2001: A Space Odyssey Movie Reaction (I can't believe this was rated G)

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
FIRST TIME WATCHING 2001 A Space Odyssey was such a mind trip. Stanley Kubrick is truly one of the great filmmakers of the 20th Century and we were lucky to have his visionary storytelling.
For More Exclusive Content On Movies and TV Shows, and To Support My Channel, Please Subscribe To Me On Patreon: / kazzyreacts
Banner and Thumbnail designed by: @Skynobi_starwars
/ skynobi
Social Media:
Twitter: / kazzyreacts
Instagram: / kazzy.reacts
Letterboxd: letterboxd.com...
#moviereaction #react #2001ASpaceOdyssey
Song by Kazzy's brother #Copyright
LOVE to ALL of you!
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @kazzycreates

[@motodork]

I’m glad to have suggested this wonderful film.

[@KazzyCreates]

YOU ROCK!! Thank you, Moto Dork! Look at how everyone LOVES this movie!! There are more comments under this movie than most movies I have watched! 💯👍🏻🔥

[@motodork]

@@KazzyCreates that makes me happy :-)

[@christopherleodaniels7203]

@@KazzyCreates …it was released in 1968. Kubrick started shooting the moon and Dr. Floyd sequences in 1965. The Dawn Of Man proto-man-apelike ancestors sequences were done last. It’s also noteworthy that the MPAA ratings were just a year or two old at that time. Your reaction was great. It’s a hard film to process, and I feel like you “get” more than think.

[@Catweazel1976]

Thank you Kazzy Reacts! I love 2001 a space Odyssey. Even though I still don't understand the ending. The trippy visual effects just before the climax still look amazing! Also, 2010; the year we make contact is great! A criminally underrated movie.

[@briandonovan1584]

@@KazzyCreates Don't forget Kubrick's friend and writer of the move is the legend of high quality science fiction, Arthur C. Clark. Very unusually Clarke wrote the book/script as they were making the movie. Reading the book (not very long) explains things, especially the end. Frank has been shot forward evolutionarily and become a "star child." The monolith on the moon sent a signal to near Saturn (in the book) as a sort of notification to the parent monolith as man has conquered space and is ready for another boost up in evolutionarily like the effect on early man technology was born when that bone was used as a tool and effective weapon. As the bone transitions into a graceful space ship we see the bone has evolved to a space ship bookending the history of technology. Based loosely on Clarke's short story The Sentinel about the discovery of a monolith of unknown origin.

[@mooncaketin]

@19:00 in one of the lawsuits by Apple against Samsung for copying their iPad design, Samsung's attorneys brought up this scene to demonstrate that Apple didn't invent the iPad design 🙂

[@LJMiho]

F***ing brilliant!

[@VolkerGoller]

I watched a couple of “first watch” videos of 2001, and you are the first time one noticed the iPads! For many kids today, the iPads are so normal, they don’t get how outstanding they are back then

[@robertsonsid]

Excellent! I thought the IPAD idea in 1968 was brilliant!

[@izzonj]

"I don't quite understand the film." Oh, just think about it for the next 50 years, there's no hurry.

[@ThothWhoWrites]

Too true. I read the book before I saw the film and had to do some explaining to the people I saw the movie with.

[@mikelarsen5836]

People who don't read books will always be slow to catch up! But I suppose the human race does need Thicko! 😂😂😂

[@freddyfleal]

reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra helps :)

[@joeldb]

@@ThothWhoWrites The book doesn't explain the film at all they are two totally different things that were created in tandem, but not strictly related to each other.

[@ThothWhoWrites]

@@joeldb I hate getting in arguments on the internet. But my experience was that the book explained a lot about the end. James Blish is closer to my view of that than yours. see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(novel)#Reception You are entitled to your opinion, of course.

[@Dlynchian]

2001: A Space Odyssey isn’t a film. It’s an experience.

[@trhansen3244]

The only thing I can think of that compares to it was voting for Barack Obama.

[@christhornycroft3686]

Apparently a lot of people who saw it were on LSD at the time. I’ve heard it’s nuts when viewed that way. I’m not much of a drug person though.

[@StreetHierarchy]

@@trhansen3244 😂😂😭

[@MatthewPettyST1300]

In a full size screen and theater sound. I can't tell you how many times I saw it that way when it first came out at a state of the art theater. Now it's on a monitor with ear buds. For shame, for shame. Even a 58 inch 4K with a sound bar doesn't hold up to the theater. I know from experience.

[@BabylonLurker]

An experience, indeed! Best experienced on the biggest screen you can get to. Saw it on an IMAX screen a few years ago at a film festival in Copenhagen. Still fantastic.

[@4325air]

Loved your reaction! I was in college 66-70 when this film first came out, and you are correct--we were blown away. To truly appreciate the film, one must understand that our culture was undergoing three significant influences that touched our lives every single day: First, the war in Vietnam. Second, the Cold War with the Soviet Union and the 24/7 threat of nuclear Armageddon. (We had nuclear attack drills in school, like tornado drills nowadays). Third was the all-consuming Space Race. Billions of $$ were sunk into that program and every day there was news about some new scientific discovery or accomplishment or manned space launch. In less than 10 years we landed men on the moon. And more than once!. So, in those days it was reasonable and not beyond comprehension that in another 32 years (1969 to 2001) we would realistically have space stations or manned probes to Jupiter. People today cannot understand the economic, financial, employment, and other such sectors impacted by that Space Race. Had we continued at that rate (not saying that we could have done so) we would have colonized Mars by now. Incredible times to be 20 years old!!

[@krautgazer]

More like: first there was a bone, now it's a spaceship. That's why THAT cut from the bone to the spaceship. That's the whole evolution of technology in one single cut! :D The most ingenious cut in the history of film.

[@Malfehzan]

It's a nuke satellite, a weapon just as the bone.

[@sonicmojo]

@@Malfehzan very astute observation there... Reminds me of George Carlin's remark regarding missiles all looking like dicks! From evolution to de-evolution and all over penis envi!?! 🤣

[@TheShootist]

bone weapon. spaceship orbital nuke weapon.

[@willmfrank]

@@Malfehzan Humanity's first weapon jump cuts to humanity's last.

[@TheShootist]

@@willmfrank that would have been another bone.

[@Linerunner99]

"What kind of gift do you want?" "A telephone." Kubrick knew even back in the late 60s.... cell phones were coming.................. and the dang kids were gonna want them.

[@Ocrilat]

Lol yes. And she told him via an earth to moon Skype call.

[@donsample1002]

Ocrilat More of an Earth to ISS call.

[@rookmaster7502]

I believe that was actually Clarke's idea for the movie, not Kubrick's.

[@Ocrilat]

@@rookmaster7502 Do you have a source for that?

[@rookmaster7502]

@@Ocrilat No, not directly. However, Clarke touched on the very subject in his 1962 book, "Profiles of the Future", where he made predictions about future inventions and technological advancements. Of course, it is possible Kubrick read Clarke's book and thought it would be a good idea to incorporate that concept into the film.

[@porflepopnecker4376]

Kubrick never intended for people to fully understand this movie on first viewing, if ever. He preferred that viewers ponder its meaning rather than ruin the mystical effect by over-explaining it.

[@wackyvorlon]

Though Arthur C Clarke explained it in the book. If you want the answers, read the book. Then you will understand the movies.

[@brandonflorida1092]

@@wackyvorlon Yes, the book, chapters of which Clarke sent to Kubrick as he was writing it, explains everything exactly. Once you know what's going on, every little bit of the movie from beginning to end makes perfect sense.

[@ericsierra-franco7802]

@@wackyvorlon Yes, the book is far less arcane and mysterious.

[@Corn_Pone_Flicks]

I saw this first as a teen, and it was pretty obvious even then that the film was about the evolution of humanity. It's very stylized, but there's nothing really confusing about it.

[@Dularr]

@@wackyvorlon There is a story that Kubrick was misdirecting Clarke on the ending of the movie.

[@yvesandrethevenot3489]

Quite simply one of the most important movie of all times. A genuine masterpiece.

[@BigMac7629]

The greatest science fiction film ever made. Absolutely epic

[@marknickols7316]

The visual effects are all the more impressive when you consider fillming occurred in 1965-7 and there was no such thing as CGI. All the spaceships are physical models. The floating pen was stuck to a large piece of clear perspex. How do you get the effect of an astronaut jogging around a big cylinder? You build the life sized set and literally rotate it at the same speed as the jogger. The lengths they went to to get those effects - amazing! That's Kubrick for you. I saw this in '68 in Cinerama. Now that was an experience!

[@AlanCanon2222]

I was born 8 months to the day after 2001 premiered, and it's been my favorite movie since childhood. Seen it in theaters twice, but hundreds of times otherwise. I envy your seeing the premiere, very much.

[@oaf-77]

There was no other movie like it in 1967. It would be decades before special effects in movies caught up to what Kubrick did in 2001.

[@marknickols7316]

@@AlanCanon2222 I didn't see the actual premiere, but I saw the film in '68 which was the year of release and in the original release format - Cinerama: 70mm on a curved screen. Very immersive and almost 3D. I was 15. It really made an impact on me.

[@AlanCanon2222]

@@marknickols7316 Saw it on the post Star Wars re-release, I think at the 70mm equipped Cinerama theater at Showcase Cinemas (Louisville), though it's possible I wasn't seeing it in 70mm. I'd had the soundtrack album forever, and my level of anticipation was through the roof. I can't remember if I read the novel first or soon thereafter.

[@tonybennett4159]

I also saw it on its initial release in Cinerama in Auckland, New Zealand. It was such an overwhelming experience that I went again the following week, and my viewing of it now is still through the lens of that experience. I saw it a few years ago in the BFI Imax cinema in London but the image only took up part of the Imax screen. Still, there were a lot of young people in the audience so maybe for them it was as impactful, but somehow I doubt it : this film cries out for Cinerama!

[@ericsierra-franco7802]

Those other animals are Tapirs. They are related to horses and rhinos on the evolutionary chain. They are considered living fossils because they have remained unchanged for a very long time.

[@AlanCanon2222]

Also, they are, and were, south American, so our forebears never actually met them. But Kubrick liked their prehistoric appearance.

[@ericsierra-franco7802]

@@AlanCanon2222 Very true!👍

[@GF_Baltar]

If you watch the 1984 sequel, "2010: The Year We Make Contact", HAL's mental breakdown is explained in a way that makes perfect sense. 2010 isn't as good as 2001, but it's definitely worth watching.

[@k1productions87]

2010 is more of a contemporary film, made to be appreciated as a "movie" rather than a more artsy film. While this does give it less historical significance, it does make the narrative easier to follow.

[@robertanderson6929]

I could not agree more. By focusing the plot of the sequel on the mystery of HAL's betrayal Peter Hyams avoids trying to create a derivative work or making the mistake of trying to explain the existence of the monoliths and their origin. Instead we are taken on a very grounded journey to answer a very simple question. And while the answer is simple and satisfying it is what we also learn during the process that enhances our appreciation for the original and confounds us with the fact that we will never truly know what it is all about. As sequels go, I don't think anyone could ask for more.

[@chadwelborn215]

I agree I was about to make the same comment

[@t.gadway6729]

There are also KZbin videos (such as collative learning) which provide various explanations. Also a good one in the book "The Making of Kubrick's 2001". Read none of them. Watch none of them. Let 2001 ferment in the head and try to come up with your own notions. That's probably the point of the movie. I wish I had done that.

[@GF_Baltar]

@@t.gadway6729 I love Collative Learning, great channel!

[@willv7868]

The Starchild, the next step of the evolution of humans.

[@norryonbass6574]

The Monolith’s appearances marks the moment when mankind reaches a significant point of evolution. The dawn of man is the change when apes discover the ability to use tools. Then the monolith on the moon. It was buried there by the same intelligent life waiting for the time when mankind reaches the moon and discovers it. The high pitch sound was activated when sunlight hits the excavated monolith and it sends a signal towards Jupiter which is why a ship was sent there to investigate.

[@gordondavis6168]

However, eventually technology is a dead end. Technology threatens to destroy man, either through orbiting nuclear weapon satellites or AI such as HAL. Thus, the monolith aliens again evolve man to a post-technological status as a Star Child.

[@stell4you]

@@gordondavis6168 The Evolution of technology is neutral. What mankind does of it and if mankind is evolved enough to use it stands on another page.

[@surfersilver6610]

​@@stell4you The funny thing is, on analysis, it was the HIDING of information and secrecy that caused destruction, not the technology on it's own. The need to keep that secret hidden leads to conflict and then creates more conflict to avoid it getting out. Look what we've gone through with this China Lab virus and Dr Fauci (Doing 'Gain of Function' testing with a known oppressive enemy country or anywhere for that matter) wanting to say it came from animals (When all the sequence data shows it's man made) and all the lies and ties to China, Russia, Ukraine by the Bidens, Clintons, Obamas and others. They are keeping secrets and trying to do things without telling the general public out of greed and corruption. Now we are on the brink of releasing terrible weapons of technology over these humans HIDING all what they are doing. Putin is the last problem, in the chain of problems, leading up to the current war. "What mankind does of it" yes correct. We are nowhere near a "Star Trek Federation" society. We are still warring over territory and resources like primates.

[@premanadi]

The Monoliths actively helps mankind evolve - the apes learn to use tools through the Monolith's intervention. As they guide Bowman into the next stage of evolution, becoming the Star Child. Or maybe more accurately, the Monoliths are the tools used by the intelligences who created them to help humans evolve.

[@KC1976fromDetroit]

Way back in the day, a G rated movie just meant it was open to everybody. PG meant that parents needed to use discretion on allowing their kids to see the movie...they could have nudity, violence and profanity. R was absolutely nobody under 17. If you think about it, Jaws was rated PG. It wasn't until 1984 when PG-13 was introduced that more graphic material in PG movies was "rated up", and made more kid friendly.

[@glawnow1959]

To see more examples of "G" rated films from this era I recommend "The Green Berets" (1968), "Planet of the Apes" (1968) (which I tried desperately to get my parents to let me see!), "Romeo and Juliet" (1968), "Dracula Has Risen From the Grave" (1969), "Airport" (1970), and "Dark Star" (1971). For an quick overview of the "M" rating, check out "Valley of the Dolls" (1968), "Rosemary's Baby" (1968), and "Night of the Living Dead" (1968), and the GP "Vanishing Point" (1971), which means unaccompanied children would be allowed to watch any of them.

[@sanddab]

Actually, back in the day, a PG movie had mild sex, violence, and/or profanity. An R rated film meant that if you were under 17 years of age, you needed to be accompanied by a parent (or 21 year old) to get in. If a movie had an X rating (as ‘A Clockwork Orange’ did originally), you could not get in if you were under 18. The PG-13 rating came later.

[@KC1976fromDetroit]

@@sanddab That's pretty much what I said. I got a few things wrong, so to clarify here's a quote from an article about the MPAA ratings system... "The initial rating categories were G (appropriate for all ages), M (for mature audiences, but all ages admitted), R (persons under 16 not admitted without an accompanying adult) and X (no one under 17 admitted). The M category was eventually changed to PG (parental guidance suggested), the R age limit was raised to 17 and on July 1, 1984, the PG-13 category was added to indicate film content with a “higher level of intensity.” According to the MPAA, the content of a PG-13 film “may be inappropriate for a children under 13 years old” and “may contain very strong language, nudity (non-explicit), strong, mildly bloody violence or mild drug content.” On August 10, 1984, the action film Red Dawn, starring Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen, became the first-ever PG-13 movie to be released in theaters."

[@sanddab]

@@KC1976fromDetroit I was correcting you on your comment "R was absolutely nobody under 17". You could get into an R rated movie if someone 21 years or older was with you.

[@thatoneguyagain2252]

PG-13 only exists because Spielberg refused to cut the "still-beating heart" scene from Temple of Doom

[@sjeunson1]

Eventually you should watch this on a 60 foot screen with a powerhouse sound system in 70mm FILM. It’s AWESOME!

[@davidsandy5917]

I never saw this in cinemascope as there are not too many theaters that can.

[@damienbeatty5327]

This is an amazing movie, but let us not forget the enormous contribution by Arthur C. Clarke, and even some input by Carl Sagan,

[@albamo95]

"The lost worlds of 2001" by Clarke is also an interesting read. It's a mix of alternative scenes he worked on and Clarke talking about his collaboration with Kubrick and the film production.

[@damienbeatty5327]

@Zombie True dat!

[@jeffreyphipps1507]

Except this movie was supposed to be based on the first book of Clarke's four book series and Kubrick didn't let him finish and Clarke wasn't pleased.

[@dashriprock9014]

N.A.S.A. also had a big part in it.

[@Peter-wd1yo]

Sagan? Never knew that

[@victorsixtythree]

Some of the comments recommend reading Arthur C. Clarke's novel based on the screen play (he co-wrote the screenplay with Kubrick) or watching the sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact" as ways of better understanding "2001". Personally, I don't think the movie was meant to have "answers". There is intentional ambiguity in the film and it's meaning and intent are meant to be left open to interpretation. If Kubrick wanted to provide answers, he would have given them. I'm not saying the book and the sequel aren't worth reading or watching, just that I wouldn't think of those as somehow providing definitive answers to questions about 2001.

[@victorsixtythree]

I stumbled on a video of clips of Christopher Nolan (Nolan worked on a restoration of the movie in 2018) talking about 2001 and he said pretty much the same thing regarding Arthur C. Clarke's novelization of the movie's screenplay. Very interesting: kzbin.info/www/bejne/i2WWeZaHnpeqbpY

[@PassiveSmoking]

Yes, the film is very much intended to be a writerly work. It's deliberately open to interpretation and leaves it up to the viewer to extract meaning from it. But definitely read the book, it's a fantastic work in its own right

[@tonybennett4159]

There are those who say that the choice of the Introduction to "Also Sprach Zarathustra" by Richard Strauss which accompanies the iconic opening sequence is no accident. Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophical book of the same name, amongst other things talks about the ultimate formation of a super race (the Star Child). Kubrick was never drawn into revealing anything, but it's certain that he had a healthy cynicism about the intelligence of the "intelligent ape", it's a thread that runs through his films.

[@Richard_Ashton]

I can't say I remember it properly, but, at the end, the Star Child contemplated the approaching nuclear missiles and thought that he didn't know what to do but would think of something. That echoed the thought of the first ape raised in intelligence at the beginning (Moon Watcher), who thought the same after obtaining food, water and security through tool use.

[@alejandrok2891]

But keep in mind the book was written AFTER the movie. Clarke and Kubrick had many disagreements making the film so Clarke decided to put in the book all the things that Kubrick did not let him put in the film

[@JedHead77]

“I’m sorry, Kazzy. I’m afraid I can’t do that.” 🔴

[@Lethgar_Smith]

The idea behind the breathing in the helmet came about when Kubrick tried the helmet on when the completed costume piece was shown to him. He tries the helmet on and realizes he cant hear anyone and can only hear his own breathing which is amplified inside the helmet. As he walks around with the helmet on he finds the experience fascinating and it became the inspiration for that scene.

[@nevrogers8198]

And the sound you hear is Kubrick's breath.

[@FrancisXLord]

It actually came out in 1968, not 1969. I know because I always thought how brilliant it was that it was made before the first moon landing (1969). I also know because I read that they hard time with the opening scene as just about every makeup artist in Hollywood was working on Planet Of The Apes (1968).

[@TTM9691]

"Planet Of The Apes" opened the same day as "2001", can you believe that? You could have seen "2001"....and in a way, you could have pretended "Planet Of the Apes" was the sequel! Starchild gives the planet back to the apes! lol. Also: "2001" was filmed between 1966 and 1968. (it opened in April). Amazing.

[@MarkFoster321789]

@@TTM9691 Planet of the Apes actually premiered on February 8 1968: 2001 on April 2nd.

[@TTM9691]

@@MarkFoster321789 It's premiere was on February 8. But it opened nationwide April 3rd. 2001 premiered on April 2nd, but opened nationwide April 3rd. For all intents and purposes, April 3rd is the day when paying audiences were able to see both movies.

[@MarkFoster321789]

@@TTM9691 Thank you for the info.

[@rb72169]

I haven't seen anyone mention this yet, but the seed for this movie was Arthur C. Clarke's short story, "The Sentinel", which, although it doesn't deal with the philosophical, or spiritual, messaging of 2001, gave birth to the purpose of the monolith.

[@richardb6260]

It's basically the middle section of the movie.

[@CelestialWoodway]

Read the novelization of the movie by Arthur C. Clarke.

[@AlanCanon2222]

The Dawn of Man sequence up to the bone throw (since the space station and moon scenes are also part of The Dawn of Man) is also lifted from his story "Encounter in the Dawn".

[@AlanCanon2222]

@@CelestialWoodway one piece of Encounter in the Dawn carried over into the 2001 novel is that one night the researchers (= monolith) make a mistake, and accidentally kill one of the man-apes. In both stories, the visiting intelligence feels sorrow.

[@janus1958]

@@CelestialWoodway Technically, the book is not a novelization of the movie as it was written concurrently as the movie was made. The movie isn't based on the book, nor the book on the movie. They were meant to be Clarke's and Kubrick's separate takes on the story.

[@arraymac227]

The blank screens at the beginning and after the intermission (yes, an actual intermission.) were meant to be for a closed curtain. Stage protocols lingered. I also saw this with _Lawrence of Arabia_ and _West Side Story_ when they were screened at a London Ontario cinema in the 90s.

[@shanenolan8252]

Yes it was common ( intermission ) when the average running time of a film was much longer than today 3 and 4 hour movies where normal. Kind of like in a play they still have intermissions like with a Shakespeare production, hamlet is a four hour play

[@Ocrilat]

Back then they still used the curtain in movie theatres. I miss that lol. We also still clapped at the end of a film.

[@AlanCanon2222]

Last two films with an overture are Walt Disney's The Black Hole, and Star Trek: The Motion Picture, both 1979.

[@shanenolan8252]

@@AlanCanon2222 motion picture was 79 interesting. I remember going to a very old theater a n old cinema palace and they still did intermissions although the film didn't have one in it , it was just a tradition they wanted to maintain this was in 1990 , sadly its a department store today , but the Beatles once played there .

[@Ocrilat]

@@AlanCanon2222 Funnily, I loved both films.

[@NudistPoet]

As a kid, I watched it on our black & white TV and it creeped me out. I really should watch it again.

[@JedHead77]

Stuart Freeborn, who created the ape costumes, also made Chewbacca’s costume, Yoda, and Jabba The Hutt.

[@classicvideogoodies]

Kubrick won an Oscar for this film's special fx. All the scenes were shot indoors, including the Dawn of Man sequence. The galactic voyage at the end was shot on a bathtub with drops of milk or some such made to look like galaxies.

[@JohnnyXoz]

Released in 1968, they started production in 1965 so even more impressive and before the moon landing in 1969

[@k1productions87]

Another interesting film to note in that regard is Destination: Moon from 1950. While it is a product of its time, visually; it does break from the tradition of alien creatures and invasions. It was just a trip to the moon, and the technical challenges in doing so, as well as problem-solving when things go wrong. While they had not yet considered things like orbital maneuvering, rendezvous, and the other important aspects of the Apollo missions, it does get a surprising amount of aspects correct, especially for its time. Its is definitely worth watching for context.

[@reving19]

They started filming in December 1965. Kubrick spent about a year or so before that working on the story with Arthur C. Clarke.

[@StereoSpace]

I'm one of those people who saw this in the theater when it premiered. I was 8 years old, my father took me to see it. I cannot describe how stunning this was. Everyone talked about this movie for years after, have you seen 2001? No? Go see it! LOL I did not fully understand this movie, despite seeing it multiple times, until I read the book. That's when all these scenes clicked, and I finally got it all. Keep in mind, this was made between 1966-1968, and avant-garde art was in the air and water. You breathed it every day. Lots of artistic experimentation going on. Kubrick challenged himself (and his audience) to see how much story he could tell with visuals only, no explanations, minimal dialogue. I finally read the book to see if that helped, and it's actually a beautiful and elegant little story. Read it, then watch this again, you'll have a whole new appreciation.

[@GrouchyMarx]

Be sure to react to the awesome sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact" (1984), and despite what some say it is a very excellent movie written by the same Arthur C. Clarke, and has a mind-blowing ending. 🖖😎

[@jeffreykalb9752]

Rubbish.

[@bsantosu1]

A few gems in the movie if you noticed: The round table with the drinks in the space station is like the watering hole with two opposing groups on each side. When Dr. Floyd gives his speech on the moonbase he is wearing a badge with his picture on it - he is a two-faced man. Bible references: Earth Moon Sun is the Holy Trinity. The meat from the kill is the forbidden fruit. The killing at the watering hole is Cain and Abel. Did man create tools/machine or did tools/machine create man? The battle between HAL and Dave Boman decides who gets to proceed. to the next step of evolution.

[@TTM9691]

One last thing: The G rating. This was when they first put out the ratings. G meant general audiences, it didn't mean "for kids" like we think now. ("Midnight Cowboy" and "A Clockwork Orange" were rated X, lol). That said, schools brought their students to "2001", that's how one member of my family saw it.

[@onepcwhiz]

Same thing with Planet of The Apes. I was surprised when I read that it was G as well.

[@ericgollinger367]

And US and UK ratings differ as well. Even nowadays, a US rating of "R" can get a "certificate X" in the UK, mostly because they don't have an actual "R" rating, and a certain amount of violence can mean it gets left there in the UK's "X" certification category. Inversely, the UK is less prudish about sex and profanity, so there can be mismatches, comparing the same film on different certification criteria.

[@ericgollinger367]

The Dawn of Man scene is interesting. A huge "front projection" reflective screen is used in a couple of places. The tiger in the tundra was filmed first, then the actor in the ape costume had to perfect their positioning, relative to the tiger footage to sell the illusion of a tiger attack. Kubrik's shooting ratio was said to be about 100:1 (a hundred takes to get it right) in some cases, especially for this film, and way over budget. When the monolith appeared, the sky in the background was projected still photo. Notice how the clouds don't move, as if the monolith has stopped time! This whole movie is a master class in the best effects technology of the era.

[@ericgollinger367]

My comments about the Dawn of Man scene was off topic. I forgot I was still in the Reply section. Oh well. Sorry I went a little off topic. Cheers.

[@onepcwhiz]

@@ericgollinger367 also, the ship is an attack ship like the bone was used to attack. I wished they showed that particular ship some more.

[@AlanCanon2222]

"First it's a bone, now it's a pen." Yep, and then it's Discovery One. I like to think that Dave's wine glass falling to the floor and shattering (in the final sequence of the film) visually completes the motion of the bone falling back to earth.

[@TTM9691]

Oh my gosh, you did a GREAT job on this one, Kazzy! I'm subscribing right....now! Oh my god, PLEASE do more classic movies! I don't even know where to begin! The fact that you immediately spotted the exact shots that so many directors ripped off (or paid homage to) - and then you show us! - thank you. For Stanley! :) Wow. You never know how someone is going to take this movie. This is obviously right in your scope. I know you know from your previous Kubrick movie experiences: his endings always leave you with questions! Is it God? Is it alien intelligence? Is God an alien? These are all legitimate paths. Is the baby at the end literally a superbaby, the size of a planet? Is it symbolic of man's next leap in intelligence? People have been debating these questions since 1968, when it came out at the height of "flower power" with the youth culture at the time showing up in droves, usually under the influence of hallucinongens, lol. Miss Kazzy! Ten years later, the next best alien-contact movie came out: CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND! Have you seen that? You must have! Spielberg's amazing follow-up to Jaws, it's about UFO sightings, a huge blockbuster and one of the most dazzling movies you'll ever see. The effects were done by the same guy who worked on "2001", Douglas Trumball. HIGHLY recommended if you haven't seen it already. It's his best movie, hands down. Also regarding Kubrick: you mention "Full Metal Jacket". Definitely see "Paths Of Glory", which is another one of his greatest films, and (with all due respect to "Full Metal") his greatest war film. "Dr. Strangelove" is a satire of nuclear warfare, that's also great. "The Killing" you'll see where Tarantino gets his whole story structure. And "Lolita" is a forgotten, super weird gem. "Barry Lyndon" is a period piece that takes place in the early 1800s and literally looks like moving paintings. (it came out between "Clockwork Orange" and "The Shining"). Sorry for writing so much! Just excited to find your channel! This was GREAT! As I said, I subscribed! PS: If you want to see what space effects otherwise looked like in 1968, you can check out the original "Planet Of The Apes" which came out the same day as "2001: A Space Odyssey"! That's a fantastic movie in it's own right, although I'm sure you've seen it. Anyways, that movie opens with space travel.

[@georgemorley1029]

The film is important because of the questions it raises, not because of the answers it provides. Audiences may want films to give them answers, but they need films that make them ask questions of themselves.

[@MrHws5mp]

Fun fact: to get the one set of Zero-G toilet instructions, they had to order something like 100 sets from Letraset. Ten years later, when Alien was filming at the same studio, the set builders found the 98 unused sets forgotten about in storage and decided to make use of them, so yep, most of the too-small-to-read stencilling on the bridge of the Nostromo is actually zero-G toilet instructions... ;-)

[@Samminish]

Ms. Amanda, sorry I'm so late to seeing your review .. .. My parents took me to see it and I loved it .. .. My parents could not understand it and really didn't care for it .. .. They told me later that some people walked out because they thought it was ludicrous and others became overwhelmed by the music/drama and needed medical assistance .. .. I later found out that the bigger theatres made sure an ambulance crew was in the lobby for every showing .. .. Decades later you realize that the monolith is just a metaphor for evolution/progress ~ The book was pretty interesting .. .. In the book, the child at the end detonates all the warheads orbiting earth to 'sterilize' the surface of earth so life can begin again .. ..

[@whunsicker]

In 2019 I finally lived a lifelong dream and saw this movie in a theater. It was incredible!

[@Mostopinionatedmanofalltime]

1968 Kazzy. It came out in April 1968.

[@fredklein3829]

It's crucial to the film to understand those are not monkeys neither apes. They are our ancestors, primitive humans at the dawn of man.

[@premanadi]

Hominids, but that is a type of ape. Humans are Great Apes, along with chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and bonobos.

[@Mostopinionatedmanofalltime]

The little girl on the video call is Stanley Kubrick's daughter Vivian.

[@robertanderson6929]

"My God! It's full of stars!" I highly recommend you watch _2010: The Year We Make Contact._ As sequels go it is actually very good. And it showcases just what a phenomenal actor Roy Scheider really was. The sequel doesn't try to explain everything but it does offer some answers that enhance ones appreciation of 2001. I found the explanation for Hal's behavior most satisfying. And the whole cast puts in some stellar performances.

[@dan_hitchman007]

It's like a dumbed down 2001, but halfway decent as far as sequels go.

[@robertanderson6929]

@@dan_hitchman007 I'm not sure it is fair to call it "dumbed down" anymore than it would be fair to describe _Aliens (1986)_ less of a sci-fi horror thriller than the original _Alien (1979)_ Like the two _Alien_ movies, _2001_ and its sequel are two entirely different types of films. _2001_ was a groundbreaking Sci-Fi masterpiece which inspired a generation of film makers like Lucas, Speilberg, Scott, Cameron and Hyams. I don't think Peter Hyams was trying to make the same type of cerebral science fiction film. For that you would need to see something like Andrei Tarkovsky's _Solaris. (1972)_ Hyams was trying to make a sequel to one of the best movies ever made. Had he tried to replicate the style and tone of the original he would undoubtedly failed and been accused of creating a derivative work. Instead I think he did a yeoman's job of adapting Clarke's story and focusing on explaining Hal's betrayal rather than trying to explain the mystery of the monolith. This is why I enjoy the sequel as much if not more than the original. It is because it makes the original movie better for the answers it does provide much as _The Empire Strikes Back_ makes _Star Wars_ a better film by providing motivation and depth to the characters introduced in the first film. Making a successful sequel is not an easy job. Just ask Rian Johnson.

[@dan_hitchman007]

@@robertanderson6929 2001 does not need to be explained. That's the beauty of it. Even Kubrick made it more open to interpretation than Arthur C. Clarke wanted. His short story made the builders unmistakably alien in nature, but Kubrick wanted these beings to stay mysterious and have the audience challenged. It was already hinted at as to HAL's motivation (during his deactivation) and it correlated back to the Dawn of Man sequence and his desire for survival using evolutionary methods (tool use turned into a club of death in this case), often leading to violence to make it happen. HAL was the next stage in man's evolutionary process and it wanted to survive and complete its mission (its reason for being). It felt it must kill to do both.

[@richardrose2606]

I highly recommend that you don't watch 2010 or read the book. Clarke ruins the impact and purpose of 2001 by over-explaining everything. Decide for yourself what the meaning of this masterpiece is.

[@robertanderson6929]

@@dan_hitchman007 I didn't say that _2001_ needed to be explained. In fact, I praised Peter Hyams for not trying to explain the monoliths or their origin. I said that I appreciated that Hyams chose to focus on the reason for HAL's betrayal. HAL was created by man. The reason for his betrayal is of interest to the audience and ultimately the reveal is rational and easily believed. Hyams couples the very grounded mystery plot with just enough interaction between HAL and Bowman to provide the viewer with a confirmation that the monolith did influence the proto-humans as well as HAL. I thought it was expertly done. And again, if you think it is easy to pull off a successful sequel to a beloved movie, I would offer Rian Johnson and _The Last Jedi_ as evidence to the contrary.

[@emilianorodriguez8638]

I like to think that each monolith represents a ‘milestone’ of our evolution. 1) Our move from primitive life to civilization. 2) Our discovery of science and artificial intelligence. 3) Our realization of the ‘unnatural’ of artificial intelligence. 4) Our reflection of our enlightenment and move to the next phase of evolution.

[@TheTomt50]

Kazzy, you keep mentioning how so many of the shots/scenes remind you of other movies. You're absolutely right! Someone else mentioned that this more than a movie, it is an experience. So much so, it influenced a whole generation of filmmakers.

[@ИлиянМинев-щ5й]

It is simply "the father" of space-sci-fi as we know it today.

[@davidsandy5917]

In 1967, we all thought that this would be our future.

[@mpemberton7760]

When we landed on the moon in '69 I was convinced we were on our way to that future. I imagined that by the early 21st century, we'd see scientific colonies on the lunar surface, space ports, and manned missions to the planets. But we never took the next step.

[@SwampDevilDxD]

Awe im so glad gou watched this! One of my favs :) Oh and the opening black screen is supposed to be you staring at the Monolith

[@int53185]

Never thought of that!

[@premanadi]

No, it was for use in a movie theater and the curtains were meant to be closed, with just the music playing. The audience would not be seeing the black screen.

[@dandaintac388]

1968. That's when 2001 was released in the theaters. I first saw it in the drive-in theater with my family, when was a young child at that time. At the end, my parents asked me what I thought about it, and I told them it was okay, but I didn't understand it. Their response: "That's okay, we didn't understand it either." It's one of my favorite movies of all time, and having watched it many times now, and read up on it, I've come to realize that you are NOT SUPPOSED TO "UNDERSTAND" it. Kubrick refused to spoon-feed answers, but instead sought to provoke questions. You are not expected to understand it, but he hopes to elicit wonder and make you think. Kubrick refused publicly to offer an interpretation or say if it was an allegory, and he invited the audience to interpret it for themselves. So I'll offer up mine. The Dawn of Man sequence shows early ape-like protohumans--distant ancestors of ours, millions of years ago. This tribe lives in a drought-stricken area with a water-hole, and they are struggling. A potential food source (those are tapirs, but are meant to be some sort of prehistoric mammal), has no fear of them. They are helpless against predators. A competing tribe is encroaching on their waterhole, and the best they can do is scream at each other. The monolith appears--and it is apparently of extra-terrestrial origin. The bravest of the ape-men, "Moonwatcher" touches it, and that triggers the monolith, and it's purpose is to tweak their intelligence a bit. Afterwards Moonwatcher is dinking around with some bones, and (with his intelligence enhanced by the Monolith) has an epiphany and realizes he can make a weapon of the bone. The tribe's diet becomes enriched with protein, further helping their brain development, and they are able to drive off the competing ape-tribe. Their tribe survives, and evolves further. Millions of years later, a second monolith has been discovered on the moon. And of course, they have to cover it up. When Heywood Floyd goes out to investigate it, they trigger the second monolith when they touch it too, and it sends out a powerful radio burst, which they track and determine that it is aimed at Jupiter. They send out an expedition to investigate--but of course, cover it up again with the crew. HAL malfunctions (for reasons I won't get into now--see the sequel), manages to kill the crew except for Bowman. By the time all this happens, they are almost to Jupiter, so Bowman decides to complete the mission alone. He finds the third monolith in orbit around Jupiter, and takes one of the two remaining pods out to investigate it up close, leaving the Discovery at a safe distance. Intrepid dude. The third monolith is the Star Gate. It pulls him into a vortex, and he is transported across mini-light years, arriving at an alien planet. He encounters some alien objects, roughly shaped like diamonds, which could be buoys, ships, machines, artificial intelligence--but anyway they snag Bowman and his pod, and place him in an observation chamber. Inside the observation chamber, we hear eerie sounds, but it is never explained what those are exactly, and Kubrick wisely refrains from ever showing us the aliens directly. They may not even be there "in-person". Bowman sees himself older, and then becomes that older person, repeatedly. The aliens can control space and time. They have powers that seem god-like. The design of the chamber is drawn from a memory of a place he visited as a child. But somehow the light comes from everywhere, not from any lamp. For Bowman, a whole life passes by, and yet it also seems to go quickly--time is not linear any longer. He grows older, and lies dying on the bed. The fourth monolith appears, to nudge mankind into its next evolutionary stage. Bowman is reborn as the Starchild--a fetus, with god-like powers, who returns to Earth--and that's where we are left to wonder--what is Bowman's nature now, and what will he do with his god-like powers?

[@joeyb131959]

I pretty much agree with your assessment, except that the monolith on the moon is activated by sunlight striking it for the first time, rather than the humans touching it.

[@joeyb131959]

I was 8 when I saw it, with my mother. She said the same things your parents did.

[@mhlevy]

I was 7 years old when I saw this, and it was completely unbelievable. In many ways, it still is. And Pan-Am is no longer a company!

[@binghamguevara6814]

Are you sure you were 7? How can a 7-year-old gt this film?

[@maxis5650]

@@binghamguevara6814 The title of this video literally states that the movie used to have a G rating when it originally played.

[@PaulMDove2]

I was 8 when I first saw it (in 1968), then saw it again as a teenager and then again when I was at University helping to run the film club. By then I'd read the book many times but I still was in awe and empathised with all the other students muttering questions to themselves as they left the screening. Even reading the book, plus the sequels, the 2001 movie retains some mystery because it's a glimpse into Kubrick's mind; even Arthur C Clarke himself, after writing the book and working closely with Kubrick, was surprised when he saw the movie for the first time.

[@binghamguevara6814]

@@PaulMDove2 Have you seen Koyaanisqatsi (1982)?

[@PaulMDove2]

@@binghamguevara6814 No I haven't. Big fan of Philip Glass's music so definitely a film I'd like to see.

[@seukfuhi]

"Wow, this is so ahead of its time, this movie... unbelievable". Nailed it after 10 minutes, Kazzy !

[@sardaukar1977]

Omg Kazzy. You said the ship looked like it had a face. I’ve thought that every time I have watched this movie! I thought I was crazy lol. Glad to see you are at least as crazy as me!! Lol. Thank you!

[@AlanCanon2222]

Me too: before I saw the movie, my dad had the soundtrack album, with pictures in it, so I even thought that before I saw the film (I spent hours listening to the soundtrack and looking at the liner notes).

[@stvbrsn]

You’re not crazy! The phenomenon even has a name: pareidolia.

[@garyglaser4998]

I always thought the ship resembled a sperm which would be a fitting metaphor.

[@DylansPen]

Spielberg did that in Close Encounters with the ships at the end. It makes them friendlier or more relatable to the audience.

[@surfersilver6610]

It was an EMoji face.😮 LOL

[@johnnhoj6749]

One special effect everyone misses if they don't know about it is that all the ape shots (except for one or two close shots against a real sky background) were shot on a sound stage in the studio using a process called front projection. The people seen in windows in the spacecraft were put there by the same process - projected onto tiny front projection screens pasted onto the miniatures. Incidentally, the pit on the moon was shot on the largest stage at Shepperton Studios as MGM Borehamwood didn't have a stage that big.

[@winslow-eh5kv]

Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh I don't think that I'd agree that the visuals in THIS movie look like they were "made today" as you put it. Because if they were "made today" then they would resemble stupid computer simulations, which they don't.

[@davidgoldstein1526]

I highly recommend reading the book. It is a surprisingly quick read. The "monkees" at the beginning of the movie are not monkees, but ancestral human beings. The monoliths are placed by an alien civilization and provide the spark that sets human evolution in motion, and as trackers to monitor development. The loud sound you hear from the monolith on the moon is not an attack, but is a signal to the monolith that mankind has reached a new level of technology. While the third monolith orbits Jupiter, in the book, it actually orbits Saturn. The third monolith is sort of a gateway to another part of the universe, and time and space are occurring at the same tme, thus Dave sees himself as a an old man. In the end, the fetus orbiting the earth is a rebirth of mankind. If you read the book, while the fetus is orbiting earth, it thinks to itself, "it doesn't know what to do next, but it will think of something." He has evolved beyond being a normal human being and has superhuman powers. It is basically a treatise on the evolution of man, and where evolution will take us next. By the way, "Event Horizon" is a GREAT movie. I agree, 100%. 😆😊

[@billcame6991]

It was a book option on my freshman high school summer reading list in 1980.

[@justinsherman9350]

The Ending: the entity/entities behind the Monolith are seemingly curious about life and its nature, it perhaps being a new phenom. Thus they reach out to life, first inspiring it, then setting markers for it, so it might find its way to them. Upon his arrival, the entity/s thoroughly examine Dave, providing him a comfortable setting and environment- even a last meal as they explore what really mystifies them about life- mortality. They hasten him along to and observe his death, contemplate it, and then decide to try living: creating their own version of life, the 'Star Child' in the end, perhaps Dave himself reborn in a way.

[@davidmichaelson1092]

A more complete version of this is in Arthur C. Clarke's "Rama" series. The first book "Rendezvous with Rama" is my favorite but many find it a bit dry. The sequels explore the same themes 2001 does but in far more detail. Very fun books.

[@Kilotile]

I always saw it as a new beginning but maybe I'm wrong.

[@Ruby_Kang]

@@Kilotile That's how I see it. The movie starts with the dawn of man --- ends with a new dawn for mankind. I read it as a visual metaphor.

[@IYAMNI]

During his life Kubrick would never talk about the meaning of the film, especially the ending, preferring that people decide for themselves. He said things like: " How could we possibly appreciate the Mona Lisa if Leonardo Da Vinci had written at the bottom of the canvas, 'The lady is smiling because she is hiding a secret from her lover'? This would shackle the viewer to reality, and I don't want this to happen to 2001: A Space Odyssey" He also said "I would not think of quarreling with your interpretation nor offering any other, as I have found it always the best policy to allow the film to speak for itself."... But after his death an interview from 1980 was released wherein he expleined "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." ... Arthur C Clarke wrote this type of ending in his novelization of the film and Kubrick apparently hated that he had explained it.

[@OroborusFMA]

The novel released after the film came out adds in some nice details. Like when the wormhole (?) opens and Bowman's last words are "My god, it's full of stars." The film is a long homage to Nietzschean philosophy: ape-man-overman. The "star-child" is the next stage of humanity, one that is "more than human" and beyond our conventional morality. "He didn't know what he would do - but he would *think* of something" is another important line in the book that is only implied in the film. It appears twice in the book, when the ape becomes reasoning, and when the star-child has wiped out the Earth's nuclear weapons at the very end of the novel.

[@okreylos]

It's funny, I read the novel way before I saw the movie for the first time, so everything in the movie just made perfect sense to me. :) I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that so many people have trouble understanding what's going on. I do *know* why that is, I just don't *feel* it.

[@TTM9691]

Thank God Kubrick didn't put any of that in the movie, lol. (The book also goes to Saturn, not Jupiter.)

[@premanadi]

@@TTM9691 You don't need Bowman reporting the mission control "My god, it's full of stars" when you can just show it. And you can't really indicate the comments of an omniscient, third person narrator in a film, unless you have narration - which I think was actually considered at first but they thought better of it. The movie was meant to go to Saturn, but they couldn't get the rings right so they changed it.

[@TTM9691]

@@premanadi Exactly. You don't need Bowman reporting it when you can just show it. I never thought it was that great of a line anyway, what Kubrick shows us is way better. PS: Ha, the narration. I love how "Dr. Strangelove" has narration for a bit, and then just abandons it. 🤣

[@premanadi]

@@TTM9691 2001 would have really sucked with narration. Kubrick also had Alex North write an entire score (which you can find on KZbin) and then chucked it out in favor of the classical music he had been using as a place holder. Great decision. The North score makes the whole movie into a joke. Kubrick had great instincts. But I also think the movie could be slightly more clear about certain things. It's obvious when you know about it that Bowman is going into a device that is transporting him across the universe, but it seems like a lot of people simply have no idea at all what's going on. It's one thing to have mystery and leave it open ended, but quite another to just sit there with your mouth hanging open, clueless. I didn't see the film until 1971 and had read the book first, so it all made perfect sense to me. I never got to experience the feeling of "what the fuck is going on?"

[@michaeltodd2012]

You gotta watch 2010. Much more acting and still beautifully crafted.

[@roguetrooper5288]

I've been watching 2001 for nearly 40yrs and find different meanings every time I watch it.

[@rancosteel]

The extended black screen is Stanley Kubrick’s way of forcing you to acknowledge the monolith.

[@tn_bayouwulf2949]

HAL is a take off of IBM. In the alphabet sequence H, I .... A, B .... L, M ..... Watch the sequel "2010, the Year We make Contact" to continue the journey.

[@GymQuirk]

Clarke always maintained that the HAL / IBM thing was purely coincidental.

[@Yngvarfo]

Clarke actually made his *characters* deny it in the book 2010, but that piece of dialogue did not carry over to the movie.

[@frozenlightfilms]

Unlike Most filmmakers, Stanley Kubrick never likes to tell the audience what his films are about or their meaning. His thinking is to let the film impact the viewers, and let them decide, discuss, come to their own conclusions. Now you definitely need to watch 2010: Odyssey Two.

[@somthingbrutal]

2010 is worth watching as you get insight into why HAL acted as he did

[@artao5]

HAL didn't let him in. The door was manually operated. A couple fun HAL facts: HAL stands for Heuristic ALgorithmic computer. However, many people have noted that HAL is just one letter off from IBM, and that the movie was "mocking" IBM a bit. Also, the song HAL sings, Daisy, is in fact the first song ever sung by a computer, at an IBM laboratory, in 1961. HAL isn't "evil" or "bad." It just has some confused programming that caused it to malfunction. The crew was not informed of the real purpose of their mission, but HAL was.

[@ThothWhoWrites]

My understanding about the classical music throughout the film is that it was originally a placeholder but when Kubrick saw the chunks of the film with the classical score he far preferred it to the score they were working on. He wanted grand, big, gigantic, timeless feelings to go throughout the film.

[@MarkGodfrey73]

Alex North wrote the rejected score. There was a CD of it once. Apparently, Kubrick didn't ask permission to use Ligeti's music and there was a bit of bother about it.

[@premanadi]

@@MarkGodfrey73 You can find North's music on KZbin. It was a great choice to get rid of it - it wouldn't be half the movie it is with that score. In fact, it would completely ruin it.

[@davidmichaelson1092]

"This movie is for kids..." Yeah, about as much as Friedrich Nietzsche is meant for kids! HAL...each letter is one off from "IBM." Grew up with 2001. Later my then wife and I went out of our way to re-watch it on New Year's 2001 (The real millennium). Arthur C. Clarke (who was one of the first people to suggest geosynchronous orbits...which are how a lot of our satellites work) was at one point one of my favorite authors. Kubrick was of course an amazing Director...I have already watched your Dr. Strangelove reaction and appreciated it! So much going on! This movie was YEARS ahead of its time. Star Wars somewhat pushed it aside but really didn't replace it. I am just exploring your reactions, so forgive me if I suggest things you have already done. Can I suggest some Studio Ghibli movies if you are not familiar with them?

[@sppsports2449]

I still maintain that Kubrick is the greatest director in cinematic history.

[@the.seagull.35]

I can think of many great directors. I can't think of one better than Kubrick.

[@samuellord8576]

Yours was a very good reaction, very thoughtful! The apes were of course proto-humans, whose closest current relatives are chimpanzees. All primates, all apes. The other creatures looked like tapirs to me. No violence? One ape beaten to death, one killed by a cat, a tapir killed and eaten, one homo sapiens killed violently and three others by elimination of life-sustaining environment. But your initial response made sense: the violence was done so well that it seemed part of the landscape, exactly as Kubrick intended. Of course read the book, which was written by Arthur C. Clarke in concert with the making of movie: it explains the Star-Child and differing ideas about the action of the monoliths. At first the monoliths were proposed to display silent videos, teaching things like knots. But the simple idea of inspiration through perfection (straight edges) was decided to be powerful enough that it was used for the film. Take care! 🙂

[@THOMMGB]

There are some really good books about the making of this film. 2010: The Year We Make Contact is really good as well, but is not a landmark film, like 2001 was. The thrown bone to orbiting satellite is considered by many to be the greatest jump cut in the history of cinema.

[@TexasAnlaShok]

“Is this movie supposed to be about…” Yes.

[@Majoofi]

I can't wait for your reactions to Dr. Strangelove, Paths of Glory, and Lolita.

[@richardb6260]

And Spartacus.

[@CelestialWoodway]

A Clockwork Orange.

[@Yngvarfo]

@@richardb6260 - I'm not sure that I can really call Spartacus a Kubrick movie. He did not have creative control. Kirk Douglas and his Bryna company had. He was only hired as a replacement when the original director, Anthony Mann, was fired.

[@reving19]

@@Yngvarfo Most Kubrick fans do not consider “Spartacus” a true Kubrick movie. There’s a few, but most don’t.

[@Yngvarfo]

@@reving19 - Still, Kubrick did put in a little Spartacus reference in Lolita, when Quilty said "I'm Spartacus." Much like he had a little 2001 reference in A Clockwork Orange, with the 2001 album in the record shop.

[@GrouchyMarx]

Hey Kazzy. Your 2001 video popped up today so I wanted to remind you to do its sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact" (1984). Though it's a year since you saw 2001, there will be a brief review of 2001 at the beginning of 2010 to set up the story sort of where it left off. Enjoy! 🖖😎

[@ericsierra-franco7802]

The greatest science fiction film ever made! And the most intelligent. 53 years old and still looks great. A masterpiece of filmmaking!

[@McShaganpronouncedShaegen]

Spoilers.............. If you remember the ape that touched the first monolith? He was changed by it. It opened his mind and allowed it a new understanding. This new understanding turned a leg bone into a weapon . This marked the start of a change that would allow ape to become man. When the weapon was thrown it the air it was transformed into a space ship. This was meant to represent the journey from then until present. Cut to David leaving the ship approaching the big monolith in space. It gave you the impression that he was moving over a vast distance; and he was in a way. Like the change that happened to the ape, this was the next step that began a new journey . It was his journey to join and become one with the creator of the obelisk, becoming eternal. He was young, he was old, he was all. His life lasting an instant and eternal simultaneously. What else could be there is unknown to us because we are still grasping for the truth what ever that may be. That is what I got from it I know the part with Hal has meaning but I think that may have been more of a warning for us.

[@ralfuz777]

I preemptively gave you a thumbs up because I already know you’re gonna do an excellent job!!

[@KazzyCreates]

Thank you so much, Ralph!! 🤗✌🏼💜

[@LilPitch-]

HAL didn't let him in... this was a display of human ingenuity and creativity on Dave's part. It shows that in the end, humans are still in charge and can control AI.

[@premanadi]

Dave was able to manually override HAL, both opening the hatch and controlling the pod.

[@lessevdoolbretsim]

When folks used to ask Arthur C Clark what the movie means, he told them, "Read the book, watch the movie, and repeat the dose as often as necessary."

[@greygorthegoateedgeek5350]

Arthur C Clarke who worked with Kubrick on the film also created a novilisastion of the film. The book explains what Kubrick wished to remain enigmatic about. But the essential throughline is that out there there is a race who seeks out intelligence or the potential for intelligence. The first Monolith is the nudge that pushes the apes on the path that will lead to modern man. The second monolith is placed where man can only reach it if they have progressed enough to escape the gravity well of Earth and started to reach for the stars. When sunlight strikes it for the first time after being uncovered it unleashes a radio signal directed into space that leads man onto the next Monolith. There Bowman is transformed into the immortal starchild ready for man's next step. The books are worth reading and the sequel, 2010, is a lot better than I thought it would be. It lacks Kubrick's majesty, but it is a solid film.

[@CommadoreGothnogDragonheart]

I saw this movie when I was three years old. My mom said that I just stood on the seat for the duration of the movie and just stared at the screen. :) Regarding HAL's behavior, below is a very slight spoiler for the sequel 2010, which is another very cool movie by the way. . . . . . . . I think the reason that HAL went crazy was that two orders came into conflict. On the one hand he is compelled to always tell the truth, but then he was told by the higher ups to lie to the crew about their mission (which was kept secret), and he couldn't deal with the conflict.

[@IkeThe9th]

☝️

[@TTM9691]

That is a beautiful story.

[@sagnhill]

In 1961, an IBM 704 at Bell Labs was programmed to sing "Daisy Bell" in the earliest demonstration of computer speech synthesis. This recording has been included in the United States National Recording Registry.

[@Station-Network]

Now you have to watch also part 2: "2010 - The year we make contact" ;)

[@albin2232]

I love the way you commented on the film. Not too much, not too little, making interesting points. I had to subscribe 😊

[@gms1365]

When the ape throws the bone into the air... The shot represent the big jump from that point to the actual time. Bone and spaceship equalize in vision that perspective period of time with unspoken words. In nutshell, "look where we were millions of years ago to where we are now".

[@Marginwalker1972]

Also is that spaceship actually a weapon?

[@kiemer4531]

@@Marginwalker1972 Yes it is an orbiting nuclear weapon platform.

[@samuellord8576]

Hi Kazzy,. Great reaction! Very thoughtful! And I agree about the G rating.... except for a crucial fact. Ratings were and are supposed to account for the artistic importance of works, so that young people could have their minds blown by _great_ art. And so it was that in 1969 when I was eleven and my brother thirteen, we were taken to watch the movie by my blessed grandmother. Word was that this film was powerful like no other film in history, and there was agreement that great art should get the earliest possible exposure. And so we came, we saw, we learned. It changed my life, and I will always be grateful for the wisdom of that enlightened policy. Cheers!

[@film-maniac]

Also wanted to say it was interesting to hear you mention that life was superior to AI. But oddly enough, HAL seemed more human and the astronauts more artificial. Blade Runner felt the same years later.

[@donsample1002]

And HAL went crazy because he was given conflicting orders by men. There was nothing inherently evil about him.

[@oaf-77]

The astronauts were so professional it was like the humanity was drummed out of them.

[@vincentsaia6545]

Douglas Rain (HAL) never met Keir Dillea (Bowman) or Gary Lockwood (Poole). Rain's voice was added in post production long after Dillea and Lockwood finished shooting their scenes. While shooting a man with a heavy cockny accent voiced HAL.

[@michaelproctor8100]

In early pre-production, Kubrick wanted a female voice for the computer and was going to name it Athena.

[@barrettkeathley6985]

The fade from the thigh bone to the spaceship was one of the most amazing edits ever

[@paulstroud2647]

That spaceship is a missile platform, so the bone/club weapon has also 'evolved'

[@cesarvidelac]

In my humble opinion, the movie is mainly about evolutuon. The artifact, the Monolith is a tokrb, a sign from an alien species waiting for us to evolve. If you see at the first monolith, it's aligned with the Moon, pointing out the next monolith. The film is loosely based on the short story by Arthur C. Clarke "the Sentinel", I recommend you to read it. Thanks for sharing 🤗

[@karlmoles6530]

Peter Hyams (Also a great director but not quite Kubrick level) made a really good sequel to this in the 80s called 2010. It's got Roy Schieder and Helen Mirren in it, and while it's not as metaphysical as this film it is pretty good. I recommend it.

[@wackyvorlon]

It’s worth noting that Kubrick was vehemently opposed to the sequel.

[@fastertove]

I personally find 2010 more enjoyable to watch., but it is a different type of film. Not a bad sequel.

[@djashley2002]

@@wackyvorlon It's also worth noting that Kubrick was in the early stages of development for 3001: The Final Odyssey (which he planned to shoot after A.I.) when he died.

[@robertanderson6929]

2010 is the movie that really made me appreciate just how many movies Roy Schieder has been in that I count among my favorites. From Jaws and The French Connection to The Russia House to 52 Pick Up and 2010 Schieder proved that he was just a great actor. In 2010 he really hits his stride. The scene with him and the Russian girl as they are performing the aerobreaking maneuver is just priceless. He really sells the idea that they are both just terrified and completely helpless as they have nothing to do but to cling to one another without ever being able to understand a single word.

[@mannygee005]

oh, young Helen Mirren?

[@Mostopinionatedmanofalltime]

Eyes Wide Shut is even more enigmatic. I've been studying it for 20 years and I still don't know what it means 🙃

[@janus1958]

There is an interesting story behind the music score. They hired someone to write original music for the movie, but because of various issues it got delayed. Meanwhile the studio was getting impatient and wanted to see what Kubrick had done. So Kubrick sent them a print with a "stand in" score made of different musical selections. In the end, that cobbled together score ended up being the final movie score.

[@premanadi]

The story I have read is that Kubrick just didn't like Alex North's score (which you can find on KZbin) and decided to use the classical music he had been using all along to pace the scenes. North didn't find out his music had been cut until he attended the premiere. It would have been a disaster with his score. Laughable.

[@nathans3241]

This movie was presented on 70mm film on a huge screen at the Cinerama Dome and other same type screens at other theaters. Presented this way, the movie is so impressive and engaging. If you ever get an opportunity to watch this movie on the big screen, you'll understand how the movie is really supposed to be viewed. On rare occasions this opportunity arises.

[@MaunderMaximum]

Kubrick never intended 2001 to have an "explanation." What it means is whatever it means to you.

[@KazzyCreates]

I LOVE that. However, many people here are telling me "what it all means" 😁💜

[@Kilotile]

The newborn baby at the end represents a new beginning.

[@VadersRage]

I need to sit back down and rewatch this film. It was always a bit TOO cerebral for my limited mind. I think the next step for you, Kazzy, is "2010: The Year We Make Contact". It kinda wraps the two films up with a nice little bow. HAL's actions make so much more sense after seeing "2010".

[@MrTech226]

Arthur C Clarke wrote more novels in the series: 2061 Odyssey Three & 3001 The Final Odyssey. But these novels were never made into movies. Tom Hanks was thinking about making them into movies. No development since 2001. But recently, there was discussions of a miniseries on SyFy. Both estates of Clarke and Kubkrick give full support.

[@SkeederBC]

I agree. 2010 is often overlooked but it is a great follow up to this movie.

[@vincentsaia6545]

There is a hilarious parody of the Dawn of Man sequence in Mel Brooks's HISTORY OF THE WORLD PART 1.

[@palantir135]

For me, still the best SF film ever. Close Encounters of the third kind, is another Classic.

[@MarkFoster321789]

The Greatest Movie Of All Time...IMHO as a 40-year-long 2001 fan. I have had my SONY BRAVIA 65 Inch OLED TV for three months now, and the recent 4KUHD and Blu-Ray releases look incredibly beautiful.

[@3DJapan]

13:27 Well on the ISS the toilets use suction. like peeing into a vacuum cleaner. LOL

[@snakesnoteyes]

This was also true for the space shuttles when they were still active.

[@surfersilver6610]

This was Snazzy and your voice is Jazzy, Kazzy. Subbed!

[@henrytjernlund]

The ending of the movie is much more cryptic than the novel, which explains a lot. And HAL wasn't really a bad computer, at least at first, also explained in the novel.

[@henrytjernlund]

The sequel 2010 also explains some of this. 2010 is not the masterpiece that 2001 is, but it's still good and worth a watch.

[@HaganeNoGijutsushi]

I don't remember the details now: is HAL affected by the monolith and thus gaining consciousness, is he following his directives and came to the conclusions that humans would only obstacle the mission's goals, or both?

[@Sejen77]

@@HaganeNoGijutsushi Uhh! Not exactly, If I remmember correctly, in the film 2010 It's actually explained that HAL was given badly written instructions, that caused him to develop paranoia.

[@premanadi]

@@HaganeNoGijutsushi HAL was in conflict due to having to keep the mission secret, and became paranoid.