2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968) TWIN BROTHERS FIRST TIME WATCHING MOVIE REACTION!

We are here with some beautiful old school sci fi, been wanting to see 2001: A Space Odyssey for years now and I'm glad we finally did!
Patreon: / octokrool
Twitter: / octokrool

[@artvandelay3840]

So basically the monoliths guide humans at different points in their history. The first one gives apes the intelligence to start creating tools, and evolve to the point where they are intelligent enough to create rockets to leave earth, and find the second monolith. The second monolit is discovered on the moon, alerting its creator(s) that intelligent life has found it, activating the third monolith. The third monolith acts as a wormhole, taking Dave to its creator's home planet, where he grows old, and interacts with the fourth monolith, which transforms him into his advanced form, the star child. Symbolically, the baby represents a new beginning, but with a new found awareness. So perhaps humanity will take a next step in its evolution, once he returns to earth?

[@thunderstruck5484]

Excellent analysis thanks I’ve seen this numerous times and now have some understanding

[@brandonflorida1092]

I agree with everything except one point. I don't think the monolith took Bowman to its home world. I think it reached into his mind and found a traditional place of comfort, a nice hotel room, which it re-created for him.

[@bobholtzmann]

Good overview of the Kubrick / Clarke screenplay. When I first saw 2001 way back when, I thought the third monolith was a trap, which put Dave into a cage disguised as a hotel room in some kind of zoo, with spectators making jeering sounds. There is a 1960s TV Twilight Zone episode in which an Earth astronaut landing on Mars was put into a similar gilded cage in a zoo.

[@hettbeans]

@@brandonflorida1092 This is more or less correct. I have read in a few interviews that the whole stargate and 'growing old' sequence was supposed to be the process of Bowman's intelligence being downloaded or absorbed or whatever by the Monolith.

[@Daniel24724]

Excellent summary. We can also explain why the movie becomes so symbolical at the end : it's because our "next evolution" will be incomprehensible to us, as our present state should be incomprehensible for a monkey. So, Kubrick just shows it will be weird to us. No need to give further details and to risk to look like a "Star Trek" episod.

[@stefanstiefsohn5398]

"They couldn't have made it more confusing!" Andrei Tarkovsky: "Challenge accepted!"

[@waynehodges4571]

(Tarkovsky made a film called Solaris which is arguably considered a 2nd best ever sci-fi film next to 2001 by critics)

[@robertparker6280]

@@waynehodges4571 I'll have to check that out

[@TheMrPeteChannel]

Yeah. It's like the Soviets saw this film and was like.....we have to compete.

[@richardadesmond]

Apparently, Tarkovsky hated 2001 and made Solaris as a sort of response to it. Kubrick loved Solaris.

[@goldenager59]

@@richardadesmond As I understand, Tarkovsky's beef was with what he considered the emotional barrenness of the Kubrick film; perhaps he thought the character of HAL took up entirely too much time and attention. SF at its best explores science's effects on the lives of ordinary folk, individually and collectively. 2001 did do this, but in a very oblique way. Tarkovsky's film, on the other hand, used love as its central fulcrum and could therefore be more readily grasped (sort of) in spite of being even longer and talkier than 2001. 👽 😎

[@mistahmata]

You guys didn’t miss anything, how you guys started discussing it at the end is what’s supposed to happen! It’s a film that can take on so many meanings and is meant to be interpreted and discussed

[@FuzzyDlop]

It is not meant to be interpreted as Kubrick himself did not believe in interpretation and literally explained the ending himself in an interview.

[@mistahmata]

@@FuzzyDlop True true but I mean at the end of the day art will make different connections to different people and different interpretations and discussion is gonna come like that, it’s more fun that way than just having the entire point explained up front ya know

[@Serai3]

All you have to do is read Arthur C. Clarke's book to understand. It's all explained in there.

[@fyrestorme]

There is a correct interpretation of the events depicted here. It all becomes clear if you watch 2010. It's explained a bit better through the events and imagery in that sequel to this film.

[@creedtragedy5564]

The Daisy song sang by Hal as he is "dying" is actually a reference to one of the first speaking computers programmed by IBM that sang the same song but in a even creepier and more robotic voice.

[@markhamstra1083]

It was an IBM 704 computer; but the work was done at Bell Labs, not IBM.

[@iogustavo]

H+1= I, A+1= B, L+1= M, coincidencia?

[@logandarklighter]

@@iogustavo Most assuredly no coincidence at all. IBM was the main contractor for computer systems on the Apollo program. In behind the scenes material on various releases of this movie over the years, the producers, writers and other creators of the film have made it very clear that it was a deliberate reference.

[@MDBowron]

a robotic voice that eventually became that of Professor Stephen Hawking

[@MDBowron]

one funny image of Hawking from The Theory of Everything which is about his life is when he's in his wheelchair and has a saucepan on his head with the handle facing away from his head, and he's playing with his son pretending to be a Dalek from Dr Who going "Exterminate! Exterminate!"

[@rmcgavock1]

"I don't trust robots," this is the movie that started that whole thing. Great reaction guys. Just a couple of things that might add to your view of the film - it was made years prior to the space program that sent people into orbit or to the moon. Also, the production design/filming was really revolutionary. The documentary about the movie is definitely worth checking out if you're interested. As for not getting the film, don't sweat it. No one does after just one viewing. Kubrick was working at a whole different level :)

[@iKvetch558]

Well...it was sort of made at the same time-ish...LOL. Came out in 1968, so a year before Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the Moon, but after a whole bunch of orbital stuff. But the rest of what you said is perfect. ✌

[@markhamstra1083]

No, there were prior “don’t trust the robots!” movies, including Metropolis in 1927.

[@tonypate9174]

Never mind all that , If only Miss Jones knew Rigsby's real past would be a whole new ...RISING DAMP..

[@jameshall9402]

very well said.

[@tonybennett4159]

I read in one of the 2001 books that there was already a clue as to HAL's untrustworthiness, if you're a chess player. When HAL told Dave he had been checkmated, he hadn't been. Maybe HAL was testing him to see how aware he was, or this was the first of a series of lies and deceptions. I'm no chess player so I don't know if this is true or not, but knowing Kubrick, that is just the sort of detail he would include.

[@jayrob5270]

The Aliens who made the Monoliths accelerated Daves life at the end as they needed him to die so he could evolve into the next iteration of mankind - the Starchild! (who isn't large, that's just perspective) Just like the monkeys evolved so did Dave. The Aliens are controlling our evolution at certain key times, when we are intelligent enough to use tools/weapons, when we can fly to the moon and we we are able to get to Jupiter. HAL is our attempt at creating intelligent life but it doesn't end well

[@fairamir1]

Why did the aliens think thhye needed to help the human race evolve ???

[@patrickstracener5329]

I haven't clicked "play" yet and don't know what I'm about to witness but, LOL..the thumbnail alone tells me, "yep..looks like they've been Kubricked".

[@shainewhite2781]

One of the best Sci-fi epics of all time. Winner of the Oscar for Best Visual Effects. It was nominated for Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Art Direction.

[@OctoKrool]

Honestly how do you even compete when it comes to visual effects at this time? It's insanely impressive for the 60's!

[@alexandercummins]

That transition shot is considered to be one of the most iconic transition shots in movie history. The bone to the ship, the first tool of humanity the bone was thrown into the sky to another tool the spaceship its a jump of 100,000 years or so, simply done in a single shot.

[@lestatdelc]

Not just a spaceship, but an orbital nuclear weapons platform. The first weapon to the latest one made by man. One of the many subtleties in the film that gets missed by many.

[@Oxmustube]

@@lestatdelc Absolutely! Another subtlety missed by many is the discussion between the Russians and the American around the table at the space station is like the battle of the early humans over the water hole. More civilized of course, but barely.

[@yungwaifu]

millions of years

[@redtailzephier4141]

Great reaction, I have that poster of the Zero Gravity toilet rules hanging in my bathroom btw, I can always hear my friends laughing when they walk in there

[@TheKrensada]

The first time I saw this movie, I was 6 years old, i was glued to the TV. And I got it. I knew exactly what was going on. it's a very simple plot. Told in a very artistic way. This movie is all about discovery. Discovery of new technology. Discovery of new ideas. Discovery of ones own meaning, and finally coming to an ultimate understanding about one's place in the universe. The reason you like this movie despite how confused it made you, and the reason this movie has withstood the test of time is precisely because of how relatable it is to the very core of the human condition. No matter how much things change in our society, we stay the same.

[@fireroad01]

"The problem stems from the fact that for the Discovery Mission, Hal was programmed with instructions that conflicted with this primary programming, namely to keep the real reason for the mission, studying the monolith at Jupiter, secret from Dave Bowman and Frank Poole, as the monoliths were classified by the U.S. Govt. and Dave and Frank didn't have the clearance to know. Dave and Frank's job was the get the Discovery to Jupiter, then they would swap places with the three men in hibernation who did know the real reason and would be studying the monolith while Dave and Frank would be put into hibernation while this was going on, then swap places with the three men again and pilot the Discovery back to Earth once the study was over with, blissfully unware of the monolith. Anyway, getting back to Hal, if I might paraphrase Dr. Chandra, Hal's Creator, he was told to lie to Dave and Frank by people who find it very easy to lie (the govt.), but Hal literally didn't know how to. It's a direct violation of his primary programming, the accurate processing of information, and in being made to lie, it made him unstable. In practical terms Hal became a paranoid schizophrenic. He was trapped between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, his hardwired programming to be accurate and not make any mistakes, on the other, his orders to lie to Dave and Frank. Hal, being a computer, couldn't take a third option, he literally had no choice but to try and obey both sets of instructions, but logically he could not, so it just aggravated the underlying problem even more."

[@petersvillage7447]

I know that's the explanation given in '2010' - presumably it comes directly from Clarke's writing, and obviously it's a rational and sensible explanation. The only thing I've come to not like about it is that it undermines what I feel is the implication in the film that HAL has in some way reached the condition of being a living thing (his sudden fallibility being a symptom of that). This makes his fight for his 'life' all the more compelling, especially as he's much more explicitly emotional than his human crewmates (exhibiting curiosity, responding violently - perhaps therefore desperately - to a threat to his existence etc). Also, the idea that humans have now reached a point where they are capable of creating sentient 'life' fits in with the idea that they have now reached another peak of development where the aliens wish to... intervene? Well, whatever it is they wish to do, either way if HAL is seen as a new form of life, humans have clearly reached a watershed as critical as discovering that you can use tools...

[@brandonflorida1092]

@@petersvillage7447 The alien plan was to start "phase 2" when humans had developed to the point that they could reach the Moon, hence the second monolith, buried, but activated by sunlight.

[@jacobjones5269]

I disagree about HAL.. I just think he was scared, because there were too many unknowns about the mission.. And the reasoning behind those unknowns.. I think he was trying to separate Dave and Frank from working communications and kill them.. I think it was cold and calculating, and opportunistic.. And I think it stemmed from fear..

[@jacobjones5269]

I think this is correct, too.. HAL’s programming is so complete, he’s virtually human.. Which emotions and foibles.. And those things overwhelmed him.. It.. lol..

[@brandonflorida1092]

@@jacobjones5269 Think what you like. The author says it was because he received contradictory programming, and he is very clear about it. Where is your actual evidence that Hal's problems come from there being so many unknowns about the mission?

[@anlawrence1974]

The big fetus is the star child, he’s there to usher in a new era of evolution for humanity. In the book he does something much more dramatic than just stare at the earth

[@Serai3]

No, he doesn't - he just thinks about it. :)

[@danielbond7536]

When discussing the special effects, worth pointing out this was made BEFORE the moon landing. The recolored landscapes and slowmo paint drips in wormhole sequence are supposed to show different planets, and stars and galaxies being created.

[@Serai3]

It's also why that Earth doesn't really look like our planet - we literally had no pictures of our own world when this was made.

[@w9gb]

Douglas Trumbull has commented that EXCEPT for its Brightness - they got the Earth very close to that seen from Apollo Lunar missions.

[@KBH27]

No remake, but there is a good sequel called 2010: The Year We Make Contact

[@willot4237]

I liked 2010 alot better but you still needed to see 2001 to know whats going on in 2010. Also you get some answers for what was going on in 2001; namely why H.A.L did what he did.

[@ryancox4498]

Actually, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas just made a remake that has had its critics screenings, but won't be released until next year.

[@heyitsmemg7494]

@@ryancox4498 is this for real? I haven’t heard anything about this.

[@KBH27]

@@ryancox4498 Oh wow!

[@idkaboutthisfuckoffyoutube1041]

@@ryancox4498 probably because they need to censor it to death or sell it to Disney first

[@davidryan1295]

Each monolith represented a stage in evolution. The first was man from ape. At the time this film was made, putting a man on the moon was his/her greatest achievement. Once there, he discovered the second monolith which lured him further on to Jupiter. Along the way, a battle occurred between man and his next achievement: AI, which consequently wanted to take over. But Dave prevailed and went further on. What happened next was another stage of evolution. Thus a super-human, star child, was born.

[@monkefoahead]

spot on

[@joepowell7025]

Stupid movie

[@Muckylittleme]

It is testament to the film making that the special effects largely still stand up to this day in a movie that is over 50 years old!

[@hettbeans]

The way that floating pen was filmed back the 60s was ingenious. It was stuck to a pane of perfectly clear glass which was then slowly tilted in front of the camera. The actress just picks it off the glass it was stuck to. Brilliant cinema.

[@Serai3]

Nothing like good ol' practical FX to give you a sense of realism.

[@nem447]

The cool thing about this movie is that it was made before we even landed on the moon, and they got so much right! They even have i-pads...

[@davidw.2791]

Except for the look of Earth, for some reason. We can’t make out a single continent film all those shots.

[@captainsatellite2112]

Saw this in the theater with my pal when it came out. We were 10 and didn't understand it but were blown away by the whole thing. Tripped and saw it as an adult. So many great scenes and concepts like the jaguars glowing eyes, the vortex and HAL.

[@waynesimpson4081]

Artistic references that would have clued many 1968 viewers. The fanfare is Strauss' Sunrise from "Also Sprach Zarathustra" about the arrival of Nietzsche's Ubermensch (the Superman, man's next evolution). From the start of the film, Kubrick is literally blaring "This is about a new dawn of man". Dave's reaching to the monolith is "The Creation of Adam" from the Sistine Chapel. So, you got it right! Dave has evolved and is "reborn" as the next stage of mankind.

[@RichardX1]

"Dafuq?" is a common reaction to many of Kubrick's films, and a near-universal reaction to this one in particular.

[@kozmik9238]

There's a remake? News to me. I don't think anyone in their right mind would remake a Kubrick movie.

[@sebswede9005]

Interstellar

[@kozmik9238]

@@sebswede9005 No, that's not the same story as far as I know

[@Oxmustube]

They probably meant 2010...an honest mistake.

[@willot4237]

H.A.L - using the alphabet the next letter after H is I, Next letter after A is B and after L in the alphabet is M or I.B.M. Arthur C Clarke swears it was a coincidence.

[@willot4237]

@Justin Credible yes it does seem to be a pretty big coincidence. (P.S. Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong DID land on earth, otherwise they'd still be on the moon😜 )

[@leslauner5062]

It stands for Heuristic ALgorithm.

[@lestatdelc]

@@leslauner5062 - Yeah, that's what Clarke says. I personally think he is sticking with (and justifying) the stock answer he came up with and gave back when the movie came out and people spotted the easter egg, so as to not piss of IBM who was basically the Microsoft/Google of the day and had worked with the movie production (there are IBM logos in various parts of the film).

[@aw3752]

Not every movie’s meaning has to be spelled out in crayon for a kindergartner’s level of understanding. The point of 2001was to say that we as specks of dust in the infinite sea of eternity cannot comprehend the vast mysteries it holds. We stand in awe before the unknown universe as mere infants. So just bask in the wonder of it and let the beauty of the film and the questions it summons in you be enough. This film is a thinking- man’s piece. Not a Saturday popcorn Twinkie. Not everything has to be explained. Like all great art, its meaning is different to every individual soul who sees it. That’s why this film is always in the top ten of the greatest movies in history. Not just for its groundbreaking special effects but for the sense of wonder it gives those who are open to it.

[@stvbrsn]

“I say kill HAL right now.” Thank you for the biggest belly laugh I’ve had in weeks, brother!

[@ImSlipped]

2001 is definitely a philosophical film. Something that is left up to interpretation. A masterpiece of it's genre though. Random suggestion: There Will Be Blood is one you guys should check out, if you haven't. It's often compared to No Country For Old Men. There's a constant debate about which film is superior.

[@BJ52091]

Dave: "Open the pod bay doors, HAL!" HAL: "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave. This is what you deserve for f*cking with the tapirs."

[@GrouchyMarx]

Guys! GUYS! I saw this when it came out in 1968 at age 13 and I, and the rest of the world had the same reaction !! LOL!!! I love your reaction on this one. This was one Kubrick's most perplexing best and it forever changed how sci-fi movies were produced technically and story-wise, not just in movies but television as well. Keep in mind 2001 came in the middle of the original Star Trek series running. And we know our beloved TV Star Trek then was rather low budgeted, not the best special effects, but one didn't watch it for those things. It was for the cool, and often moving sci-fi stories, concepts, the characters, actors and of course the first interracial kiss on TV. Five years after 2001 came out I managed to see 2001 16 more times by then I loved it so much. Largely BECAUSE it was a big mystery. However, you will get a lot of your answers watching the really awesome sequel "2010" that came out 16 years later. 2001 just ached for a sequel, you know to answer those questions you, I and all of watching it the first time. We knew it back then, and there was a buzz about it a couple of years later, but I think Kubrick refused to do it mainly because sequels had a history of sucking. And sucking real bad! That is until The Godfather Part II, but that's another story. I was hoping for one, never came and as the years went by decided to read Arthur C. Clarke's novel 2001. Man, I got answers! You were right about the monolith teaching early man how to use that bone as a tool and weapon, in fact in the book it planted lots of ideas and imagery of things like geometry, using fire and other things the creature couldn't comprehend except later when needed, like making certain sounds with their mouths to mean different things... the beginning of speech. Notice at the waterhole they were standing more upright to use the weapon better? Another interesting thing that wasn't totally clear in the movie, but very specific in Clarke's book... recall the group of astronauts were looking down into the pit at the Monolith in the Tycho crater on the moon. In the book and movie the Monolith had just been dug out at the start of the long lunar night which lasts about two weeks. The Monolith had been buried 4 million years in darkness and still in darkness unburied. Recall the scene just before they descended into the pit you could see the bright sunlight across the way. It was getting closer, and the very moment the first tiny beam of direct bright sunlight touched the Monolith it sent out that high-pitch signal directly at Jupiter, at the other giant Monolith orbiting it there. The Moon Monolith was letting the Jupiter Monolith know that humans finally made it to the Moon. Now although it wasn't quite clear, the Monolith around Jupiter is much larger, and as you suspected the "aliens" captured and pulled Dave into their realm, after the light trip showed him the beginning and expansion of the universe then all the weird materials forming out of it, nebula, protostars and later various weirdly colored planets. That's how some of us interpreted some of that in the movie. Also thought those diamond shaped things (they're octahedrons actually), were the aliens too, but the aliens aren't exactly what you might think they are. After the acid trip... (and there was a group of hippies sitting two rows in front of my dad and I, and I'm sure were tripping on acid watching this movie largely for legendary light show. It was the 60s after all and an awesome giant widescreen theater with stereo surround sound too!), after the trip Dave was deposited in his new home for life. They kept him in a place familiar to him so he could survive, age and finally die to become part of their... whatever. Don't want to tell you too much as you must see 2010 to get a lot of answers. Don't read up on it or get anything that would spoil the ending. But alas, you won't get every question answered, but you'll be much more satisfied with the ending. Doesn't hurt to have a little mystery! With enough public demand we could get a sequel because Clarke actually four books on it. "2001: A Space Odyssey", "2010: odyssey two", "2061: odyssey three" and "3001: The Final Odyssey", all excellent stories especially that last one! The 2010 sequel will have a different actor playing Floyd and if you've seen Jaws you will recognize him right away. You guys should do Kubrick's next movie after 2001 someday, "A Clockwork Orange" 1971. You talk about a really unexpected view of the near future, near for 1971. Kubrick does it again with it to explores the topic of "ultra violence".... and how to cure it! It's a must see movie, and if & when you do be looking for a little throwback to 2001 he planted in there. In fact, in 2010 there's a cameo of Arthur C. Clarke twice, and Stanley Kubrick once. I enjoyed you guys reaction so much to this movie I'm subscribing. Enjoy 2010!

[@robertpearson8798]

“Not your typical space movie” is an understatement. One of the most thought provoking films ever made. That you wanted so much to know what it meant says a great deal about it’s power.

[@finite187]

haha, wow this some deep shit.. not your average film. I always warn anyone who watches this film to get comfortable. Amazing that this was made in 1968, Kubrick was truly a genius. The point is that Dave elevates to a higher state of consciousness, the monoliths are trying to guide humanity to a higher purpose.

[@dwcinnc]

Gary Lockwood was the main antagonist in one of the best Star Trek ever. "Where No Man Has Gone Before" Episode aired Sep 22, 1966

[@Sopmylo]

"I don't get it" That means you did :)

[@johnnyjohnny6174]

I mean, not really though. Pretty much means the opposite.

[@eyezack2778]

Not really

[@Smileybeeblevrox]

The obilisks give some sort of evolutionary information. The Ape only recognized a bone as a tool and club after touching the Obilisk. Then man touched one left on the moon, which sent a signal to one orbiting Jupiter, which is why the spaceship was sent.

[@jacobjones5269]

The monolith is smooth, with straight edges and right angles.. It is not of the natural world and it sparks a new way of thinking.. A curiously, and rumination.. Note code, IMO, just an idea..

[@GrouchyMarx]

One more thing guys. You wondered how we would look if we evolved from Tapirs. You recall on Star Wars (1977) the alien on Tatooine who led the Imperial Storm Troupers to Hans Solo, Luke and the Millennium Falcon? The one with the nose? LOL!!

[@garybrockie6327]

There is a Sequel “2010 The year we make contact” that explains what happened with HAL. The monoliths are left by an alien race to promote intelligent life.

[@porflepopnecker4376]

The sequel is a pedestrian piece of dreck that takes something transcendental and turns it into pulp sci-fi.

[@k1productions87]

@@porflepopnecker4376 Even though the sequel follows closely to the second book also written by Arthur C. Clarke,... so you would essentially be making the same complaint about the original author

[@williamhicks7736]

@@porflepopnecker4376 Hear! Hear!

[@JohnnyZenith]

@@porflepopnecker4376 Nonsense. The sequel is superb and I prefer it.

[@traceyb9443]

Never gonna be able to watch the beginning of this movie in the same way ever again! #TeamTapir 🤣🤣🤣

[@avodaith]

The remake isn't a remake, it's a sequel, and a much more conventional film that will answer all your questions. You should watch it.

[@DeanStrickson]

Someone made a fake wiki-ish page about Lucas and Spielberg making a 2001 remake to be released next year.

[@TheStOne1]

There is no remake of this movie, there's just 2001 A Space Odyssey film and its sequel from the 80's which is also very interesting and helps to understand what happened in the first one.

[@experi-mentalproductions5358]

24:23 - "He's in Jupiter's solar system" Well, yeah... But so are you, like right now.....

[@jacobjones5269]

Let’s be fair.. It’s Jupiter’s solar system..

[@experi-mentalproductions5358]

@@jacobjones5269 ... Yeah, I know ... Why did you even comment this?

[@jacobjones5269]

@@experi-mentalproductions5358 I was trying to make a joke.. You know, since Jupiter is the big dog... The boss, so to speak.. It’s really Jupiter’s solar system..

[@experi-mentalproductions5358]

@@jacobjones5269 I genuinely can't tell which one of us is the idiot....

[@jacobjones5269]

@@experi-mentalproductions5358 You know what they say, if you can’t figure out who the idiot in the room is in the first 20 minutes, then you’re him.. lol.. I feel certain you’re not an idiot, so my advice is just don’t tell anyone you can’t figure out who is..

[@JKM395]

Can you imagine going to a theatre in 1968, sitting down and watching this? Unreal.

[@Laxhoop]

From mankind’s first tool, to their last. And only by giving it all up, does the monolith show him the infinite.

[@nin1000]

R.I.P to the Tapirs! I sgree that we could have been descendants of the tapir family!

[@jacobjones5269]

Your brothers face at the end says it all.. lol.. Awestruck I believe is the word..

[@betsyduane3461]

Dave is transported to the alien world/dimension and is put in a place he feels comfortable as he grows old, he transforms into the Star Child and is able to travel through space. Kubrick described the ending is that Dave is basically placed in a zoo for humans by godlike aliens who study him until finished, then they transform him into a super being sent to Earth.

[@MariusWales]

26:02 The white room was made by the aliens to provide Dave with a familiar environment. It's no different from how we make exhibits at zoos for animals. A tropical exhibit for the chimpanzees. A wintery exhibit for penguins. A room with a bed, chairs and tables for humans. Even the Dave's pod disappearing is like how zoo keepers take away, for example, a tire swing from the chimpanzee exhibit. They have no idea were it went, but the observers do. The people who keep you there.

[@GigiC4]

I just love seeing how confused people are seeing this movie for the first time.

[@stvbrsn]

I have seen this movie at least a dozen times, and probably seen every documentary. I still have no idea how they made the zero G look so good in the scene where Dave blows the hatch on the pod to regain entry to the ship. Simply amazing.

[@panther7748]

I think the actor explained in an interview that they lowered him down (and/or pulled him up, I don't remember) vertically. The camera angle then made it look like it was horizontal.

[@FluxNomad678]

I think the ending sequencing is him aging and then as death approaches, being enabled to evolve or transcend his humanity somehow. The form of an infant is done by him on a whim I think because he's reborn.

[@t0dd000]

The visuals in this movie are so impressive. It was fun to watch you guys devolve into WTF-,puddles. :)

[@Daniel24724]

😁 Kubrick said this movie is made to give more questions than answers. It works for you, as you can't stop saying : - WHAT ?! - WHAAAT ?!!

[@danielbond7536]

The tapir defender has logged on.

[@joelwillis2043]

My Dad saw this with his friends in the theatre when it released. They all dropped acid. To this day it is one of the craziest things he experienced and he has had an interesting life.

[@jameswilson8433]

"I still don't get it, man!" Yep, that's the point. There's a whole big, complicated universe out there that us monkeys just aren't equipped to understand. With a little push now and then from outside, (God, aliens, cosmic consciousness, whatever) we do get better.

[@858Bill]

You must watch 2010 as soon as you can....while this one is still fresh in your heads.....

[@maschwab63]

2010 Picks up when the last astronaut leaves Jupiter.

[@kingscorpion7346]

the ape uses a bone as a club "He's got a tool!" the bone transforms into a wrench, and Tim Allen says, "oh, oh, oh!"

[@peterampee-kleisius]

"That's weird as hell man!" The movie was made in 1968 when LSD was still legal.

[@thetoothbrushfromnisemonog8340]

Yes more Kubrick! I suggest Barry Lyndon, another masterpiece by him, greatest film ever made (imo).

[@nickcangemi]

Yessssssss!!!

[@randywhite3947]

Wasn’t even the greatest film that year

[@thetoothbrushfromnisemonog8340]

@@randywhite3947 What do you think was than?

[@randywhite3947]

@@thetoothbrushfromnisemonog8340 Nashville

[@goldenager59]

@@randywhite3947 Barry Lyndon was certainly one of the most historically immersing motion pictures ever made. It's one of those films that make it seem like one of the key pieces of filming equipment was a time machine. 😎 (There's a tale told that its star, Ryan O'Neal, made a wager with his young daughter Tatum O'Neal - a star in her own right, and appearing that same year in The Bad News Bears alongside Walter Matthau - that his movie would do better than hers critically and financially. I forget what the stakes were...but O'Neal Sr., I am given to understand, proved not the most graceful of losers. So men say, anyway. 😏 👨‍👧

[@pinino335]

I saw this movie when I was 10 and my sister was 12. My sister lost interest after the apes went away while I endured it for the whole run time. I liked the effects but was too young to appreciate the deeper meaning.

[@Tizen]

Pretty amazing that humans didn't even land on the moon until a year after this film was released.

[@txheadshots]

“Bad space acid trip” Funny, because it was a popular movie to go see when you were high

[@Kimjongil-pu6rk]

Reading the book helps you understand.

[@dan32321]

It still blows me away this movie was made 50 years ago. Most special effects films look dated after only a few years, but this still looks pristine and amazing to me. For example, that shot at 5:30 was done in a studio via projection screen. The actor is on a set in London, and the background footage was shot in Africa separately by one of Kubrick's lieutenants. And I'd have no clue if I hadn't read about it.

[@davidpost428]

There was a write-up in a magazine about this back then where scientists confirmed that every technical detail of the ships, etc. were accurately portrayed, including the ten-step instructions printed out for the anti-gravity toilet, and that great research had gone into this in the development of the film.

[@binghamguevara6814]

27:06 Look at the guy in back's wide eyes. He stops speaking from this moment on. he's spellbound and in awe. This is probably how looked when I saw this film for the first time.

[@malcolmdrake6137]

Seriously, the most interesting explanation of what's going on, is that Stanley Kubrick made this movie to inform the public just how advanced filmmaking was, and that you could make people believe what they were seeing was real...because Nasa was about to launch a "moon" mission. Stanley Kubrick maintained that there was no way to tell if something/anything shown on television was "real" or a Hollywood fabrication. He also maintained that the CIA was involved in disinforming the American people...on a number of subjects...through "Hollywood".

[@richardb6260]

There's something almost blasphemous about seeing this film get the MST3K treatment. The bone to satellite transition has been called the greatest jump cut in film. The satellite as well as the others shown are weapons platforms. The earliest weapon to the latest one.

[@GrouchyMarx]

You guys really need to do the sequel made 16 years later "2010: The Year We Make Contact" (1984), as it's an awesome, wonderful movie, and that mysterious ending in 2001 will be answered. Besides, there are two interesting cameos in it. Two of the writer Arthur C. Clarke and one of director Stanley Kubrick, though the second Clarke and Kubrick cameo may be tough for you to spot at first. Just hope there will NEVER be a remake of 2001 as it would suck as a large majority of remakes do these days. The sequel 2010 is reason enough for no remake of 2001. ✌️😎

[@SharkAcademy]

I never knew there was a sequel. Never heard it being talked about

[@betsyduane3461]

There is no remake of 2001:A Space Odyssey. There is a sequel called 2010:The Year We Make Contact that came out in 1984 with Kubrick's approval. No one would ever dare remake this movie.

[@bertmckinney8994]

HAVING READ THE BOOK... Hal is programmed to be absolutely truthful and honest with his "crewmates", but at the same time he is tasked with carrying a secret (the hidden reason for the mission) which creates a conflict within his machine brain causing schizophrenia!

[@greenpeasuit]

"I'm Trey Table, this is my copilot, Al Timeter."

[@deckofcards87]

Great reaction. Directors and critics often list "2001" in the top 10 greatest movies and there's a lot of reasons why, one of them is the fact that it was ridiculously groundbreaking technically for 1968. It's also enormously influential as you'd expect.

[@jgreen2015]

Plot twist - rather than that being evidence of kubrick also faking the moon landings, kubrick actually shot the whole thing in space with real ships ;)

[@michaelminch5490]

You didn't miss anything, guys. It's confusing, baffling, strange, enigmatic. This movie needs to be watched a few times before you even begin to understand, and even then, it's completely open to interpretation. Just a brilliant film, one of my absolute favorites. I've been watching it periodically since I was a kid in the mid-70s, and I still get some new insight every time I watch it. I suggest you do another video with this one, just to see your different reactions as you put things together.

[@jefffiore7869]

Fun fact: When he called his daughter from the space station, that was actually Stanley Kubricks daughter.

[@goldenager59]

Another fun fact: 2001 revolves around birthdays, of which there are five in the course of the film. First, of course, is the birth of Homo Sapiens ourselves. Next is that of Heywood Floyd's little cutie-pie. Then there's the remote celebration of Frank Poole's birthday. The fourth is when HAL regresses back to his initial activation, and the fifth, of course, is Dave Bowman's rebirth as the Star Child! 🙂 👽

[@victorplekter613]

In the end, Dave was in a zoo cage decorated as a human habitat.

[@godzillasimpson8357]

The beginning of 2001 a space odyssey soundtrack lyrics, “ hey hey we’re the monkiees, and people say we’re fooling around.”

[@diavanille6179]

i highly recommend you guys watch the sequel "2010" - its a fantastic super underated movie, and will help you understand the story

[@k1productions87]

What helps with 2010 is that it was more contemporary, rather than trying to be all artsy

[@goldenager59]

@@k1productions87 In his review of 2010: The Year We Make Contact, Roger Ebert quoted a famous couplet by the poet e e cummings: "I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing Than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance." For Ebert, 2001 did the former, 2010 the latter. (He did give the 1984 film a favorable review, as it was well made of its type.) 😎

[@txheadshots]

And 2069 and 3001 books further explain the story.. very good reads

[@chops5853]

It’s hilarious to me that Planet of the Apes won the Oscar for best makeup over the makeup of the apes at the beginning of this film. I think the academy thought they were actually just real apes lol

[@user-ji3sx9gz8k]

This was the most amazing thing ever made at the time. Nothing came close until Star Wars. And still the realism is unmatched. Arthur C. Clarke collaborated on this and he actually is credited with coming up with the idea of geosynchronous orbit satellites, which are now the basis of communication satellites. He knows what he is talking about. The long sequences with music are basically filling the silence of space with cool music. Arthur C. Clarke wrote another series, the Ranma series, which is very similar in theme but done clearer...in the end. But it takes multiple books.

[@kingscorpion7346]

in the novel, Arthur C. Clark described a dark spot on the surface of Jupiter's moon Europa, and it was another monolith discovered. when Voyager 2 did a flyby of Europa and pictures were taken, there was a picture of Europa with a dark spot on it, exactly the way Clark envisioned for the story. Carl Sagan sent him a copy of that picture with the words, "thinking of you" written on it.

[@NeilPower]

If you are curious, in the book the satellite that is shown at the start was a nuclear missile platform. From bone clubs to nuclear weapons.

[@Cifer77]

Man Discovers Tools Man Discovers AI Man Discovers...space acid trip with giant space fetuses Seriously though, it's amazing how many "life in space" concepts they got right before we actually started doing it. The time it takes for messages to travel to earth, the food in paste form so pieces don't fly away in zero g, engines off while drifting in space (unlike most other sci-fi) because if they stayed on you would constantly increase your speed. Even the rotating stations to simulate gravity is something we only recently understood how beneficial it would be, as spending over a year in zero g really damages the body. (Astronaut Scott Kelly) Stanley Kubrick is an amazing filmmaker

[@HappyTeeth.]

It's a film to be watched more than once. 50 times will do.

[@NORGCO]

Kubrik just filmed the visual parts of Arthur C Clarkes book, the Kubrik had actually commissioned. The book is very clear since Clarke in his books had a tendency to simply explain what was going on, and Kubrik didn't include that. The monolith's were put there by aliens that were lonely and wanted other species to talk to. So they left the monoliths to teach basic tools, buried one on the moon so they would know when an intelligent species from Earth dug it up - hence the electronic scream - and send any who made it to the transit point monolith to their homeworld on to be tested.

[@myownchannel247]

You might wanna do Mel Brooks' History of the World Part 1 soon, they do a little parody of this film at the beginning... and why not it's Mel Brooks!

[@tudeslildude]

I always looked at the movie with a slightly different interpretation, though in all honesty it could just be a more modern interpretation spin on more or less what Kubrick said. From what it seemed to me, the Monolith was some form of entity that exists outside of time and space, and interacts with 'the universe' as we know it by giving beings the potential to evolve. At first the apes saw it, and evolved to use tools, and because of that move forward over hundreds of thousands of years became the space faring race of the film. Basically the Monolith changed the perspective of how the apes saw and experienced the world around them, allowing them to create tools and evolve mentally. I think HAL, a being made of pure programming and artificial wiring, took on the same shift of perspective allowing him to surpass his own programming in a sense and obtain sentience. Unlike the human-apes however, HAL did not ultimately achieve dominance, and instead got wiped out. Upon reaching the third monolith in space, as the survivor and therein the evolutionary superior being (in a simplistic sense at least), Dave ends up being given the next leap in perspective and evolution instead. At this point Dave becomes a fourth dimensional being, but his brain can't yet comprehend its new state. He experiences flashes from his own existence from beginning to end, before fully comprehending the nature of timeless. Upon a more stable comprehension of what existence now means for himself, Dave is shown as a giant infant floating through space. This is meant to signify both his timelessness, and newfound innocence in being 'reborn' in a sense, since he basically has entered a new universe of existing. I would imagine the fact he is seen in from of Earth also implies that Dave moves on to teach the rest of humanity in some way, much like the ape who discovered the concept of tools and shared it with his clan, who then went on to become the 'humans' of today. Bit confusing, but hopefully you can follow that near gibberish.

[@hettbeans]

The whole stargate/spacewarp and hotel room sequence at the end was supposed to be Dave Bowman's intelligence being downloaded or absorbed or whatever by the monolith. From an interview with Kubrick: The idea was supposed to be that he is taken in by godlike entities, creatures of pure energy and intelligence with no shape or form. They put him in what I suppose you could describe as a human zoo to study him, and his whole life passes from that point on in that room. And he has no sense of time. ... [W]hen they get finished with him, as happens in so many myths of all cultures in the world, he is transformed into some kind of super being and sent back to Earth, transformed and made some kind of superman. We have to only guess what happens when he goes back. It is the pattern of a great deal of mythology, and that is what we were trying to suggest.

[@_Katzenberg]

There are no remakes, there's only a sequel (part two of a four book series) called 2010: The year we made contact. It's cool, I recommend fully.

[@OctoKrool]

Thank you for the clear up, I must have heard it entirely wrong which is common; I'm a big a dumb dumb lol.

[@_Katzenberg]

@@OctoKrool It's ok bros, watch the second, explains much more than 2001. Take care

[@hifijohn]

the first musical pieces are Also Sprach Zarathustra and the blue Danube by Strauss even though the first piece sounds contemporary it was written in 1896! Kubrick was a nut for details so those instructions for the zero-gravity toilet are real.BTW the space shuttle was Pan Am.

[@tuckerplum8085]

Just the fact that you knew right away "I don't trust robots" means you have seen hundreds of Sci-Fi movies. Take a moment to realize that this was one of the first times an audience had seen ANYTHING like this. When this was made, even the word "computer" was something totally new to the audience. People didn't have computers. NASA had computers. (And they were so big, they took-up a whole room.) This movie came out a year BEFORE the Moon landing. This movie was a totally realistic major leap into the future. People were in complete awe. The enigma is a huge part of the ART of this movie. You are supposed to have huge questions. My favorite comment was "I feel like one of the apes from the beginning!" The juxtaposition of primordial apes and monolith, and the futuristic humans and monolith, is obviously intentional and awe-inspiring. They are the same. We think we understand everything about the universe, but the appearance of the monolith should make you think: "I am like those apes. I don't understand anything. I am someone who wishes to learn and explore, but I do not know everything." Then, we get a story about lives being threatened in space. Why are those lives in danger? Hubris. We thought we knew everything, and we gave total control to a machine with some flaw. The only way Dave survived was to disconnect the hubris-of-mankind. Jettison HAL. (Free you mind, Man!) And then he turned into something else.... The movie does not spoon-feed you answers. We are not supposed to fully understand. Have the humility to know that you don't know everything. Open your mind to the possibilities of existence! This movie is HIGH ART. A masterpiece. (The movie "2010 The Year We Make Contact" is a much more straightforward movie. It's not HIGH ART in the same way, but it's still a good movie. It gives you more of a sense that you understand what's happening. I recommend watching that.)

[@JonInCanada1]

The "Starchild" is a metaphor of evolution.

[@jeffreymoore6742]

The movie “2010” explains a lot about this movie

[@JesseGoldsmith]

2001 has never been remade. No one would dare.

[@thetoothbrushfromnisemonog8340]

Or should.

[@JesseGoldsmith]

@Justin Credible No. Even a meatball like Abrams knows better than to mess with this film.

[@goldenager59]

@@JesseGoldsmith Well, he seems a pretty talented and capable meatball. Besides, in twelfth-century England, one would have thought that Prince John would have had better sense than to try to depose his brother King Richard Lion-Heart...and we all know how that one came out. 🙄😉 "Everything is possible, to him who dares." - Albert Goodwill Spalding "If you want to rise...do the difficult." - Messala, in Ben-Hur (1959)

[@JesseGoldsmith]

@@goldenager59 He seems like a pretty capable, but not very talented producer. A terrible director, and not worthy of this poetic segue with Richard the Lion Heart and cheesy quotations from Ben-Hur. What? No citations of Sisyphus?

[@goldenager59]

@@JesseGoldsmith Mr. Abrams just seems like a fellow who would take such quotes seriously, that's all. He at least would seem more talented than ME, anyway. And no, no citations of Sisyphus... unless we picture him rolling a meatball up the slope. 😁

[@panther7748]

The bone tossed into the air and the satellite that's replacing it in the next image are essentially the same thing. The satellites are orbital weapon platforms for nuclear missiles. The transition shows that humans haven't changed that much - the bones just got more sophisticated.

[@hartwellcrim4633]

2010 is a sequel also based on a novel by Clarke

[@nicknoga564]

Fun fact was that the original script for 2001 contained narration that explained everything (as did most of Kubrick’s movies prior to this). The director ultimately decided that it was more interesting if left unexplained. If you pay close attention you can find parallels between the effect that the black monolith has on Dave at the end to the effect that it had on the apes during the Dawn of Man. The beginning and the ending are analogous to each other.

[@Mangolite]

The Monolith is an advanced technology that existed before time and appeared at intervals to give intelligent species to move through space and time to discover their immortality.

[@Serai3]

If you watch the sequel, _2010,_ your questions will be answered. :)

[@Brimp555]

Life on other planets is helping us to get up to speed and join them. Apes see a monolith and they learn to use tools that lead to space exploration. This is where we find the next monolith that directs us to Jupiter where we find the third monolith. Humans will evolve again.

[@MDBowron]

and the opening section of the space station to let the space-plane in looks exactly like the opening of the Death Star when the Millennium Falcon is pulled in by tractor beam