2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY & CONQUEST OF SPACE | Film Comparison

A comparison of visual images, design concepts, and plot points from 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968), and Conquest of Space (George Pal, Byron Haskin, 1955).
For educational / entertainment purposes only.

[@CineMollusk]

Fun fact: One of the screenwriters on _Conquest of Space_ was Barré Lyndon.

[@BretRBoulter]

Well I must say you guys have certainly come up with something.

[@glitter1951]

I never thought of the comparisons - but this is truly special. Well done!

[@BeachcomberNZ]

I don't understand why the Moon landing non-believers think that Kubrick was hired to fake the landings, when his 2001 Moon imagery looked nowhere near as convincing as the actual Moon landing footage. Heck, even that recent Apollo 11 movie 'First Man' didn't look as convincing as the real thing, despite them having the latest movie gear and CGI technology that was available at the time.

[@aliensoup2420]

The Kubrick/Apollo theorists are goof-balls. Just like Flat Earthers and Young Earth Creationists

[@dadautube]

surely the COS was great for its time and quite enticing to watch today as well ... but the 2ASO is something else! still super-modern to this very day and for centuries in the future too!

[@henrybrowne7248]

I just love concepts and techniques and the like being traced backward in time. One big thing I've learned in my life is that invention is rarely out of nowhere; each generation builds upon what came before them, as Newton referenced in his famous quote about standing on the shoulders of giants. My special interest is music, especially classical music: I know the big names, but I want to know those who were forgotten despite making crucial contributions to the art. Btw I don't think Kubrick was a thief in any way [sorry, Ligeti], he just wanted to get it right and he did.

[@fungerz]

“No unnecessary floating.” Ha! Ha! Ha! As well as being an artist of the edit, you do jokes too. You’re a master. Thank you.

[@planestrainsdogsncars4336]

I'm sure Stanley Kubrick looked at many more earlier B Grade sci-fi movies as well ...His challenge was to get it scientifically correct and cinematographically believable , which he succeeded in doing and more. There was only 'one' incorrect science shot in the whole movie.. when Dr Heywood Floyd was eating his meal on the moon shuttle his liquid food in the straw should have remained in the straw instead of slipping back down a little. ''The Sentinel'' on which 2001 is based was written by Arthur C Clarke in 1941, so it was probably Conquest of Space copying first!

[@jamesrav]

when they have the meeting on the moon, with the photographer, how is the lack of gravity explained in their movements? It appears they are moving around just as they would on earth.

[@planestrainsdogsncars4336]

@@jamesrav There is of course gravity on the moon albeit 17% of Earths and with lead in their soles of the suits this would have been an approximation of ''walking'' on the moon. The Lunar Roving Vehicle's (LRV) didn't launch from the lunar surface in Apollo 15,16 and 17 missions ..they stayed fairly planted on the surface despite acceleration and bouncing in the terrain. Remember the movie was made before any moon landing. Indeed the matte paintings of the earth from orbit was an approximation because no quality color photos had yet been made from space. Again the only obvious mistake is the food straw.

[@jamesrav]

@@planestrainsdogsncars4336 that photographer is prancing about pretty much as he would be on earth, which he of course was. I seem to recall a video saying there were quite a few minor 'flaws' in the science, despite having some very qualified advisors. Compromises had to be made as you note, it was an amazing approximation of reality. Certainly in my top 3 of movies ever. I'm not so sure anymore there are others in the universe, but that doesnt impact my appreciation for the movie in all respects.

[@planestrainsdogsncars4336]

@@jamesrav Ahh Sorry ..I thought you meant the excavation where they found the monolith with _that_ photographer when you were referring to the photographer at the conference with Floyd at Clavius Moonbase. Yes I agree that was never fully explained.. although Clavius was mostly underground and was circular it's dubious if it had a centrifuge or whatever...but then again in a large installation and conference hall filled with oxygen, with 17%of earths gravity ...how quickly would people move and interact?, I'm not sure we can say for certain because we're still not there yet. Yet again on the ISS ...the inhabitants move about as if on Earth except with weightlessness. There are a few other instances of cinematic flourishes, like the hostess walking up the wall to the next corridor, in zero gravity she would just need a few pushes on the wall and a midflight backflip and she wound be there!...but it made for great effect. ''I'm not so sure anymore there are others in the universe'', well nobody can be sure , certainly I would say not within 100 LY, but think of the infinite and then triple it. That's a whole lot of space for planets to be in the goldilocks zone.

[@dadautube]

good points ... but let's have this in mind: the space shuttle did have a little of artificial gravity in it anyways, so that slight dipping back of the liquid in that scene can be somewhat justified ... 🙂 also, there is another scene in that sequence that can easily be missed but not so in the book, where it's explained in more detail: the zero-gravity toilet with an overly long lines of instructions for the user to know how to use it in order not to make an embarrassing scene! ;-) of course the movie does quite fine at that but many viewers might miss the point ...

[@StevenAlvarez]

everything is a remix

[@neddyladdy]

Be quite a job to repair a flat tyre on a wheel that big.

[@henrybrowne7248]

Plus it appears someone/thing stole the hubcap already.

[@kevincarbone3580]

Nicely done!

[@watchth1ngs]

also the mars lander was, I think, ahead of its time in allowing for two axes of movement according to gravity - somehow the old 1950s rockets are coming back into style.....

[@planestrainsdogsncars4336]

Good luck with landing that thing like a plane on mars without an aerodrome..LOL

[@avico6885]

I loved conquest of space an space odesy the movies are full of phyllossophy thinking

[@tectorgorch8698]

A+.

[@STEJTHEGREATEST]

That space station looks kinda like Deep Space Nine/Terok Nor could've been based off it!!!!

[@planestrainsdogsncars4336]

Every friggen space station was a revolving Ferris wheel in the 50's

[@davidmusser7927]

Those oval spacecraft are stupid, you would bounce around like a ball bearing in a pin-ball machine.

[@jonanjello]

Unlike the astronaut food, this I can swallow. Nice work

[@watchth1ngs]

hey this great - well done!

[@jeffhaley9494]

amazing! thank you

[@rupertcornelius]

THE BEST content on the internet

[@VaryingViewpoint]

Amazing!