2001: A Space Odyssey - Original Trailer

Hard to believe this movie is 39 years old. It's still regarded as the daddy of SF movies, and though it was eclipsed in publicity terms by the likes of Star Wars, 2001 managed where all others failed. It was taken very seriously as a movie, and not dismissed as a comic book flight of fancy.
When people think of Arthur C Clark they will always think of 2001.

[@ChocolateFrogPrince]

The movie industry is suffering because people aren't telling good stories and are over reliant on effects to satisfy an increasingly shallow crowd. The accuracy of science is immaterial to the telling of a good story. Star Wars for example.

[@leem898]

2001 was the first sci-fi movie, to take the true nature of space serious. There is no sound in space-because space is a vacuum, there are no air molecules for sound molecules to ride on.Most sci-fi movies before were shlocky-and after deal only in sound in space. Thanks Arthur C Klarke and Stanley Kubrick for creating the granddaddy of all sci-fi movies. The impact will last beyond our lifetimes.

[@Beamshipcaptain]

Pre-production lasted from 1965-66, principal photography was in 1967, and the movie was released in April, 1968, which is when I first saw it, on a gigantic cinerama screen in manhattan, 80-feet wide and 30-feet tall, in stereo.

[@gngeannakakes]

This is my favorite movie. It's unfortunate that a lot of the technology envisioned in this movie is still out of our reach and is probably decades ahead of us, especially HAL, the lunar bases, and the multitude of spacecraft types shown. In all probability, around the century anniversary of this film's release date will we see anything aproaching the spacecraft, computer software technology, and other technologies shown.

[@ulfanse]

When thinking of Arthur C Clarke the first thing that comes into mind is Telstar - the worlds first telecommuniocations satelite. Great scientist and author.

[@vdwest4592]

I heard that Stanley Kubrick hated to repeat himself so he declined to do the sequel to 2001 and so another director did it. I think that was a pity since if Kubrick had done it...he would have blown our minds with something fresh like the scene when Dave was transformed by the monolith. The whole sequence of his flying, ending up in a Howard Johnson's, and becoming a Space Child so he could survive are my favorite parts of the film. It is a visual masterpiece.

[@missoctober77]

I watched this for the first time thist year. I was amazed at how great it looked. It seemed more realistic than most modern sci-fi movies...they seem so cartoonish today because of cgi.

[@Beamshipcaptain]

I saw the movie in CINERAMA in Manhattan when I was 7-years old. I was aware that this film was the most advanced and realistic thing I had ever seen depicting actual spaceflight. Now today we have space-shuttles and stations. Only thng missing are the Lunar bases, which would have come if Nixon had'nt axed the NASA budget in 1970... And increased the money for the Vietnam war. We Earth-Humans are more interested in killing each other than exploring outer space. So sad...

[@Beamshipcaptain]

They showed it again on Cable, today. They often show it on TCM cable channel. Get the 40th anniversary 2-disc set. Many of the special-effects wizards of 2001 were old hands at FX, such as Tom Howard, some went on to oscar-winning greatness, such as Brian Johnson and Doug Trumbull. THe old hands at effects, such as A. Arnold Gillespie (MGM) and LB Abbott and the Lydecker Bros. (20th Century FOX, Republic Pictures) created effects that hold up as well or better than the best CGI of today.

[@Asianpersuasion3]

the narrator of this trailer has more dialogue than all of the humans in the movie.

[@missligi]

In 1968, the technology was very poor. This is one of the reasons why I think this film was fantastic. In addition, humans have only been to the moon in 1969, a year later, it is almost impossible to imagine how they did this movie.

[@SerenyLaVesser]

Peerless, outstanding piece of artistic expression...First Rate!!!

[@doyleaudio]

This 60's trailer really screws the film. It plants preconceived notions of the theme that really simplified all the film can be if you "Fall Into it". In the true sense of a Classic, it's timeless. A MASTER piece of art, there is so much of this film that can mean so many things to different people. Most telling of what Mr. Kubrick wanted to do, he said that he wanted to delve into the sub conscious. If you Fall into it you will find dozens of stories. One Theme of pending doom is the HAL.

[@ChocolateFrogPrince]

Cecile B DeMille's 10 Commandments? No CGI. An Apple was still something one picked from a tree, yet he produced plagues, a burning bush, the Red Sea parted. HOw about The Wizard of Oz? Tornadoes and flying monkeys. And who is to say that one requires a burden of effects for good SF anyway? Soylent Green? Invasion of the Bodysnatchers? All one needs is a good story and to tell it well. The time taken over 2001 was not about realizing the effects. It was about translating Clarke's narrative.

[@ChocolateFrogPrince]

I wouldn't say that. Take almost any "blockbuster" from the last five years and you'd find that would have been hyped beyond anything applied to 2001 with far less cause. 2001 the movie tried very hard to do justice to Clarke's book, which itself asked some very profound questions. The problem with hyerbole in a critique is that it is often very shy of the mark it intends to hit.

[@yonskii]

@LeonSKennedy828 Who says every film has to be face paced? This film was made to feel slow and arduous on purpose. It was meant to give the viewer a similar experience the astronauts went through in the film - a long, drawn out space flight to Jupiter. This film is pure art, it lets its imagery do most of the talking. And the message that most draw from the film is profound beyond measure, and has not been topped by any film since. Ive seen war films that were more boring than 2001.

[@Beamshipcaptain]

I like the hyperspace, faster than light STARGATE sequence at the end. THe entire film, as well as Gerry Anderson's UFO TV series, inspiered George Lucas to write first draft os "THE STAR WARS" in 1973, whilst AMERICAN GRAFFITI was cleaning up at the box-office.

[@eclipsesonic]

Citizen Kane is a great film in my opinion, so I disagree with you there, but I respect your opinion. Although, I completely agree with you in calling this the best movie ever made, as it happens to be my all-time favourite!

[@doyleaudio]

If the book fallows the idea that the trailer states the Monolith is left by Aliens, then I believe the Hotel is a Zoo of a kind for the Aliens to observe Dave. I agree the Monolith inspires new stages in evolution. I think Mr. Kubrick add his own stab at humanity with Hal representing Mans step back. Not Hal but IBM in the thirst for Profit and market Control. LOL

[@elvisguerra]

It´s hard to think that, from now, this movie is a prediction of the past!

[@_purplewinter_]

I wanted to be a kid when this movie came out, it's totally mindblowing

[@YDDES]

Kubrick made only the movies he wanted himself. He even let destroy every model, set and drawing from "2001", so they could not be used in other movies. Peter Hyams had to use blown up stills from "2001" to make new models, sets and space suits for "2010".

[@ChocolateFrogPrince]

Most trailers do. It's called hype. How many non-SF fans would be inclined to go to a SciFi film billed as "a cerebral dissertaition on the foibles of man?"

[@TheStockwell]

@esiosan Did you see the sequel, "2010"? Though it was based on a follow-up novel by Arthur C. Clarke, it showed the problem with most post-"2001" Sci-fi films: the need to explain things in explicit detail so the audience doesn't get confused and start crying.

[@ChocolateFrogPrince]

@elvisguerra 2001 has been a backwards prediction for nearly a decade [it's nearly 2011, remember?] but then, Orwell was nearly a quarter century out so it's not so bad. You might consider looking up a vintage SF novel by Edmund Cooper called Who Needs Men. Now that's a chilling prediction coming true much earlier than expected.

[@missligi]

Let me remind you that the first Star Wars movie was made in 1977, when the first Apple computer was created, so, they had more ways to do that movie.

[@doyleaudio]

Theme of pending doom, HAL. The possibility of technology taking over. A theme used there after in films, such as Terminator, War Games and Battlestar Galactica. A Deep dig at Cooperate responsibility of a well know US Company through HAL. The letter after "H" the letter after "A" and the letter after "L". Never official but very obvious. One of many themes you can't tell in a 60"s Movie trailer. This film is very cerebral. Long moments of time for you to think for yourself of what you see.

[@ChocolateFrogPrince]

Well, if you think about it, Orwell was a quarter of a century out, so who's to say Clark isn't also? We already have space tourists, it's just turned out to cost several millions to get into space. It's really only economics and politics that are standing in the way. If we weren't so busy paying for pointless wars we'd have more money to spend on actual progress.

[@alsharpe]

Beautiful.

[@Asianpersuasion3]

its not bad at all. Its just that this trailer projects the film in a much different way than it actually is by having the narrator speak so often.

[@timtallisman]

@ChocolateFrogPrince you are really right on this part :), everyone is complaining about the 6 billion spend on the HTC, which is seen to the global population (the people who keep the current world working, and have nothing to do with the future) as a toy for scientists, payed of their taxes. and how mutch has Irak costed us. nobody talks about that.. they should have continued developing space in the way they did before '69, that would have been awsome now.

[@artistinstinct]

KUBRIC is a FINE EXAMPLE of TRUE ART lasting beyond its time! HAL=IBM in forward alphabet letter play. THE ADDITION OF micro thoughts in movie making adds to THE SPECTACLE 2001 has offered! MAN VS MACHINE (by way of mans input in creating the machine!) RATE: THINKER (GREAT!)

[@yonskii]

@LeonSKennedy828 But giving it a definitive narrative structure really wasnt Kubrick's intent. Kubrick himself had his own interpretation of the film, but he never revealed it, as he found everyone elses interpretations more interesting and fun, and he didnt want to spoil anyone elses ability the make their own by revealing his. (cont.)

[@prodiggy13]

@jimbob92UK You can't forget the first terminator, it was a great movie aswell. Haven't seen this 2001 yet. I'll read the book first.

[@yonskii]

@LeonSKennedy828 Well, thats your personal view. In my personal view, film is art, so it all depends on the artist's vision and what he or she feels fits best with the piece. Kubrick didnt feel the need to give the human characters must personality, as he thought that would distract from the main theme of the film.

[@EmmanuelButtigieg]

@ChocolateFrogPrince I agree 100%, but there are those out there whose idea of humour is very clean and non-offensive. I for one can't think of any joke that is "un-offensive"

[@KronnangDunn]

Sir Anthony Hopkins said in an interview that he based Hannibal Lecter's voice in HAL 9000...

[@TheStockwell]

@TroyAndBob Smart move. I saw the film on opening day. You ever hear a few hundred people groan all at once? Over and over? It was like "2001" for 12-year olds - and not very smart ones. On the big screen, the CGI effects were okay but the re-created "2001" sets looked like plywood, Roy Scheider was supposed to be Heywood Floyd (?), the old age makeup used on Keir Dullea looked like a rubber mask, and then you had the script. Wow. It hurt. They should have just tried doing a MUSICAL sequel.

[@ingledude]

So, where is all of this stuff, you know a hotel on a space station and a moon base. We had it 8 years ago so where is it now?

[@yonskii]

@LeonSKennedy828 Actually, the writer (Arthur C. Clark), had a very specific vision for the plot and back story of both the books and the films. Its the deeper meaning of the film that people attempt to interpret. Everyone has varying ideas of what its about, but in general most agree that 2001 deals with evolution, and "God's" role in evolution, and possibly what "God" really is - a group of highly evolved beings from another universe, guiding the evolution of man in our universe.

[@ChocolateFrogPrince]

Arthur C. Clark was. It was his writing. Not Kubrick's.

[@cortadew]

TheWhite ChocolateFrog actually it was frok both of them.

[@ErickSoares3]

Kenji Mizoguchi: Clarke was in the book and Kubrick in the script.

[@jeremylehner]

omg this movie looks amazing i want it

[@HelterSkelter2222]

pretty amazing how the most advanced invention of mankind (Hal9000) was taken out by one of the most primitive one (screwdriver) .. Kubrick was pure genious !

[@ChocolateFrogPrince]

@Conpa18Dani if you think this is the entire movie then you really are so easily pleased...

[@radicaledward40]

@ChocolateFrogPrince Thank you.

[@enyalid]

@ChocolateFrogPrince What? Are you kidding? A remake? Why? This movie is a classic and can't be redone. The money would be better spent making the third sequel 2061.

[@ChocolateFrogPrince]

@EmmiB94 A Rabbi, a Vicar and a Priest go into a bar, and the barman says "What is this? Some kind of joke?"

[@amovieguy14]

2001 + Orson Welles = Awesome

[@ChocolateFrogPrince]

@GrabThatShit full of what you want to grab I think. People aren't too interested in effects over plot theme structure and characterisation. They go to see the new fangled stuff but overall cinema seat sales are down and over the long term the films that do best are in fact script driven. No one is talking about Transformers barely half a decade on, but people are still discussing 2001 half a century on. This if nothing else shatters your assertions and exposes how little you know.

[@Mr007daviols]

We are in 2011 n still don't hav tech. Like this

[@garvinhenry985]

this seems interesting .

[@yonskii]

@LeonSKennedy828 And as for characterization, the human characters were given little personality on purpose as well. Think about it, who was the ONLY character in the entire film that shows any sort of emotion whatsoever? HAL, a computer. When Bowman "kills" HAL, he becomes scared and sort of begs for him to stop. All the humans in the film are cold, blank slate characters.

[@ChocolateFrogPrince]

@GreatWall1973 I think humans need working economies and a whole heap of changed perspectives and imperatives to carry out such kind of odyssey.

[@frolix42]

"What is that; A Hershey Bar!?!"

[@doyleaudio]

When asked, Kubrick refused to define it, enjoying everyone else theories. From God to pure Evil (The tools to kill). Not reading Clarke's book, when I first watched it in the Mid 70's I was some where between a bad acid trip and finding pure energy. (The Movie I mean. LOL) I think I was right with the pure Energy but it wasn't until I seen a trailer at the Roxy in Toronto late 80's that I got the whole picture. Have you read the book and if not were you able to get the hotel scene? Merry Xmas

[@doyleaudio]

What do you think the Monolith is about?

[@YearoutW]

it's simply a matter of taste.

[@ChocolateFrogPrince]

@Mr007daviols Yeah. I was kinda hoping for jet packs. And Chernobyl. What's up with that? I mean... 25 years on and still no superheroes....

[@thefletch888]

exactly: art.

[@missligi]

But i am just saying that it must been dificult to make that movie, nothing more... You got to agree with me in this. I've seen a documentary with Stanley Kubrick, with he saying that he started to film in 1965, and only in 1968 the movie was in cinemas.

[@JohnnyS001]

@ChocolateFrogPrince Man, you are SO RIGHT, it's not even funny. I couldn't agree more!

[@ChocolateFrogPrince]

Sound doesn't have molecules. Do a search on the science of sound.

[@ChocolateFrogPrince]

Nope. Forbidden planet was made in 1956, 12 years earlier.

[@ChocolateFrogPrince]

@ChocolateFrogPrince Lumping the world's desires in with those of the three school friends you spend all your time in a dimly lit basement with drooling over pictures of a semi-clad Megan Fox is a bad idea. Most of us grew up.

[@ChocolateFrogPrince]

@EmmiB94 Well sure, but it's not possible to live through tragedy if you cannot find a funny side. Humour, even of the blackest kind, is the only refuge we had. If I thought seriously about all that's wrong with the world I'd never get out of bed.

[@EmmanuelButtigieg]

@ChocolateFrogPrince At this rate Japan's going to be sprouting Spider Men and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles :P I kid though, both Chernobyl and Japan's double exposure to radiation are tragedies not only scientific but personal.

[@ChocolateFrogPrince]

You say that like it's a bad thing...

[@nzoneaffe]

best movie ever made

[@ChocolateFrogPrince]

@esiosan Are you kidding? A remake would be nothing short of a disaster. Michael Bay would get hold of it, dumb it down and the point would be lost. they should stop remaking everything and write something NEW

[@mrflash345]

It's over 9000!!!

[@kazekyokawa]

@Mr007daviols At least we got something like this 01:10

[@PhilHunter2015]

@ChocolateFrogPrince yeah its a shame when ppl remake films they have to dumb it down to appeal to a wider audience just to make more money from it. It sacrifices the essence of the original film and degrades it.

[@snn2006]

1:08 iPad !

[@saibamoe]

@ChocolateFrogPrince AMEN to that ....

[@ChocolateFrogPrince]

@radicaledward40 You're very welcome. [What did I do?]

[@ChocolateFrogPrince]

@ulfanse And a whiz at spelling apparently... ;o)

[@ziggyja]

THE BEST!!!

[@yonskii]

@yonskii thats "much* personality"...

[@CancunMimosa]

Open the pod bay doors HAL.

[@ChocolateFrogPrince]

Well. That's an opinion, but one that a great many people would disagree with emphatically. As for 2001 being the best movie ever made... No. not at all.

[@cortadew]

TheWhite ChocolateFrog I believe it is not a travesty to call the greatest film of all time.

[@axolotlsm]

Visita #Fílmica en Facebook y entérate de las noticias más recientes del mundo del cine facebook.com/CinemaArtHistory

[@lover5796]

I watched 2001: А Spaaaсce Odyssеeeey full mоvie hеre twitter.com/ba55acc2c36ff0c30/status/795842105780248576 2001 A Sрppace ОOOOdyyуyssey Originаl Trailer

[@Zecastronomo]

This is my cult of the cults. There is nothing like this before... and after.

[@vickeymouse]

@ChocolateFrogPrince FUCK YEAH!! You know what you are talking about!!! ;D

[@thefletch888]

and how old are you?

[@palegrey]

LOL. Ratchet may have a point somehow. But this was the most exciting boring film I ever saw. And since when something has to make sense to be fascinating?

[@lowellriggsiam]

It must be human error

[@dukeallen2001]

@maxhahnsel Oh hell yeah! FP=Best...SF...Movie...Ever

[@souperman72]

For me Citizen Kane is overrated and boring, this should be the considered the best movie ever made.

[@StolenBatteries]

isnt that against god? to try and redo Kubrick?

[@cmsahe]

I agree, the trailer is bad.

[@MrJohnbarkley1000]

@gunsnroses742 gay isnt a bad word

[@nostalfan]

the human is animal today and tomorrow¡¡

[@Edizipek]

adamsın arthur...

[@partylikeumeanit]

HAL = IBM - $111