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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!!

[@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.

[@yvesandrethevenot3489]

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

[@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!

[@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!👍

[@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.

[@BigMac7629]

The greatest science fiction film ever made. Absolutely epic

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!

[@willv7868]

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

[@randyshoquist7726]

Remember when movies had reserved seating, intermissions, souvenir books and an overture while people filed in, found their seats and waited for the curtain to open? I do. It was 1968 and I saw the first run in Cinerama. I was an 8th grader, and most of it went right over my head. I kind of wish I had first seen it as an adult, but then I wouldn't have the souvenir book.

[@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.

[@algi1]

The music at the start feels weird watching at home, but if you imagine watching it at the theatre, it's basically music that plays before the film. You're still talking to your friend you went with, the lights aren't even out yet, the curtains aren't even drawn, but the music is already creating the mood, before the film even starts.

[@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!

[@AlanCanon2222]

Actors filmed between 29 December 1965 and September 1967. Effects shots filmed between June 1966 until March 1968 Premiere Apr 2-4, 1968 (Washington DC, New York, Los Angeles) First orbit of the moon in human spaceflight (Apollo 8): December 1968 First human landing on the moon (Apollo 11): July 1969.

[@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.

[@gomikmay]

Interesting note: In the year 2001 the Monolith appeared in a park. I think it was there for a week then disappeared as suddenly as it appeared. It was believed to be a tribute to the film.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@RykDavid]

I recently got done re-reading 2001, and reading 2010, 2061, and 3001. In the "Dawn on Man" in the book, the main character, Moonwatcher, is developed a lot more. And the panther(?) or whatever it is -- is a MUCH bigger part of the story. It regularly picks up a kinsman every couple of days. When Moonwatcher first thinks to move a scavenged antelope(?) kill up to his high-cliffside cave, the panther follows the blood that evening. However Moonwatcher and one of his mates desperate to protect their offspring fight back until the panther flees in confusion, as nothing had ever fought back somewhat effectively before. Moonwatcher's cave was further up on the cliff than the panther had ever gone before, and in fleeing, misjudged its leaping elevation and fell to its death. Moonwatcher affixes the beast's head to his bone club to confront the "Others" at the water hole.

[@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.

[@NudistPoet]

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

[@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

[@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 .. ..

[@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

[@PersonaIncognito]

In honor of your very respectful reaction to Kubrick's masterpiece, 2001: A Space Odyssey.

[@KazzyCreates]

Thank you SO MUCH! That really means a lot to me ❤️. That film is definitely a masterpiece ❤️

[@JedHead77]

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

[@IvorPresents]

In 68 television was a tube, There were no flat screens. Computers were using punched index cards. There was no video displays. There was no AI except in the mind of Science Fiction writers. Hal was not mobile, like Robby the Robot from Forbidden Planet, (1956) yet had control of all the ships functions. The movie was like a glimpse more than thirty years into the future. Like the Classical music it used, it remains timeless.

[@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.

[@dashriprock9014]

Actually, this movie was not "made" in 1969. It was "released" in 1968 but principal photography started as early as 1965 (the moon excavation scene). So, yes, WAY ahead of it's time.

[@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.

[@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.

[@JedHead77]

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

[@franciscotoro9454]

The long black screen at the beginning and middle are from the days when you went to a theater, not a cinema to watch a movie. The initial black screen was while playing music during seating. The middle one was an intermission to give viewers a chance to refresh. These sophistications have disappeared and now you have to "pardon me, pardon me, pardon me" your way to the loo and miss some of the movie.

[@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

[@ritarene2965]

“And because, in all the Galaxy, they had found nothing more precious than Mind, they encouraged its dawning everywhere. They became farmers in the fields of stars; they sowed, and sometimes they reaped. And sometimes, dispassionately, they had to weed.” ― Arthur C. Clarke, 2010: Odyssey Two

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@plexus]

Also, the film’s ending is very esoteric and ambiguous on purpose cause Kubrick is just like that, but Arthur C. Clarke is a bit more definitive, and in the book, the ending is spelled out pretty clearly. Basically he goes into the monolith, and where the film shows a very abstract and psychedelic interpretation, the book describes pretty explicitly how the aliens who sent the monolith as a catalyst to aid in the evolution of human consciousness, basically leaving a trail to Jupiter (in the book, Saturn) so that when we are advanced enough to reach it, we could get to this portal to what’s basically a interstellar transit system. The monolith leads to basically a stargate hub, and when Dave Bowman goes through, he’s led to this apartment designed by the aliens as what they imagine would be a comfortable space for a human. In the book he even describes how they put cereal boxes in, but they had no concept of how they should actually taste, so they tasted all wrong. And basically Bowman is reborn as a being of light and consciousness (the star child) which is what the aliens are, they began traveling the cosmos in physical craft like us, but evolved beyond that to where their consciousness could just travel themselves. Bowman as the star child continues to be a character in the series and comes back to our solar system and earth to help Heywood Floyd in his time of need in book 2 and so on. But yeah, the book is way more descriptive and explains much more as far as the “Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite” part. The description of the stargate hub is particularly cool and trippy.

[@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... ;-)

[@Mostopinionatedmanofalltime]

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

[@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.

[@Mostopinionatedmanofalltime]

1968 Kazzy. It came out in April 1968.

[@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.

[@stevesilsby5288]

The movie was released on 1968 -- before we had sent our first Apollo crew to even ORBIT the moon, let alone land there. And yes, I was TOTALLY blown away by the design, effects, score, and story! As to trusting AI: one big moral here is that HAL was programed to act as a human companion. Turned out that having to keep a secret from his fellow crewmen drove him mad. The resulting paranoia led him to murder. The problem was not that HAL was a an inferior machine, but that he was too human. The monolith wad a device left by a superior race to inspire, effect, and catalyze profound evolutionary advances. In the end scenes Dave was studied and determined worthy of advancing to the next level of being -- the powerfully intelligent star child. Read the novel; it explains all. The movie is fantastic, but by comparison it is more a wonderful illustration to the book.

[@rancosteel]

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

[@SuStel]

The reason you feel like you don't trust Hal from the start? This movie. This movie brought "AI turns on humanity" into the public consciousness.

[@whunsicker]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@thefixer1905]

The ships, HAL, and all the action from the apes to Jupiter were simply filler used to base the story of the Monoliths. The first Monolith awakened the apes and put them on the path to becoming Man (hence the title of the segment; "the Dawn of Man"). The second Monolith, buried for millenia on the moon, was a signpost put in place awaiting for mankind to reach the stage of space travel. Once discovered it sent a signal out to Jupiter, one which could be followed by those who activated it. This led to the reason for it all....the 'Star Gateway", the third monolith. This monolith was a conduit through time and space (hence the differing ages of Dave).

[@VIDEOSTOREREVIEW]

When you saw the apes reacting to the appearance of the monolith: "I'd be freaking out too" -- what do you think that extended 'black screen' was that you were staring at for the first few minutes...?

[@premanadi]

When you went to the movie (which I did in 1971), you never saw the black screen because the curtains were closed.

[@peteriuliano5846]

LOVED HOW YOU SHOWED OR PLAYED THE OPENING BLACK SCREEN MUSIC INTRO and silence --- a really a cool way of presenting this film's opening.

[@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.

[@jordanchristeson2872]

Kazzy, I’m so glad you watched this. This is my number one favorite film of alll time .

[@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.

[@seukfuhi]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@roguetrooper5288]

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

[@ltjgsurething88]

Nice to meet you, too! I could spend days answering your questions about this movie (which is my all-time personal favorite), but I'll just tell you about the black screen with the music at the very beginning before the studio logo and opening titles. That's called the "entr'acte" which many movies used at the time. Essentially it was a way for the theatre audience to know the movie was about to begin, so people could make their way to their seats if they were coming back from the bathroom, snack bar, etc. And a theatre with a (very) big screen is really the best way to appreciate this particular film; if it ever plays in one of your local theatres as a classic revival, by all means see it again there - a totally different experience!

[@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.

[@WHYtheband]

What’s very interesting about this movie is the fact that he talked with scientists about future technology and they suggested to him where we would be tech wise in 2001. There is a scene where they are eating and watching the news on tablets. They were off by 10 years on tablets . But it was close.

[@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.

[@diansc7322]

the entities are supposed to not be living beings? I always assumed they were simply advanced aliens

[@justinsherman9350]

@diansc7322 they don't seem to be- or at least the film gives no indication that they're physical/corporeal in nature. 'Advanced aliens' they may well be, but it doesn't seem like they're creatures/traditional life forms, and are instead something completely different from us in just about every way: able to manipulate or transcend time/space/matter by means beyond the technological. I doubt they're 'alive' in the way we're alive because of their clear interest in life/death: they finally (though given time seems malleable to them they perhaps didnt really wait that long) get their 'hands' on a living human being, and rather than question it/threaten it/communicate with it, they just observe it, in particular its death... after which they experiment with birth/rebirth. That indicates that life as a phenomenon is what really piqued their interest.

[@Mostopinionatedmanofalltime]

The "freaky" music is Ligeti.

[@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.

[@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.

[@majkus]

The extended black screen with music at the beginning ran while theatre patrons were taking their seats, with the house lights up. The first Star Trek movie did the same thing. Beats watching stupid trailers.

[@mgordon1100]

I was just going to post this, but I looked around to see if anyone else told her. I can't belive she sat through that. It had nothing to do with the movie.

[@premanadi]

The curtains were closed during that, so you didn't see any black screen. I saw the movie in 1971 and don't even remember the screen. You just heard the creepy music.

[@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?

[@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'

[@Nangleator22]

What's most amazing about the special effects is not just that it holds up today, but that other SF movies made within 10 years of this were so incredibly crude in comparison.

[@ericsierra-franco7802]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@albin2232]

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

[@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.

[@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! 🙂

[@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!! 🤗✌🏼💜

[@arctos49]

Actually, ir was released in 1968. The principal photography was completed about two years before and it was in post for nearly 2 years which reflected Kubrick's quest for perfection. The sets are stunning in detail and still hold up beautifully more than 50 years later. One last thing - there are no simple answers about what this movie is "about".

[@barbarjinx3802]

Dr. Strangelove and Paths of Glory are also amazing and unforgettable.

[@KazzyCreates]

I just watched Dr. Strangelove....my reaction is here on my channel 😊✌🏼💜

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@davidsandy5917]

Douglas Trumbull did the effects for 2001. I recommend looking at his other works, specifically Silent Running.

[@mpemberton7760]

He also did the amazing "origins of the universe/origins of life on Earth" sequences in Terrence Malick's _The Tree of Life_ .

[@carlo70no]

And he also made the effects and directed Brainstorm

[@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.

[@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.

[@somthingbrutal]

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

[@Kilotile]

The newborn baby at the end represents a new beginning.

[@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?"