. Kubrick and his team did great, in making the Practical Effects look real. When we first saw the movie in the theater, we found ourselves breathing at the same rate that Frank and Dave were breathing in their space suits. We were in the movie, it seemed.

@trolleriffic

10 ай бұрын

What amazes me is that such an incredible, and at times quite challenging example of cinema-as-art was a major studio release. Could you imagine anything like this being greenlit now or indeed any time in recent decades?

@christhornycroft3686

2 ай бұрын

@@trolleriffic Not a chance. Movies are made for people with short attention spans. A movie that just lingers on its cinematography and just wants to wow you with visuals is not getting over with this or the previous generation. I was born in the early 80s, but I was raised on older films and TV. I find a lot of action movies today unwatchable because it takes a really skilled director like Martin Campbell or Christopher Nolan for me to follow what's happening effectively. It's not just the pacing of modern movies that is usually awful, it's camera placement. But the kids love that because they can't sit still for more than 2 seconds without the camera constantly moving. There's no way a movie like this, with shots that just hold on a visual to try to elicit an emotional response, could ever be made today. That's one of the reasons I hate remakes. You're taking probably a flawless film and using modern techniques like constant zooms, speeding up and slow mos, to keep a younger audience's attention because the main audience for theatrical audiences is 12-16 year olds. Those are the blockbusters. You lose that audience if you try to make an actual good movie with solid pacing and a coherent story because they're not there for that. Even chick flicks look like they've been filmed from a drone jet.

This was not really based on a book. The script was inspired by Clarke's short story "The sentinel", about a pyramid found on the Moon. The rest was created between Clarke and Kubrick for the movie. Afterwards, Clarke wrote a novelization of the script, which is "the book" that exists today.

@n.d.m.515

10 ай бұрын

That is only partly true. He made the movie at the same time the book was written. That is why some of the book, and especially the ending, are different from each other. It was a collaboration of sorts.

@richardrose2606

10 ай бұрын

Not quite true. It was inspired by several Clarke short stories including The Sentinel. I believe Clarke's novel Childhoods End was also an influence.

@RossM3838

9 ай бұрын

As a side note a year prior to 2001 the byrds band ended their album with a song based on the sentinel called “a space oddessy” It tells the story of the trek across the moon to find the pyramid all in the form of a old fashioned sea chanty.

I saw this movie in 1972, on the wide screen in 70mm. When the movie was over, and going through the lobby, everyone was asking, "What the hell did we just see?" 50 Years later, after reading and hearing countless analyses of the movie, and seeing the movie countless times, we can honestly say, "What the hell did we see 50 years ago on the screen?"

The BEAUTY of this film is that it isn’t a narrative film. It leaves the viewer to ponder what they have seen, and the interrelationships between the four sections of the film, The Dawn of Man, Mission to the moon, Mission to Jupiter and Re-birth.

I was twenty and an Art major in college. I saw this when it opened, at the Cinerama Theater in Manhatten. I was a big movie fan and a lover of science fiction. Forbidden Planet was excellent and a shining example of the best of Hollywood. Destination Moon was the next step in showing space travel before its time,. 2001 was a different kind of animal. It was a realistic look at life thirty five years in the future. There were no big screen TVs, no Flat screens. Televisions were tubes. Calling long distance cost a fortune and was done through the wires. Picture phones were comic book stuff. Computers in 68 were run by slotted cards and answered mathematical equations. The question of AI had been handled by classic Sci fi writers, The Robot Robby from the 50's was the gold standard. 'a computer with intelligence was unheard of. No PC's or Max and no display screens back in 68 no internet at all, no gps. Hell records just got out of being monoral. In 1968 I knew I had glimpsed the future. The picture is as stunning today as it was then, those with attention span problems may never get it.

Last year I revisited 2001 through my reactors n hv come to the conclusion that it’s cinema’s crown artistic jewel. I remember when Star Wars came out, someone in my English 101 class asked the teacher what he thought, he said 2001 did it so many years earlier and BETTER!! I’m 64 now and agree with him.

@richardrose2606

10 ай бұрын

Star Wars come out in 1977, nine years after 2001. It was a short time relatively.

@perrymalcolm3802

10 ай бұрын

@@richardrose2606 true that! Seemed longer. The difference for me then was elementary to college. NOW it’s a gnats eyelash to me! 😂😉

Hi guys - remember, cgi wasn't available at this time, so these space craft would have been models, lit & filmed - and huge sets for the interior of the space station

@AlanCanon2222

10 ай бұрын

50 foot automated motion control passes that took a week to shoot at 1 frame every 3 seconds or whatever it was. And then holding the negative for months to expose the next element on top of it in camera.

@BruceCarroll

10 ай бұрын

And all of the various graphic displays were animated by hand.

@timmooney7528

9 ай бұрын

Brian Johnson used to make miniatures for Gerry Anderson productions such as the Thunderbirds. He left Anderson to work on 2001. He went on to do effects work for Space:1999, Alien, Aliens, and Empire Strikes Back

You mentioned it being marketed to hippies. Well, the story goes that a young David Bowie watched 2001 stoned and was inspired to write Space Oddity, a change in musical direction for him after a series of flops and his first hit, and arguably made his career. Very influential movie in more ways than one.

I've been lucky enough to see this in 70mm on a big , curved screen back in the 70's. Incredible visuals. I must have seen 2001 over a hundred times (not an exaggeration) and read everything I could find ever written about it and I still haven't figured it out yet. The one thing I know is it's the only movie that makes me feel a sense of awe that never goes away; no matter how many times I watch it. "...it's origin and purpose still a total mystery." - Dr. Heywood Floyd

@ryokinor6223

10 ай бұрын

@@alnasraltair8948 That explains why 2001 was playing at the 'Pussycat Adult Theater and Bookstore'.

@gabvideo

2 ай бұрын

I first saw this film when it was released in London Soho in what is now the Prince Edward Theatre. It was shown in full Cinerama which was a very immersive experience; one felt like one was actually there not just looking at it on screen. I still have two 3d stills souvenir postcards and also remember buying a program of the production with my ticket before seeing the film. One thing that does not come across in viewing on tv is the amazing quality of the sound especially the opening sequence Also sprach Zarathustra.

For me personally, '2001' is the greatest act of cinema ever made.

@MrAngryBunny05

10 ай бұрын

I would say it started the the change the way cinema worked

@perrymalcolm3802

10 ай бұрын

Agree!

So “Daisy” wasn’t a random song. It was the first song ever sung by a computer (which of course was an IBM) in 1961,… symbolizing HAL himself was the process of an evolution, and in death, regressing to his earliest ancestor memory. BTW would love for you to react to Barry Lyndon, an oft overlooked Kubrick classic. (Shot in all natural light; interior shots illuminated by candlelight; using a Zeiss planar 50mm f/0.7 lense designed for nasa, of which only a handful were made)

@porflepopnecker4376

10 ай бұрын

Glad to see someone point this out! I remember hearing "Daisy" sung by that computer on TV when I was growing up.

How is it that 1969 film-making still looks better than all the CGI cartoon-style movies today?

@MrThumbs63

10 ай бұрын

Because people cared.

@larrybremer4930

10 ай бұрын

Because modern directors (I am talking to you Michael Bay) think special effects have to be so bombastic and fast paced to satisfy modern A.D.D. afflicted society. Modern filmmakers use special effects to make the movie rather than serve the story. Also add that this is "Stanly Kubric" who is the master of the medium and you get the experience that is 2001.

@anthonyleecollins9319

10 ай бұрын

One reason is that Kubrick took his time, and he had the control to release his movies when they were actually done, not when they were slotted for release by the studio.

Kubrick himself didn't shoot in Africa, a still photography unit was sent. The ape scenes are done in the studio with front projected photographic plates and using a rotatable set for different cameras angles. And yet, you'd swear it was on location. For the classic flight attendant waling upside down, she was walking on the spot but the set & camera rotated. This is one of my favourite movies of all time.

@richardrose2606

10 ай бұрын

The panoramic backgrounds are actually photographic stills, not moving pictures.

Those who recognize the "Thus Spake Zarathustra" music will already be thinking of Nietzsche's whole ape/man/superman thing as the story begins.

For some reason I really hope you do Barry Lyndon, because it's a film nobody ever does.

@majormoviemadness9927

10 ай бұрын

I think you will be pleased

@tonybennett4159

10 ай бұрын

There are those who say that he did for the past in Barry Lyndon what he had done for the future in 2001 and I think that's pretty spot on.

The opening music is the opening section of the classical orchestral piece "Also Sprach Zarathustra" by Richard Strauss, composed in 1896.

This movie in 70mm on the big screen is how it's supposed to be viewed.

This Film had a profound affect on me. I saw it the week it premiered on a big screen, I was16. It changed the way I viewed the Universe and my place in it!

@tonybennett4159

10 ай бұрын

No substitute for having seen it in Cinerama.

I always assumed that after Dave Bowman is transported through the star gate his life is accelerated quickly to end and begin again as the star child. I never thought he lived out the rest of his life in normal human time in that isolated environment

Have to admit that, as someone who turned 65 in September, it’s weird for me to see two guys who have grey in their hair/beard talk about this film like it was made a trillion years ago.

There's a fun book called "The Making of Kubrick's 2001" edited by Jerome Agel, published in 1970. It basically collects all kinds of material related to the movie, including several movie reviews from when the movie first came out. Boy, you can imagine the varied reviews - from "masterpiece" to "garbage". I found the book in a used book store years and years ago. I lent it to a friend...and never did get it back. Sigh...

@tonybennett4159

10 ай бұрын

Yes, I bought that at the time and wisely never lent it out. It's still in my bookshelves. I also have the more recent "Space Odyssey : Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke and the Making of a Masterpiece" by Michael Benson (2018) which I would thoroughly recommend.

@Zebred2001

10 ай бұрын

Also 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony with a forward by Arthur C. Clarke (1994 Aurum Press).

My favorite film of all time.

The guy who did the special effects went on to direct Silent Running. Now thats a Sci-Fi film I'd love to see you react to!

@anorthosite

10 ай бұрын

Douglas Trumbull. A Meticulous LEGEND (and next-gen to Ray Harryhausen). :)

It's truly gorgeous art on film...a masterpiece- and from 1968!! I was 9, and we had never seen anything like it

My favourite film of all time, and I know not everyone is going to like it. Nice explanation at the end... it's indeed all about evolution and higher intelligence.

Guys, I feel genuinely sorry for all those who didn't see 2001 the way I did. I saw it in my mid-twenties on its initial release in Cinerama. It had some buzz, sure, but we went in knowing very little about it, it hadn't become a part of cinema mythology, we were completely fresh. Added to this the technology of stereophonic sound was still quite new. The experience was overwhelming. I've since seen it on IMAX which sells it short, because they were forced to letter box it, whereas in Cinerama there was the full spread and height of the then recently perfected lens. The magnificence and the mystery blew me away. I also saw 2010 and wished I hadn't, not because it was bad but because it substituted the magic with something more mundane. It may have helped those who demanded an explanation or a resolution, but having been exposed to the cinema of Bergman and Antonioni, those things didn't bother me at all.

Proto humans fought over a waterhole, Ennemies in 2001 around a table having drinks...how civilized!

Saw it age 10 in its re release after Star Wars. Already had the novel memorized, after listening as a toddler on up to dad's 2001 soundtrack album. God, I love this movie. It helped make me, including becoming a computer programmer. I emailed that fact to Clarke, and he replied, "I'm very glad to have launched your successful career." I also got to meet Ligeti, in Louisville around 1986, and thanked him profusely for terrifying me as a child. When I (16) was done gushing, he took my hand in both of his and said, "Oh! These are very good compliments that you have paid me!"

One of the things Kubrick got right was how ubiquitous flat screen TVs would be. I don't think most modern audiences notice or appreciate that fact. HAL is surrounded by eight screens, and there are screens on the Pan Am craft and elsewhere. It looks like the 2020s, not the late 60s.

1968,of which I was in June 16th,1968. 2001:A Space Odyssey came out in theaters in April of 1968.

The Dawn of Man scenes? No second unit locations involved. Those are married together high res live-action foregrounds with front-projected very high resolution backgrounds, using mechanically operated cameras (no computers!). Light years ahead of its time. Kubrick really shouldn't have been able to do it in 1967/8, but he did!

@majormoviemadness9927

10 ай бұрын

Wait what? Those aren’t second unit?

@Ingens_Scherz

10 ай бұрын

@@majormoviemadness9927 No! It blew my mind when I read about that the first time. Impossible, right?

@majormoviemadness9927

10 ай бұрын

It’s like an early volume stage

@Ingens_Scherz

10 ай бұрын

​@@majormoviemadness9927 I'd never thought of that, but yes, that is precisely what it is. Incredible really.

@Dej24601

10 ай бұрын

I read that he did send a crew to photograph shots in Africa which were used as the opening backgrounds. He and the actors did not go to Africa, just some cinematographers. The sets were made for all the scenes with the apes, animals, etc. following those few opening shots. Also some of the scenes in the star gate sequences were reused film from the footage shot for Dr Strangelove in the far North, and flying over water, islands, etc. (but of course altered to get the weird colors.)

The Intro music "theme" was written in 1896 by Richard Strauss and its Entitled Also sprach Zarathustra.. 72 years before the film

Last part it was just definitely inspired Linch to Mulholland Drive. just now understands it

The deal about HAL ties very well with these recently raised concerns about AI right in some ways. How much responsbility can you give to a bunch of code at the end of day? The book HAL struggles a simple conflict, yet when people who made HAL did not take such a thing into account, it ends up doing the worst possible solution to the problem its facing.

One of the major themes of the movie, if not the main one, is man's technology as an extension of himself. Many people speculate about why HAL malfunctioned; I think that he didn't malfunction at all, in fact he worked better than anybody expected. Instead of merely mimicking human intelligence, he actually became sentient. He said at the beginning that HAL9000s were "incapable of error," but then he _became_ capable of error. That was Dave's mistake in arguing with HAL. He acted as if he was dealing with a malfunctioning machine, rather than as another being with a mind of its own. What had humans done to computers but the same thing the Monolith had done to the apes: given them free will, which HAL handled about as well as we humans have to date.

@n.d.m.515

10 ай бұрын

I disagree with this interpretation, particularly because 2010 explains it differently. Since the second movie was also written by the same author it is authoritative. The reason HAL went crazy is because it was perfect based on competing commands given by human programming. Getting rid of the human element was the only way to do what he was told.

@IAteTheCannoli

10 ай бұрын

From what I understand, after being told to keep the discovery of the second monolith on the moon a secret from the crew, HAL was left with an internal contradiction since he was programmed to 1) follow orders, and 2) be transparent and honest. In order to follow the first rule, he was kind of forced to break the second rule, and since his command to keep the secret from the crew led to a contradiction within his programming, HAL ended up killing the crew so that he could then be honest about the secret, while also not breaking any rules, as he was programmed to do, and besides, I think that HAL was also a representation of both the potential dangers of AI, and also the limitations of technology. Right after HAL is disconnected, the third monolith appears in the movie, marking the beginning of Dave's final journey and ultimate transformation, which implies that the technology of man is just a brief stepping stone of evolution as the aliens (or whatever it/they are) are apparently the cultivators and gardeners of sapience throughout the universe and are of unfathomable intelligence and capability.

Kubrick and Clarke wrote it. We went to the moon the first time in 1969, this came out in 1968.

HAL actually stands for Heuristically programmed, ALgorithmic. Clarke and Kubrick denied any reference to IBM

HAL got paranoid cause they made him lie about the mission and couldn't handle it and it all snowballed from there

@majormoviemadness9927

10 ай бұрын

Yeah I seem to remember bob balaban explaining that in 2010

@TriScorp

10 ай бұрын

@@majormoviemadness9927 yeah but they hinted about it in this movie too "No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error." and then the pre-recorded message after HAL died

@jeffmartin1026

10 ай бұрын

I read somewhere that Frank could have won the chess game, but HAL "lies" to him by showing him an alternative ending of the game. HAL was testing how much they believed him.

The HAL/IBM "one letter off" thing is interesting and it would seem like an obvious answer BUT Arthur C. Clark himself explained in an interview (maybe on the Dick Cavett show?) that the acronym is Heuristically programmed ALgorithric computer.

@goldenager59

10 ай бұрын

You took the response right out of my mouth! 😄

I remember reading that Kubrick had a very close work relationship with italian dubbing director Mario Maldesi, I think for all his movies from A Clockwork Orange, even writing a letter of congratulations to HAL9000 italian voice actor (Gianfranco Bellini). Actually there was... a interview, I think, where Kubrick said movies SHOULD be dubbed in various languages, even taking a reasonable amount of changes whenever/wherever makes sense, cause the first priority for them is to be the most accessible to the audience.

Love this movie ❤

Thank you for reacting to this art film. The movie was released in 1968 (not 1969), with a slightly longer run time. While in the military, I saw it in the theater in Tampa Bay Florida, and it blew my mind (as well as everyone else in the audience). Critics and people loved it. Critics and people hated it. There wasn't much middle-of-the-road critiques. I'm still amazed today how well this movie has stood the test of time. After moving to SoCal, some friends and I would drive to Hollywood and watch this film at the Cinerama Dome every few years. The experience was quite profound.

@michaelhall2709

5 ай бұрын

I saw it at the Dome on Sunset myself. When I’m in L.A. I drive by it on occasion, closed now but still there.

@stevetheduck1425

28 күн бұрын

Brit here. A longer print was shown in my local town's cinema, and the extra sequences are still stuck in my visual memory, from when I was a boy. The Africa intro shots were longer and more varied, as if zeroing in on the monkeymen. The moon-landing ship lowers into a red-lit bay, and near the bottom, a walkway comes out from the right, containing a man with a clipboard, who checks something off and turns to walk back along the moving tube: it means he's standing still for a while. Both Frank's and Dave's spacewalks in the pods were identical except for the colour of their suits: the moment when Frank's pod begins to turn under HAL's control caused screams in the audience.

"Africa maybe? ... it could be anywhere" ... it was actually a soundstage in London, all of the movie was shot between Shepperton and Pinewood Studios, except the bone smashing and throw, that was done next to the studio car park.

@majormoviemadness9927

10 ай бұрын

That’s amazing

@gabvideo

2 ай бұрын

A lot of the filming was done at the MGM studios in Borehamwood just north of London.

So much emphasis these days is placed on the amount of action within a film. But when cinema was first conceived, there were hopes that it ushered in a new type of art, just like the many art movements which flourished from about the late 1890’s up to the years just after WW1. Picasso and his colleagues discussed the process of cinema and it evolved into their experiments with art trends like cubism which see things from many different angles and a constantly changing perspective. For me, this is a film which is more like a poem (or perhaps a haiku) rather than a novel or an essay. Poetry is symbolic, suggestive and doesn’t follow rules, and is more evocative than it is something which follows a logical narrative. Poetry is often ambiguous and multi-layered and can bypass or compress timelines, or can glide over human concerns in favor of nature or universal issues. Because so many of today’s audiences are accustomed to having music lead them or tell them how they should be feeling, and when/how to react, this film can leave them confused since everything must come from inside the viewer without outside prompting. A lot of Asian art and spirituality highlights the importance of silence, or “nothingness” or “emptiness” and that these are as solidly important aspects as sound, music, noises, physical objects or movement. Many Asian paintings are mostly blank space but that is an important feature which the viewer is supposed to think about. This film uses those kind of qualities more than most. I was fortunate to see this as a young teen, in Cinerama (a curved screen) when it first came out and it changed my view on cinema, art and the world in general. No other film has the profound depth of this which becomes more evident the more a person watches and learns about it. Watch this film every 10 years and it will be fascinating to see how different your reactions are. (A lot of cities have 70mm Film Festivals and this is usually shown at them.) Great works of art, including film, reveal new and different aspects to viewers, as a person experiences them throughout life, because the person is always changing and bringing new perspectives with age and maturity and films can become richer sources of inspiration as we think about our purpose and the meaning of life. 💫

@goldenager59

10 ай бұрын

_I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing_ _Than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance._ - e e cummings This couplet is the poem which Roger Ebert quoted in his review of *2001: A Space Odyssey* (and, later, its 1984 sequel). It was meant as a reply to all those - and there were rather a lot of them - who couldn't follow the non-narrative structure, couldn't "dig" the poetry and mystery, and thought the whole thing a bloated exercise in self-indulgence. He liked the sequel - gave it three stars out of four (a thumbs-up), said it was "a good-looking, sharp-edged, entertaining, exciting space opera - a superior film of the *Star Trek* genre." But, in the end, he concluded that it was - at its base - a film that tried to teach ten thousand stars how not to dance. (Yet _I_ like it, too.) 😎

This film made me look bad. I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.

Not only Pan American was an airline, it was regarded even today as the world’s greatest airline because of its technological advancements in the commercial airline industry that still manifest today!

It's almost a crime to see this on a small screen.

The curved lens is also because the film was shown in Cinerama when it was first released. Cinerama screens were gigantic wide screens that curved on both sides.

FYI this is playing in 70mm at the newly renovated Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood next week. Probably the best way to see it.

@majormoviemadness9927

8 ай бұрын

Hmmmmm thanks for the heads up

My take on Hal is that he was programmed to keep the mission secret, yet maintaining that deception caused some sort of cognitive dissonance, because he was programmed to, otherwise, be truthful. This gives more weight to the reveal, after Hal's deprogramming, that the mission was known only by him.

@mastertoymaker5249

2 ай бұрын

Correct, this was even explained in 2010

Everyone involved, including Clarke, denied that HAL was intentionally IBM shifted left, that "Heuristic Algorithmic Logic" was decided on before the acronym. That said, IBM did do a lot of the design work for HAL's "look" so it's not a stretch to think maybe someone there snuck in a suggestion 🙂

One thing that's not made really clear is that in the transition from the bone to the space ship, that space ship is actually a missile battery. Or the bone weapon transforms into a space weapon.

@stevetheduck1425

28 күн бұрын

Each of the satellites shown has a national military symbol upon it: USAF, French Armee d' L'air, People's Liberation Army Air Force, and a couple of others.

It's heavy esoterica, but if you know some freemasonry stuff, it's pretty apparent on the refinement of knowledge type of thing. The Knowledge Block is built by a refinement of knowledge (tools, science, etc.), which in turn, shapes the rough rock of humanity, which in turn refines itself until it meets the next level of knowledge that refines it yet again.

Should be seen on the big screen

This movie presented in 70mm on the huge screen at the Cinerama Dome in Los Angeles was beyond amazing.

It looks stunning, but the audio - "natural" dialogue, the music and HAL's voice - makes it absolutely stellar.

Whenever I see this film, I can't stop. It's like Apocalypse Now for me...I just have to sit an absorb the whole thing. What I am grateful for is having grown up and experienced these films without the baggage of memes and later referential scenes cluttering my experience.

@trolleriffic

10 ай бұрын

It's the kind of film where it transcends being just a movie and becomes an experience that stays with you for life.

The book did not come first, it was written in parallel and not exactly the same as the film. But a good appreciation, thanks folks!

For the "Zero G" walking scenes, I would tell young people that it was actually filmed in space. LOL!

@MajorProgress

10 ай бұрын

LOL

Ape. Man. Overman. From the opening music to the closing music it's a homage to Nietzschean philosophy with an AI gone wrong subplot. It's also a fundamentally positive movie, reflecting late 60s faith in life always getting better. And then the 70s happened, Reagan happened, Trump happened, etc.

IMDb has a list of shooting locations and 'The Dawn of Man' was shot at the Spitzkoppe rock outcropping in the Erongo region of Namibia. Apparently they only took still shots for the background, as per wikipedia.

this movie came out in 1968. One year before the moon landing.

This song will only ever mean one thing to me... ric flair wooo

The main theme was composed by Richard Strauss as part of a tone poem called thus spoke Zarathustra. Kubrick was expert at taking well established classical music and perfectly placing it in his movies. We see this again in a clockwork orange and Lolita, actually in most of his movies

@stevetheduck1425

28 күн бұрын

The actual music is 'Sunrise' a literal name for exactly what's happening at the dawn of man. 'Also Sprach Zarathustra' is the name of the whole tone poem.

The higher beings created that room so he could be kept at ease until he died. Them the super being was created after death.

@88wildcat

10 ай бұрын

The "room" is for all practical purpose a womb.

First time I saw this in the theatre was a 70mm print re-release in 1976. Last time I saw it in the theatre was a restored 70mm print at the Toronto International Film Festival 7 years ago. There’s nothing quite like seeing it in 70mm.

I saw this several times on its original 70MM release. An absolutely overwhelming experience that cannot be replicated, like seeing King Kong's angry face 30' high, or the ending of The Fly (the original) in a theatre. The opening black screen can be seen as the monolith, mysterious, but something you will learn from. There is a thread involving the food in the movie. When eating real food (the apes, Dave at the end) they are learning/evolving. When they are eating fake food (space/the moon) they are part of a falsehood. At the time of filming, it was thought that exposure to a complete vacuum would mean instant death. The gravity of the moon is 1/6th that of Earth; the coffee in the space shuttle on the moon should have poured out slower, the one thing SK didn't work out.

@stevenlowe3026

10 ай бұрын

A couple of other things they missed (not that I'm complaining) - the Earth seen from the moon looks different, and they didn't walk correctly when on the moon's surface. Because nobody had been on the moon by that time (not sure if photos of the Earth from space from the earlier missions were available at the time).

Bowman did not travel to Jupiter, but to the large monolith (orbiting Jupiter), which then took him through a wormhole to a place far from our solar system

Also sprach Zarathustra isn't a theme song, it was written in 1896

2001 is an experience that transcends movie making and NO ONE has been able to reproduce the feeling of this picture.

2010 is a solid sci-fi movie of its own. I'd enjoy to see your guy's perspective.

@Dystopia1111

10 ай бұрын

Very underrated sequel, 100% worth watching just to see how HAL's story arc develops.

@porflepopnecker4376

10 ай бұрын

I think it's pedestrian and overly explanatory. Like washing down fine wine with a grape Nehi.

@tonybennett4159

10 ай бұрын

@@porflepopnecker4376I'm afraid I have to agree with you. Trying to explain 2001's mysteries has a retrogressive effect on the original movie. Some things are better left untouched.

Great reaction to a masterpiece film.your comments on the zero gravity toilet is hilarious....

Maybe my favourite ever film

Kubrick wrote the film story consecutively with Arthur C Clarke, and had complete creative control over the published book, the film was based on the book by Clarke called The Sentinel, and it's the reason the book is very different to the film, and only superficially covered some of the themes Kubrick was playing with in this film...which has nothing to do with aliens, and more with how we interact with film and it's power to shape our perceptions or expand our minds...there's a reason you have 3 minutes of black screen at the beginning, interval and end

Regarding zero-gee toilets, I heard an inteview on NPR with an astronaut who had spent consideable time on the space station. She said that one of the larger problems with using the equipment was creating "spread" in weightless conditions. I'm sure you can see the issue.

@stevetheduck1425

28 күн бұрын

The Shuttle and the ISS had/have a couple of toilets, and the technology is mature. Air flow in the right direction, a 'slinger' rotating arm catches and flings everything, and it's easily cleaned, so both air and water is cleaned and recycled. Solids are bagged, vacuum-packed and frozen. The film 'The Martian' shows what remains...

The special effects were outstanding for 1968, or any other year for that matter. Stanley Kubrick, Wally Veevers and the late, great Douglas Trumbull produced them pioneering several techniques(See Slit-Screen which was what they used for the "Stargate" sequence in Beyond the Infinite). What most people don't realize is even those computer graphic screens were hand-animated, as CGI was still years away from being possible to use to animate images. For my money there are only 3 science fiction films with flawless special effects, "2001 A Space Oddysey," "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and "Blade Runner." All 3 were done by Douglas Trumbull.

The theme is a Richard Strauss piece from 1896 called Also Sprach Zarathustra. The band Phish does a funky cover of it sometimes. 2010 is worth seeing.

Kubrick sold his first photographic series to Look magazine when he was 16.

Kubrick’s use of established music in his movies is so good I was thinking of a topic, the best uses of classical music in movies. A book about bad movies had the worst uses of classical music and is very funny, but how about the best? Besides 2001 and a clock work orange I can think of a couple worth examining. The andante from mozarts piano concerto 21 is so well used in the romantic movie Elvira Madigan that it’s now known as the Elvira madigan concerto. And the use of the Mahler 5 in a death in Venice is great. The story goes that Jack Warner was looking at the rushes and said that the movie wasn’t much but that music was great and wanted to know if he could sign up the composer. When told no he was disappointed.

Did Major never once own a VHS or DVD player? The list of top quality films he's not seen is amazing. Anyway, Major you rock. Really enjoy your reactions and comments on what you're seeing re the camera work.

@MajorProgress

10 ай бұрын

So fun fact, we didn't have a VHS player until I was 10 or 11, so like towards the end of elementary school. We had a beta max player before that but not a lot of movies were released on beta max. Then when we did get a VHS player we rented movies almost every weekend. My mom took my sister and I to the local Blockbuster and I got to pick a movie, my sister got one and then we all picked a movie as a family. We watch usually the family movie that night and usually had Pizza. Then on Saturday, we would watch the other two movies. Saturdays where kids can cook whatever they want. I often made Bratwurst with Kraft mac & cheese and Boston baked beans. When I feel homesick I make that for myself to this day. My sister usually would eat what I cooked or make a Tunafish sandwich. I hate the taste and smell of Tunafish and would always complain that she shouldn't be allowed to make it because it stunk up the house. Thank you, appreciate the kind words. And yes I missed out on so many great films as a kid, but I am actually enjoying watching them now as an adult and as a filmmaker. I don't know if I would have appreciated them when I was younger as much as I do now.

If you haven't seen this movie in curved, wide-screen Cinerama as it was intended to be seen, you haven't really seen it. It's the difference between impressive and mind-blowing.

I just now noticed the Pink seating after he says his name "Floyd"

I saw this when I was 8 years old in 70 mm Cinerama on a curved screen and then several times again 50 years later when they brought it back to theaters. Watching it on a small screen is blasphemous.

In 2001, Stanley Kubrick is showing us that you can tell a story - even a complex science fiction story - without character arcs, traditional scripts, or relatable jumps through time. He showed us that film is different from stage because in film you can tell stories through the experience under the "play" - if that makes sense. Film gives us the stage play, yes, plus an experience under it 😊

When you remind people this movie was made a decade before Star Wars, before CGI, they can't believe it.......

It is wonderful to able to contribute to a global commentary on 2001 S.O. I believe Stanley imagined long sequences of this film based on (perfect) music from his inexhaustible private music collection, long before production Which is why contract soundtrack composers always suffered rejection, in this case Alex North, (even his daughter Vivian's rejected score for Eyes Wide Shut). Nothing like this had been attempted - (nothing like it again, probably). Kubrick was striving, using the establishment of State and Corporate agendas in a critical period, to advance the medium and genre, to contemplate evolution or transcendence and influence the public backing the ''space program", in the literal wake of Dr. Strangelove and annihilation. There is a grim and fascinating book written by Michael Benson (Space Odyssey: Making...a Masterpiece, 450pgs). One of the heartbreaking revelations is Kubrick's disrespect primarily toward a young Douglas Trumbull. One of the most challenging sequences (for budget and wonder) was ''Star Gate". Because there was no template, no reference. One can imagine the typical approach of the period: ground-based astrophotography of stellar objects the camera zooming in and out, some strobe lighting, the reaction shot of our astronaut reflected in a distorting mirror, some Theremin...instant dismissal: it would have sunk the film in 15 seconds. Douglas conceived and designed a camera track and gearing to achieve this dynamic and versatile pan-time/space prelude to Stanley's unmatched paint-tank experimental films from his early New York days. Trumbull was hired to lead the animation department (all of the VDU rear-projections, the title cards for the film...). In final editing Kubrick inserted is own credit: Special Effects Designed and Dir. by S.K. (The Academy would not accept more than three VE supervisors, so Kubrick had the DGA sanction his credit and receive the Oscar). -Andrew Mackenna - Christchurch, New Zealand

Space Diarrhea - good name for a metal band.

When this was filmed there was no computer screens. Any screens you see were actually cartoons

@stevetheduck1425

28 күн бұрын

- being projected from behind, at a speed electrically locked to match the shutter speed of the cameras. Quite an achievement back then, and exactly similar to the many screens in Star Trek The Motion Picture, a decade later.

Blowing the hatch on the pod should have sent it flying

I read the whole concept and eventually HAL and Dave become a single entity.

It doesn't really matter which came first. If you read the book before watching the movie, you might understand what's going on. I don't see how anyone who never reads the book will understand the movie.

Seen this at the cinema last night Looked amazing…. Still none the wiser as to the meaning

The ancestor of "Interstellar".

Correct me if I'm wrong, this is my understanding. The "Dawn of Man" Monolith was alien technology. An unidentified ancient race sent it to Earth where It interacted with proto-man by tweaking the intelligence of some of them to become the inventors and users of tools. The first such tools were weapons used to overcome their evolutionary rivals. Fast-forward to present day and the tool users evolved and became so good with their tools that they developed space travel. The moon monolith was left there by the ancient civilization and could only be triggered to send a signal when the subjects of the ancient experiment (that is, us) had advanced to develop space travel. At movie's end, the ancients interacted again, this time with Dave to spur the next stage of human evolution.

FYI.... all of the music selections, from the Blue Danube waltz to the Avant guard vocals, were classical pieces.

Trivia: There are no computer graphics used in the movie - it barely existed. The "X-ray" 3D view of the AE35 unit was a real unit (mostly an aircraft gyro unit, IIRC) X-rayed repeatedly. Likewise the "wire frame model" of the AE35 is LITERALLY a wire frame model - with the wires spray painted white and, again, repeatedly photographed for animation. The graphic data displays are all handmade artwork, too, rear-projected onto the screens. (Which means the projectors behind the screens in the centrifuge are all part of the rotating structure.)

I always loved the Zoolander apes and bone parody. 😂

Just for the record "Forbidden Planet" is a good movie and there's no "Martian" in it. "2001" came out the year before we went to the Moon. When Clarke chose the name HAL, he was unaware of the IBM thing. It had to be pointed out to him. Despite the fact that it looks like Bowman is traveling at the end, it's just a light show to distract him while the monolith studies how we've changed from the apes. The hotel room is a traditional place of safety and comfort the monolith saw in Dave's mind.

What is more important: the direction, or the story the director chooses? For me, the story has to be king. And no matter how good the making of a film is, it matters more what it is about.

Saw it in 70mm on the banana screen at McClurg Ct. Theatre beside the Sears Tower in Chicago back during first run. Still an unmatched cinema experience despite Imax and 3D. Kubrick's conceptual execution is the excellence in any format.