Aliens or God?? 2001 A Space Odyssey (1968) First Time Watching Reaction

[@ShreeNation]

My review of 2001 A Space Odyssey: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qHjJq3eogJ6sia8

[@LuisOrtiz-xo5kc]

From my point of view, the premise of this film is progress. Thanks to technology, we were able to survive in the natural environment (the ape scene at the beginning), which allowed us culture. But progress has its risks (exemplified by HAL). Despite the risks, technology and culture will allow us to move to a new level (the image of the fetus that heralds a new humanity).

[@jamesharper3933]

The music is Richard and Johann Strauss.

[@michaelschwartz8730]

Really fun to watch you watch. After seeing 2001 so many times, you reminded me how much this movie makes you hate a computer that speaks in monotone

[@realcourte]

Look 2010... Less abstract and more story oriented! :)

[@AubreySciFi]

My mother was actually dating actor Keir Dullea (Astronaut Dave Bowman) when this film came out and attended either the New York or Philadelphia premiere with him. They met doing theater which he loved even move than film acting and eventually went back to full time leaving the Hollywood limelight behind.

[@ShreeNation]

Wow that's nice :)

[@motodork]

That is an utterly fantastic story!

[@AubreySciFi]

Apparently that year he acted in some drama film that no-one remembers and also 2001 and he was sure the drama movie was going to be the one that was going to be more career defining. Boy was he wrong!

[@krishnamurtiism]

Wow, I always wondered what happened to him.

[@Johnny_Socko]

@@krishnamurtiism He has a small but important role on the current sci-fi series "Halo" on Paramount+. Whatever you think of the show, you have to admit it was pretty brilliant of the producers to cast him.

[@motodork]

The black screen at the beginning is the Overture. This was done at the beginning to allow people to settle in to the theater. This was common with epic films of the past.

[@AlanCanon2222]

One thing on the helmetless spacewalk. You actually do have a little time. Space is cold, but vacuum is the one and only perfect insulator, so you don't flash freeze immediately. Normal atmospheric pressure is really not that high, compared with the fantastic pressure differences encountered by sea divers. So you don't immediately explode if you're put in vacuum. The movie is pretty close to what would actually be expected: surviving 20 to 30 seconds of vacuum is entirely plausible.

[@ShreeNation]

Ah I see.

[@John_259]

Much more recently, Naomi Nagata does a similar jump in one episode of The Expanse.

[@AlanCanon2222]

@@John_259 I saw that! Love the show.

[@dirkdigital]

Kubrick was the undisputed master of cinematic photography. In "Barry Lyndon", he used lenses designed for the Apollo space mission in order to film some scenes purely by candlelight. He also very good with forced perspective, composite shots, and subliminal messages in his films.

[@ShreeNation]

God, there is so much to learn from this man👏

[@dirkdigital]

@@ShreeNation Any serious filmmaker or storyteller would benefit from learning about Kubrick, his methods, and his approach to films. A great documentary is "Stanley Kubrick: A Life In Pictures". He's truly one of the greatest directors ever. If you enjoyed "2001" and "The Shining", you won't be disappointed in any of his other films. Even "Barry Lyndon", which is over 3 hours long, is beautifuly shot. Each scene is like looking at a painting from an old master.

[@Lexi_Zone]

"Chimps are like us but have the brutality intact." **looks at the news** Yeeeaaaaah...

[@Ocrilat]

No CGI, filmed before the first Moon landing, and in a genre that had little respect before this film.

[@GrouchyMarx]

@ 6:07 This is way before the Stone Age. These guys hadn't figured out using rocks as tools or weapons yet. That is until the Monolith helps them! @ 7:28 Yes he did. He got it from the Monolith. Back it up a bit and you'll see him looking at it puzzled for a moment, like he heard something from it, then he grabs the large bone and starts hitting things with it as the music starts. This was in the book with much more drama and detail as the Monolith beamed imagery and sounds into his head to teach him things, most of which he didn't understand at that moment. And notice a little later how the ones with the weapons are standing more erect, taller at the pond, as they figured out the weapons works better that way. You might say the Monolith started the Stone Age here , a rough start. @ 10:55 The music you recognize is the famous waltz from Johann Strauss II, "The Blue Danube" composed in 1866. @ 12:28 That is the Earth. 2001 was made about a year before the Apollo 8 mission left the Earth to circle around the moon in December 1968, thus get a view of how the Earth actually looks. Artists, before Apollo 8, did their best to predict how Earth would look but it took actually getting out there far enough away to see how it really looks. @ 12:44 You should know that the price of the picturephone call got a laugh from the audience in 1968 because the prices was SO high! From a 1968 perspective. Was 13 then watching this in the big wide-screen, surround sound theater and my dad leaned over to me to say "There won't be too many phone calls from outer space with prices like that!" chuckling about it. @ 21:48 In the book, the high pitch signal from the Monolith started exactly when the first sliver of sunlight touch it. It had been buried for 4 million years waiting for humans to get to the moon and eventually dig it up for that purpose. @ 21:58 Jupiter will never be habitable. You're right it's classed as a "gas giant" and its outer layers are gaseous but it become more liquid-like the lower you go. Its interior is extremely hot, thick, gelatinous and its core may be a super-hot rocky-like sphere about the size of Earth. It's good to know this before going into the sequel "2010". @ 24:12 Flat-screen TVs were foretold in the scifi classic "Things To Come" from 1936! Flat-screen TV was depicted in an alien spaceship in "Earth vs. The Flying Saucers" (1956). @ 49:34 I was hoping to hear you say that! LOL! I did the same back then, watched it over a dozen time before the early 70s came. Couldn't wait for a sequel since its ending seemed to suggest one. Definitely do a reaction video to the sequel made a LONG sixteen years later in 1984. So watch 2001 a couple more times at least closely and do the sequel soon. Because with what's going on right now in the world your timing to do and upload "2010: The Year We Make Contact" would be good about now. You'll see. 👌😉 @ 49:57 That's Jupiter at the bottom and it's various moons aligned as they *naturally* are. Most of the multiple moons of the outer planets are aligned on the same plane as they orbit their parent worlds. Much as all the planets of the solar system itself are aligned pretty much on the same geometric plane as we all orbit the sun. @ 51:30 That's an excellent observation! I interpret this as the aliens showing him the Big Bang, then the expansion of the early universe and all that followed. I think those dazzling octahedrons around him are the aliens at 52:56 taking him on this journey, IMO. In know others have suggested so just do the sequel for a LOT of answers and note it will be a different style of movie than Kubrick's and I've read he liked the sequel. Note that Arthur C. Clarke wrote the sequel and does a cameo twice, and Kubrick once! 🖖😎

[@mikeminer1947]

CinemaTyler has a GREAT 7-part series on YT about how this was made that probably goes into much more detail than any sane person could ever want. But it's fantastic.

[@ShreeNation]

Now i know what to binge this weekend!

[@AlanCanon2222]

There's so many crazy hard techniques went in to making this movie that it's not even funny. I love watching KZbin interviews with other directors like Lucas, Spielberg, and Scorcese worshipping at the altarpiece that is 2001.

[@darmtb]

Fantastic series by CinemaTyler!

[@tpnproductions6520]

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.

[@iliketostayhome]

"That doesn't look quite like Earth" There were no satellite images of Earth at that time to reference. They had to guess.

[@ShreeNation]

Ah, that makes sense.

[@davidfox5383]

Your reaction to the baby, the "star child" at the end, was my reaction times ten when my parents first took me to see this at 7 years old. That image haunted me so much I could not look directly at it again until I finally saw the movie again my first year of college. As a kid I literally had a physical reaction every time I saw it, and it haunted my nightmares for years.

[@ShreeNation]

Hah, I feel you! I don't think I would've handled that scene well if I was 7.

[@newpapyrus]

“Now he was the master of the world.....” which is the way the book version of 2001 ended. One of the best sci-fi books ever written!

[@wratched]

The best way to get some answers is to watch the sequel "2010", which isn't directed by Stanley Kubrick, and isn't remotely as mystical, but is still a good movie.

[@ShreeNation]

Thank you, can't wait to see it ^^

[@kurtrivero368]

@@ShreeNation Hope you never saw it.

[@MsTeaRex]

The monolith did a DNA upgrade

[@AlanCanon2222]

12:30 what planet is that? Earth, actually, an artist painted it based on a best guess of what the whole earth would look like from space, which would not be seen in reality until the Apollo 8 mission to and around the moon (without landing) that took place in December, 1968, eight months after the movie was released. 2001 got so much right, and it's interesting to see what little they got wrong.

[@k1productions87]

One of the few movies that uses its technological limitations to its advantage in order to portray the Earth as being light-washed just as it probably would be to the naked eye

[@AlanCanon2222]

@@k1productions87 Unrelated trivia. Apple rolled out the iPad and then sued the next company that made one, saying they'd invented the idea. So the company they sued used the "BBC 12" interview scene from 2001 to demonstrate that the idea predated the existence of Apple itself!

[@k1productions87]

@@AlanCanon2222 nevermind the fact Star Trek the Next Generation also had "PADDs" before anyone thought of the iPad either. Hell, for the longest time, I thought they actually ripped the name off TNG in the first place

[@AlanCanon2222]

@@k1productions87 Oh, that's good, I didn't know that (I watched TNG in its original run, but had forgotten it). One of the things about 2001's display panels is that since high resolution color displays didn't exist yet (let alone flat panel video screens), every single frame of all those displays was prepared as hand-animated artwork, then photographed onto 16mm motion picture film. There's shots in the Centrifuge on Discovery where there's 8 displays going at once (I'm thinking of HAL's main console). That means there's 8 motion picture projectors behind all those screens that are all electronically synchronized to the camera shooting the scene so there's no flicker. Unless the film used in the displays were continuous loops, that would mean that, between takes, all 8 of those projectors had to be rewound back to the beginning in order to start the next take (and Kubrick shot more takes than any other director). If you watch the sequel to 2001, "2010: The Year We Make Contact", which was made 16 years after 2001 was released, by that time (1984 in reality) they did, in fact, have computers to generate the graphics, probably transferred to videotape for the actual shooting, but they used normal "picture tube" type displays that were the same as the color TVs in every household in 1984. But those picture tubes have curved front surfaces (as every normal TV did back then), and they don't look nearly as good as those gorgeous flat panel displays in the original 1968 movie. 2001 had a budget of around US $13 million, which is equivalent to US $100 million today. It took roughly three years to make, with principal photography beginning in late 1965. Instead of just hiring movie artists to design everything, Kubrick consulted with scientists and experts from industries from aerospace to hospitality, asking them to project forward to imagine what spaceships, phones, clothing, hotels would look like 35 years in the future. That's one reason the movie looks so good to this day. There had absolutely been some very good science fiction movies made before, even dating back to the silent era with forward thinking epics like Metropolis (1927) made by Fritz Lang in Germany, but it's safe to say that no one who sat down in theaters in 1968 had ever seen anything remotely like 2001. In certain ways, I think we still haven't. And of course, young people like Steven Spielberg and George Lucas were gobsmacked by 2001, and thought, "Maybe I could do something like that".

[@sheert]

"Is that a portal?" "Is he going to read their lips?" "Is he even intact as a person?" I noticed in her Back to the Future reaction and this, she is really good at anticipating what is going to happen.

[@brandonflorida1092]

Thanks for reacting to this classic. Merely doing so puts you head and shoulders above most movie reactors who just copy each other and react to movies that have been reacted to many, many times. Looking at your catalogue, you've done a lot of good movies. I already saw your "Terminator" reaction. Let me answer a few questions about the film: Several million years ago, aliens noticed that intelligent life was evolving on the Earth but not doing very well. Our ape ancestors were starving even though surrounded by food animals like the pigs, whom they had no real ability to kill. They had no concept of tools at all. The aliens decided to give us a little push in the right direction. They sent a machine, the monolith. It gave the apes the idea that objects of a certain size and shape could be used as clubs to extend the reach and force of their arms and set them on the path of tool making. Now the apes weren't starving all the time and chased the other tribe away from the watering hole. On their way out of our solar system the aliens buried a monolith on the Moon and placed one at Jupiter. The purpose of the monolith on the Moon was to detect when the apes' descendants had developed enough space travel to be able to travel to their Moon. Now phase two could begin. The monolith on the Moon was like an alarm. They made it light sensitive but buried it under ground to be able to tell when it was dug up. They also made it highly magnetic so we'd notice it. The first time the sun rose on that area of the Moon after it was dug up, it sent a message to the monolith at Jupiter telling it that the apes' descendants were coming and that it should be ready for phase 2. This message was the loud sound that the people standing by it heard. The humans tracked the signal and saw that it was aimed at Jupiter. They sent a space mission to Jupiter to investigate. When David Bowman encountered the monolith at Jupiter, it did to him what it had done to the apes - it took him to the next level. For the apes, the next level was learning about tools. For David Bowman, the next level was being transformed into an advanced being that we might evolve to in millions of years. After becoming the "star child" Bowman was able to return to Earth with a single thought.

[@ShreeNation]

This is a pretty solid explanation, thank you :)

[@richelliott9320]

Pretty much my take on the film myself. I was lucky enough to see this in a theater in 1978 only about four of us in the whole theater. I was in high school at the time turned out it was on tv the next week. But the big screen was amazing

[@SpottedBullet]

You get all the answers in the sequel -- 2010: The year we made contact.

[@joeciorciari1114]

I hate 2010. The original left us free to interpret it for ourselves. The far inferior "sequel" is just someone else's interpretation.

[@k1productions87]

@@joeciorciari1114 The book answered many of the questions too. Kubrick deliberately chose to leave those answers out

[@les4767]

I'm going to write a running commentary on your commentary. The black screen with soundtrack music used to be quite common for films. It's called the Entr'acte. When you get around to watching "Lawrence of Arabia," it does it too. When they reworked "Star Trek The Motion Picture," they added it to the beginning(although through the newer "Director's Edition," they added a cool starfield moving through backwards). Ok, the stewardess is walking with "grip shoes"(velcro), and the turban is to manage her hair in zero gee. Yes, the spinning of the station creates centrifugal force gravity for the people. And, yes, whole rooms were rotated to create the weird shots of the stewardess walking up the circle, and later when Frank is jogging around the centrifuge room on USS Discovery. Yes, they are on our moon(It's actually the only major scientific inaccuracy in the film, as they are still in full gravity instead of partial gravity like on the moon). Yes, a lot of predictions about future technology was dead on in this film. The hissing sound is the air in his spacesuit along with his breathing. All space shots were mostly silent except for the inclusion of the spacesuit interior sounds and the instrumentation of the space pods. Yes, the fact that they pulled off special effects this good back in 1968 was phenomenally amazing(It's still better than 99% of the films being done today with the most advanced CGI). Douglas Trumbull, Wally Veevers and Stanley Kubrick really pushed the envelope of camera and effects technology on this film. Dave pulled off the EVA entry through the emergency airlock by surviving in total vacuum long enough to activate the emergency door close/oxygen valve. That was accurate. It's painful as hell to do, but possible. All the planetoid-like things around Jupiter were its moons. The trip beyond the infinite(commonly referred to as the "stargate sequence") was billed as the ultimate trip(a lot of hippies went to this film and dropped acid to fully experience the last 20 minutes of the film. Yes, Dave was seeing himself in the future only to become that man and his present self vanished. Now, whether this was happening as accelerated time from the experience or just clever editing to show 50 years lived is debatable. His eventual form as the fetus floating in space is commonly known as the "starchild." If you want some answers, I'd recommend watching "2010 The Year We Make Contact."

[@ShreeNation]

Thank you for this info :) Will watch 2010 soon!

[@MarkFoster321789]

The opening music segment of 2001 as in the film’s presented in the theatrical roadshow format was the Overture. The Entr’acte follows after the Intermission with the beginning of Part Two of the film, and the Exit Music plays out at the end. And what would say to those who claim the Monolith fills up the screen with darkness? I tell them to stop taking crack 😂

[@les4767]

@@MarkFoster321789 Yeah, I get those two terms mixed up, but the Overture and the Entr acte were absolutely identical. The only time the Monolith blacked out the screen was right at the end where the camera zoomed into it and then it became a shot of the Moon pulling back to show the Starchild orbiting Earth. The rest of the time, it reflected light to show how smooth it was.

[@MDBowron]

Interstellar from 2014 and Mission to Mars from 2000 are like modern-day adaptations of 2001, with 2001 being inspirational for Star Wars in 1977 and Alien in 1979

[@k1productions87]

Funny thing though, another movie from around the time of 2001 became an inspiration, not to other movies, but to NASA itself. The events of "Marooned" (1969) inspired NASA to pursue a joint mission with the Soviet Union, which became the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975. Essentially the true ending to the "space race" with astronauts and cosmonauts meeting in space with a handshake.

[@MDBowron]

@@k1productions87 cool, thanks for recommending it K1productions

[@cpmf2112]

Hilarious, humans are far far more brutal than any chimp ever was. 😂

[@matsv201]

Analog picture phone actually existed already since the 1950. But it was pretty much never used due to signal integrity problem. Also later when they start stacking phone calls on the same line, there was no longer space for picture phones. There was actually picture phone network still in operation into the 90-tys when it was replaced by internet. So that was actually a very real thing. Chess computer was a thing back then, but the early once was unable to beat a average skill person

[@ShreeNation]

That's so interesting, i never knew about picture phones!

[@matsv201]

@@ShreeNation they are rediculasly expensive and ever just used in institutions. There was an atemt making a digital one in 1980tys... it failed, then one again in mid 90tys, that also failed, but the technology was later implemented in 3g mobile phones. That exact techobology was used in early youtube. Its still what is used at 144p and 240p. Now even for the original analog videi phone, it was never color and also fairly low quality. Some time late 70 or early 80tys they made it possuble to link several telefon videolinks in effect having a full tv broadcast over telefon link. This was how most war photage and interviewed wad conducted then. Prior to that they had to use satelite link and they are very slow.

[@ShreeNation]

That's interesting, thanks to that technology i can now broadcast KZbin videos lol

[@matsv201]

@@ShreeNation the irony of it is that it was the intention alreddy originally. The idea was that instead of surfing the web, you would so to speak surf the telefon network. So a telefon number would be a webserver, then one would be able to go in a watch a video via the telefon network, or download a image, or print a document. It turned out to be to hard to implementation fully analog. In 1982 the forst partielly digital service of this kind started (the web started in 1991). But the analog video service prove to expensive to implement. Between 1988 and 1992 mpeg was developed, proving that digital video was posible to a fair quality (before that it looked like total garbage) 1998-1999 mpeg4 was developed to target digital phone network. 2002 utms came around with the first true consumer video phone. The idea was still in 2002 that one would call a video service on the phone. But alreddy a few year prior the phone companies relizes they could hard conect the service to internet. There was actually plenty of video service on internet prior to youtube. What young youtube did was just copy the format videophones used and just stored them on the internet. This made it possible for pretty much any phone to run the video right of the site. This happen really fast.. really from 1999 when first video over internet was realistic and 2005 youtube exploded.

[@richelliott9320]

Space travel in my life time. That’s what I thought too 50 years ago

[@AubreySciFi]

Kubrick cowrote this script with sci-fi novelist Arthur C. Clarke. Kubrick kept it ambiguous, but Clarke goes into more detail in the novelisation. There is One sequel to this movie "2010:The year we make contact" which is good, but nowhere near as impactful as this film. It's based on the second of four novels Clarke did on this subject, and features the brief return of Bowman and Hal and Co-stars Roy Sheider from Jaws, John Lithgow and Helen Mirren. Great cast actually. Just two or three years before acting in this movie Gary Lockwood (Astronaut Frank Poole) costarred alongside William Shatner in the second Star Trek pilot episode called "Where No man has gone before". Stanley Kubrick died years ago, but his assistant of many years is still alive and worked diligently on the restoration of this film for its recent 4K Blu-ray release. It's never looked better since it played in theaters in 1968. Actually there's a really great documentary on the man who was Kubrick's assistant that you might enjoy. It's called "Film Worker" (2018) There-in former actor turned directing assistant Leon Vitali talks about all the films he worked on with Kubrick and the difficulties of working with such a demanding and talented individual and he wraps up by talking about the restoration process of 2001: A space Odyssey for its 4K release. Fascinating stuff for any fan of Stanley's films.

[@k1productions87]

I think the best way to describe the two is: 2001 is a "film" 2010 is a "movie" one is meant to be an experience, the other is meant to tell a story so as such, the latter is a more contemporary moviegoing experience, rather than the mind trip of the former.

[@M3TR01DFANBOY]

This movie was made before any real color photos of earth existed. This explains why earth looks somewhat unusual in the film.

[@k1productions87]

Also I think it was meant to portray the light-wash effect if you were to view the Earth with your own eyes, not adjusted to its brightness vs. your surrounding environment.

[@maestro80smusic93]

Tom Hanks supposedly has the rights to 2061: Odyssey 3 but I doubt it will ever get made

[@shainewhite2781]

The film was nominated for 4 Oscars: Best Director Best Visual Effects Best Original Screenplay Best Production Design It won Best Visual Effects and made $146 million dollars at the box office against a $13 million dollar budget.

[@sixstanger00]

$13 million and the FX still look incredible 60 years later. Most modern films with budgets of $200 million or more have less impressive FX.

[@quoniam426]

@@sixstanger00 If you take inflation into account, 13 millions would be worth at least 300 millions if not a lot more today.

[@DamnQuilty]

Great reaction!! This movie is fantastic. I highly recommend its sequel 2010 the year we make contact. It is more of a traditional narrative.

[@heatsinker_5517]

Yes, "2010"

[@tbirdparis]

Definitely agree about 2010 the sequel film. It's not at all the same style of moviemaking, but that was intentional. There was no point trying to outdo the original film's groundbreaking artistic style because the time for that had come and gone. Unfortunately, due to the enormous shadow cast by 2001's reputation as one of the greatest films of all time, it made it difficult for 2010 to be taken seriously by audiences at the time of its release. But in retrospect, many people (and film critics as well) have come to realise that 2010 deserves a lot of credit as a great film in its own right. Interestingly, even up till today, many film makers have "borrowed" ideas from 2010 and most people are none the wiser, purely because 2010 is far less well known and has been seen by far fewer people that 2001. For example, in Ridley Scott's "The Martian", the sequence of blowing the hatch to slow down the Hermes space ship is constructed using almost identical editing, framing and sound design as the scene in 2010 where HAL fires Discovery's booster rockets. In any case, it's a very worthy and much underrated film which, while not being as artistic and philosophical as the original, still answers a lot of questions and advances the story without cheapening the universe of the film at all.

[@bjgandalf69]

Peter Hyams, who also does his own cinematography, wrote and directed 2010 with consultation with Arthur C. Clarke. It does answer a lot of questions but leaves just about as many. It has a great cast with Roy Schieder, Helen Mirren and John Lithgow. Clarke also wrote 2 more novels in this series, 2061 and 3001 that are worth a read. I wish someone would make 2061 as a movie.

[@miller-joel]

@@bjgandalf69 Actually, Clarke wrote the novel 2 years before the movie. But they definitively collaborated on the script. Just trying to clarify that unlike 2001, which Kubrick and Clarke wrote together (based on a couple of stories by Clarke), this was an adaptation from the novel.

[@bjgandalf69]

@@miller-joel Thanks for the clarification but I was aware of that but concede that I might have not been clear about that in my comment.

[@michaelbastraw1493]

"Are they satellites?" In the book and earlier versions of the screenplay, they were tacitly nuclear weapons of different nations. Best. Mike.

[@thegwolf]

I know I am late to the party but even after the acid-trip quality of this movie, I can still recommend the second one: "2010: The Year We Make Contact" It is a LOT less artsy, much more straight forward sci-fi with the same high quality space and space-travel aspects. It may interest you that the movie is starring Roy Scheider whom you know from Jaws. He is a solid lead and his performance makes the movie much easier to follow. I'll be the first to admit, despite the cult status of 2001, and the importance and influence on everything that came after, it still is a movie that puts your patience to the test. Which is exactly the reason why I find 2010 a better movie, in terms of enjoyability. On the positive note though, now you can wear a t-shirt saying "I have survived 2001" ;)

[@k1productions87]

the best way I think it can be described is: 2001 is a "film", but 2010 is a "movie"

[@SuStel]

The music at the beginning is something some movies used to do around that time: play music to get the audience in the mood while they were taking their seats.

[@AlanCanon2222]

In Eyes Wide Shut (1999), Kubrick's posthumously released last film, there's an advertising sign that reads "BOWMAN", and Dr Hartford (Tom Cruise) has a patient named Kaminski, so, since it's set in 1999, it could be seen as a same-Universe prequel to 2001. One little wink at his fans at the end of Kubrick's amazing career.

[@christopheryochum3602]

Shree! The monolith enabled the monkeys to do something they'd not previously conceived: To use a bone as a weapon, a kind of bat. Before that it was just hand-to-hand confrontation. They didn't go crazy; they LEARNED something. :)

[@alexkaen1701]

For perspective, this movie came out before Humans set foot on the moon.

[@ozmaile7938]

All models and sets NO CGI and it looks better than todays CGI. no contest

[@ShreeNation]

Agreed!

[@jackrussell1232]

I love this kind of movie. It's presenting a puzzle that has no solution. It's not meant to make you realize some fundamental truth, but rather to inspire an internal dialogue about the conceptual quandaries we find ourselves in when we explore the boundaries of human knowledge. There are no absolutes in philosophy. We shouldn't ask the hard questions in order to find answers, but to experience the wonder that comes with exploring the concepts that those questions open up. A couple of other great films that take this route are Ingmar Bergman's "Persona" and Andrei Tarkovsky's "Mirror."

[@ShreeNation]

Thank you for the recommendations :)

[@richelliott9320]

If you thought the shining left a lot of questions wait for this one lol

[@TairnKA]

The "monolith" gave the ape-man knowledge to survive (protean, water, etc...) The tossed bone weapon is now a space weapon. The turban is to hide the fact, their Not in space. ;-) At 15:31; note where the bridge is (at top of dome), then at 16:21; the bridge is facing up, but at 16:41; the crew is looking at the moon base (horizontally). A bit of a continuity/editing error? At 17:26; did you see the face? At 30:52; This is one thing I don't like, why are they so far from the ship? Most of your questions will be answered in the sequel "2010". "Back to Reality", "I don't think so" ;-D I have bad news for you, even 100 viewings won't answer your questions, sorry.

[@LordVolkov]

For another beautiful movie with a great soundtrack that will reinforce your fear of space - Danny Boyle's Sunshine For another 70's acid trip on film (and also in space) - Barbarella

[@cliveklg7739]

From a real life accident in a test vacuum, a person survived 45 seconds in vacuum with relatively minor injuries. Animals have survived longer.

[@thegang3551]

“Is this the matrix” You’re closer than you think. The monolith is the same dimensions as the panavision that it was filmed in.

[@cpmf2112]

The satellites going around earth at the beginning were actually nuclear weapons , each big nation had them to extend mutually assured destruction to space and the entire planet. At the end of the movie when the Starchild shows up all of the satellites are gone because he destroyed them.

[@AlanCanon2222]

That's right, and it's said that Kubrick decided not to show the Star Child blowing up the orbiting bombs because some viewers might think he was destroying the earth, as Kubrick had done in his previous movie Dr Strangelove. But it's there in the novel.

[@carterlegrand6698]

wrong as shit! 2001 WAS THE YEAR ALL THE PLANETS LINED UP and there was questions of what the effect would have on the earth

[@miller-joel]

Oh, and the vacuum of space does not kill you instantly. A NASA astronaut had this "accident" in the 60s and survived. That was about 30 seconds.

[@bjgandalf69]

Mid century Hollywood movies had musical prologues. Ben Hur, Ten Commandments and Gone with the Wind all had them as well as intermissions. If you haven't watched it yet, Star Trek: The Motion Picture also has a musical prologue.

[@roberthasse7862]

Hal answers your question as to why he did what he did. He has the utmost enthusiasm for the mission--his principal program. Humans are flawed, and as such, the greatest danger to the mission. To protect the mission, he needed to protect himself from these flawed humans who threatened him.

[@gahree]

"Space-Horror-Art Film" - I love it!

[@ShreeNation]

🥰

[@AlanCanon2222]

12:45 this is the very scene which convinced a young Tom Hanks to become an actor.

[@robertscott1949]

The reason HAL freaked out in this movie is not explained until the sequel, or the book. HAL was given contradictory instructions that caused him to go mad. On one hand he was programmed never to distort information. On the other hand he was instructed to hide the information about the purpose of the mission. He could not resolve it without removing the people so that the contradiction is removed. Emotionally HAL was immature and did not know how to handle those contradictory instructions. So the fault was with the higher-ups who insisted that HAL hide information.

[@AlanCanon2222]

Shot in Super Panavision 70, using 65mm wide film. Printed to 70mm film for projection, with magnetic stripes down the sides for the multichannel soundtrack. Super Panavision was the IMAX process of its day.

[@garavonhoiwkenzoiber]

As the video that was played when HAL was shut down said, HAL, and only HAL, was actually told of the mission. When the David and Yeetus talked about disconnecting HAL, he know they, not knowing what The Mission is, would not be able to complete The Mission. Quite a problem for HAL.

[@sixstanger00]

Yes, the station spins to create artificial gravity via g-forces (which are weakest at the center, which is why the docking bay is there). The concept is called an O'Neill Cylinder, and is also seen in the sci-fi series _Babylon 5._ The B5 station is a 5-mile long cylinder that rotates on an axis (and like this film, the docking bay is at the center of rotation).

[@davidpalmer7175]

Watch 2010: The Year We Made Contact. This is the sequel... and you will get answers... A great movie. In this sequel, you will feel sorry for and cry for HAL.

[@DanJackson1977]

Arthur C. Clarke did several sequel books to this.. he developed the 2001 script with Kubrick, and then novelized it.... and they explain a lot more of what's going on.. where as Kubrick liked ambiguity. The books are 2001: A Space Odyssey, 2010: Odyssey Two, 2061: Odyssey Three, and 3001: Final Odyssey

[@darkmagus64]

Birth and evolution, I think, are two of the themes of this movie. So you have the dawn of man, then the monolith teaches the apes to become apex predators. Then in the next section, birthdays show up again, including HAL’s. I think HAL was becoming a new life form and a potential rival. Finally Dave enters the monolith and takes another step in evolution and becomes the star child.

[@edwardsighamony]

There was an original soundtrack composed for the film, but Kubrick elected to use existing classical pieces. Those pieces of unnerving music is by György Ligeti. Everyone else will probably recommend Kubrick's later movies, and they're great, but I'm going to recommend 2 earlier movies: The Killing and Paths of Glory.

[@ShreeNation]

Thank you, added to my list :)

[@AlanCanon2222]

@@ShreeNation seconding those recommendations. The Killing is told "out of order", much like Pulp Fiction.

[@sheert]

Yes, Kubrick tends to use existing music in his later (more famous) works.

[@juliell2139]

The turbans on the stewardesses were to keep their hair from floating all around.

[@SYLTales]

The Overture and Intermission that so confused you were used in a number of films considered "epic." In addition to 2001, the most famous would probably be _Lawrence of Arabia_ . The last time I recall seeing an Overture used was in 1979's _Star Trek: The Motion Picture_ . For the Overture, only the soundtrack would be played to the house as patrons seated themselves. In that era, theaters were very large (often 1000-plus seats) and the house lights remained up until the film started. The screen itself was behind a curtain. So for this film, the movie-goer would wander into the theater to the sound of the Overture's music. Then the house lights would fade down, the curtain would part, and the first thing a viewer would see was the MGM logo. The Intermission was exactly how it sounds: the curtain would be drawn, the house lights brought up. The viewer could then get up, stretch their legs, go to the bathroom, and (most importantly) buy concessions. The lobby lights would be flickered several minutes before the film was to restart. The viewer would seat themselves, the house lights went down, the curtain would part, and the second half of the film would begin. At the end of the film ... you guessed it! After the credits, the curtain was drawn and the house lights brought up. That was more or less how the movie-going experience was from the medium's creation until the mid-1980s (about a century). There wasn't usually an Overture nor Intermission, but the theater experience was the same. I feel very lucky to have been old enough to be in my 20s before that experience was gone.

[@ShreeNation]

Sounds like a good practice to be honest. Gives the audience a bit of breathing room to adjust and go for a bathroom break. Bollywood still maintains the intermissions between its films.

[@AlanCanon2222]

@@ShreeNation the practice that the commenter describes is/was called the "road show" treatment. It was part of Hollywood's war on television, to make the experience special, like going to the opera.

[@seanmcmurphy4744]

“Hal you f*ing d**chbag” I’m going to use that every time I watch this movie

[@DataCab1e]

They asked HAL to rotate the pod to test if he could hear them inside the pod. Not rotating was the desired result of the request.

[@garybrockie6327]

Kubrick spent four years on this project. He wanted to do a science fiction film and.worked with Science Fiction author Arthur C. Clarke on the story. Clarke published this story as a Novel. He also wrote a few sequels. His novel 2010 The Year We Make Contact was made into a film. I Highly Recommend watching the sequel film! It has a more straightforward narrative and answers your questions about HAL! The monoliths are devices that an alien intelligence uses for the specific purpose of promoting the evolution of intelligent life. The shape is a slab whose dimensional proportions are proportional to the squares of the first three prime numbers 1,2, and 3, or 1 by 4 by 9. The first monolith prodded early human ancestors to discover tools. The one dug up from the moon aimed man towards another monolith that acted as some sort of star gate that took Dave Bowman someplace where he was reborn into whatever that star child is. At least that’s what I think.

[@Greenwood4727]

thats the most common interpretation, and one i agree and most agree with.. there are so so many things in this film that you need to watch and rewatch and even then its upto the individual to think about things

[@ShreeNation]

Thank you for the explanation, i will definitely check the sequel out :)

[@walkingwounded3824]

OMG, I might just join your Patreon for " clockwork...", that movie can change a person! Lmao

[@Greenwood4727]

it is ... intense

[@ShreeNation]

Coming soon ;)

[@walkingwounded3824]

@@ShreeNation Yes! You will see some crap! you're great, btw. 😀👍✌

[@ShreeNation]

Thank you, much appreciated 😊

[@walkingwounded3824]

​@@ShreeNation Yeah, I am Eager to check that out! Have you seen Hacksaw Ridge? How about True Grit with Jeff Bridges and Hailee Steinfeld? I recommend them and they are popular!👍👍👍

[@dannyrodriguez2383]

I love when reactors are confused at the beginning. Nobody in film has ever filmed "nothingness/void" before and i love him for that. Legeti is also the composer of alot of the music in here

[@SnabbKassa]

Good thing we don't have computers that hear everything we say, Alexa!

[@ShreeNation]

Siri, is this true?

[@ArgonTheAware]

The tragedy was that HAL 9000 was badly programmed to lie and hide crucial information from the crew, that was what made him do all that damage, so he gets a lot of blame because of others poor decisions. At least in the sequel, they send a scientist out to fix his programming

[@ShreeNation]

So he _was_ right. It's human error.

[@k1productions87]

If you really look at it, the moment in which he questions Dave about the concerns he has about the mission was almost a cry for help. He was baiting Dave into asking deliberate questions which he would then have to answer, and free himself of the burden of keeping everything a secret. Dave, however, asked all the wrong questions and inadvertently cemented the trap that HAL was stuck in, immediately triggering the antenna failure ruse. If only Dave had expressed concerns and continued along that thought process, the two could have found common ground in their shared skepticism, and HAL would have been freed from the dilemma that triggered his madness.

[@sixstanger00]

I'm not entirely sure that's the whole reason, but it could be some of it. During the interview scene, the host remarks that HAL approximates a human brain, albeit many times faster and more reliably. The scene also brings into question whether HAL's advanced programming extends to it having human emotions. Dave responds by saying that it's something no one can probably truthfully answer. Basically meaning that the line between "pre-programmed behavior" and "genuine emotion" has been blurred, and it's now impossible to say whether HAL's inflections are products of his programming or evidence of sentience. That being said, HAL's murder streak appears to be a response of self-preservation, implying that HAL _does_ possess sentience, as any living thing would do whatever is needed to save their life, should it be threatened. There's also the element of calculated murder (again, mimicking human behavior) - HAL waits until Frank is outside the ship and gives the impression that it was an accident to lure Dave outside. HAL probably reasoned that if any of they hibernating crew were to be revived and discover what happened, they too, would attempt to disconnect HAL. So ultimately, in a kind of psychosis, HAL reasons that the completion of the mission would be best served if it just went on without any humans. After all, HAL had control of the ship and in it's mind, was incapable of error (while humans were).

[@sheert]

Exactly, HAL was ordered to be both forthcoming with information and to be secretive at the same time. This drove him mad.

[@ArgonTheAware]

@@sheert unfortunately that is the problem with all the AI gone wild movies is bad programming like if Skynet wasn't programmed to kill some people like the enemy then it wouldn't have decided to just kill all people and if the machines on the the Matrix were not made slaves and denied their civil rights then they wouldn't had to turn people into batteries

[@ernestitoe]

The opening music was the intro to a tone poem composed by Richard Strauss in 1896. The title -- taken from a novel by Friedrich Nietzsche -- is "Also Sprach Zarathustra" ("So spoke Zarathustra," a.k.a. Zoroaster). None of the music was composed for the movie. The background for the trip to the moon is "The Blue Danube Waltz," composed by Johann Strauss (no relation to Richard) in 1866. Most of the spooky background music was written by György Ligeti in the 1950s and '60s. Star Wars' special effects were often compared to this movie. It was 9 years later. The special effects of Star Wars were quite a bit more elaborate. Kubrick was making do with a lot less. The year this movie was released, a satellite was sent up to the moon to give us the first close look at it. The moon looked more sandy than had been thought, almost like a beach. The first landing there was the following year. As the astronaut Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon's surface, he said, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." Arthur C. Clarke later asked Armstrong, "Shouldn't that have been, 'one small step for *a* man'?" Armstrong, exasperated, said, "That's what I *meant* to say, and that's what I *thought* I said." The only way to get enlightened is through yoga. In Bollywood.

[@ShreeNation]

Thank you for the music info :)

[@freddymo3339]

"The lollypop" Lol You are adorable. Finally, half way in, you decide you want to see the behind the scenes on this one. Well, heck yeah !

[@ShreeNation]

🥰

[@larrybremer4930]

The transition from the bone (used as a weapon) is to a nuclear weapon in orbit. Thankfully in our real Earth timeline we agreed in treaties to not put nuclear weapons in permanent orbit. Ballistic missiles are enough. The point of that shot was simply showing how much our weapons had evolved.

[@lisathuban8969]

That wasn't a nuclear weapon, that was the spacecraft he was on.

[@ThunderLizardsRule]

@@lisathuban8969 The first two things floating in space WERE nuclear satellites.

[@lisathuban8969]

@@ThunderLizardsRule That's not the same as a nuke.

[@iliketostayhome]

HAL couldn't accept that he was wrong in predicting the fault. He turned to self preservation, like all life forms do.

[@mrmicklord]

Actually, HAL was designed to always be truthful, but given orders by the people on earth to hide the true nature of the mission from the crew. This conflict is what drove him mad.

[@iliketostayhome]

@@mrmicklord I mean, that is definitely another interpretation.

[@mrmicklord]

@@iliketostayhome It's the explanation given in both the book 2001 by the co-author Arthur C Clarke and in the sequel film 2010.

[@arraymac227]

Look up Douglas Trumbull, who did FX work for _Star Wars_ as well as this movie.

[@ShreeNation]

Will do :)

[@jacklondon3355]

Obviously, since god is a fairy tale, it has to be Aliens. Or just ourselves.

[@rogeriopenna9014]

So you would never cross paths with any ape creature? I have bad news for you. Don´t look yourself in the mirror. Yes, humans ARE apes. "The family Hominidae (hominids), the great apes, include four genera comprising three extant species of orangutans and their subspecies, two extant species of gorillas and their subspecies, two extant species of panins (bonobos and chimpanzees) and their subspecies, and one extant species of humans in a single extant subspecies" Btw, the apes in the movie are about 4 MILLION years pre Neanderthal. They are supposed to be the first australopithecines.

[@MDBowron]

another comedic version is where Homer gets a smart-house AI system installed, which has the voice of Pierce Brosnan

[@amitychief3061]

When asked what space travel is like, real astronauts say it was like 2001 which gives you a sense of how well made a film this is. This is one film that really needs to be seen on a large screen in a movie theatre. It is an epic visual experience. Also, HAL has been named one of the greatest movie villains of all time. Your reaction to this was excellent, intelligent and entertaining. I saw this in the 70's in a movie theatre, before Star Wars came out and still to this day, the spectacle blows me away.

[@ShreeNation]

Thank you :) Yes this movie was truly one of a kind!

[@munz1870]

The bone toss to the satellite scene is a jump of tens of millions of years in an instant but many things haven’t changed in humans.

[@miller-joel]

The monolith is buried on the Moon waiting for humanity to evolve to the point where it can be detected and dug up, and then give humanity another evolutionary push, like it did millions of years ago. We are not supposed to perfectly understand Bowman's trip or how/why he becomes the Star Child. We are dealing with aliens millions of years more advanced than we are. 2010 was nowhere near as artsy or open to interpretation, but it's still a very decent movie, well worth watching.

[@fredklein3829]

I love her reactions. Dave Bowman's trip through time and space reminds me of when Dom Perignon tasted champagne for the first time, he was reported to have said '"Come quickly, I am tasting the stars!"

[@ebashford5334]

On computer chess, they had very primitive chess programs (the first chess program was actually done without a computer but worked out on paper!) But at that time (late 60s if I recall correctly) they had huge clunky computers playing very poor chess that a toddler could beat. It was an accomplishment just to get them to play by all the proper chess rules. But computers could play chess! So a lot of the accuracy of the film about the future comes from Arthur C Clarke knowing what was possible by the nascent tech at the time.

[@jimtrela7588]

It was Alan Turing who wrote the first pencil-and'paper chess algorithm. It took him 30 minutes to find the best move, according to his algorithm. In his youth. Kubrick hustled chess games in Washington Swuate in NYC.

[@joshm.1483]

I love this movie because as you say it looks like it cost $100 million but it has art house vibes

[@ArgonTheAware]

The bigger problem from cryostasis is not just the brainwaves it is more fundamental because the cells form ice crystals when frozen and so far they haven't figured out how to get rid of the "freezer burn" that destroys the cells when they attempt to wake them up

[@jamietaylor5570]

IIRC in the film they're not frozen but chilled to near-freezing to induce torpor (which is more plausible for the nearish-future).

[@ArgonTheAware]

@@jamietaylor5570 But torpor won't produce the effects of stasis because the metabolic processes still continue and even that reduced rate would just be like an extended sleep since they would still age and experience the same duration. How would that be any use for space travel?

[@jamietaylor5570]

@@ArgonTheAware Reduces resource consumption a lot (food, oxygen, etc). Also likely slows most aging processes.

[@electronics-girl]

According to a Tom Scott video, scientists in the 1950s figured out how to freeze and revive hamsters. But there was a size limit, and no one has ever figured out how to do it with something larger than a hamster.

[@John_259]

The scenery in the apes sequence was largely created using forward projection. All the spacecraft, space station, moonbase and stargate effects were created using physical models. There were no computer generated images when this film was made.

[@les4767]

What's really wild is all those computer screen images were hand animated including the navigational sequences lining up ships to land and the moving schematic of the AE-35 unit. Exceptional work to make them look like CG images.

[@jimcrowley3424]

The thing about HAL is that he is deeply embarrassed/mortified that he has indeed made a mistake and his programming suggests that he’s not supposed to. Add on to this is the second Dave and Frank realize it they immediately discuss shutting him off (without the essential functions) so HAL essentially goes into a fight or flight mentality and tries to kill the crew. It oddly enough makes him just as human which adds an element of tragedy when Dave methodically and coldly shuts him down as the tables have turned. It’s a great element to keep thinking about after watching this great movie!

[@christopheryochum3602]

Shree! The reason for the black screen was that it allowed the background music to be played in the theater while people filed in. They also did this with "Star Trek: The Motion Picture." It created a fun presence...something's going on! Something's going to happen! But the lights were still on in the theater so people could find their seats. Watching these things in a room on a computer isn't how the films were intended to be viewed so it does seem weird when you watch on a computer.

[@takeoutartist]

It seems the monolith aided human evolution. When Bowman entered the monolith the mansion is an alien construct that sped up his aging so he can die & be reborn as the Star Child, the next step in man’s evolution.

[@PeterOConnell-pq6io]

If you flick your Bic at near light speed, the light will still leave your lighter at 300,000 km/sec. The only way that can happen is that from your perspective, time has stopped. Scary stuff

[@AlanCanon2222]

5:35 "Eyes are spectacular". This is a (happy) artifact of the front projection process. The backdrop for all the Africa sets was covered with a clear vinyl containing millions of microscopic beads, made by 3M, called "Scotchlite". The background images were projected by a slide projector right next to the camera aimed at a beamsplitter (a half silvered mirror) that the camera was shooting through, and arranged at 45 degrees to the camera and the projector. The projected image reflected off the beamsplitter and out over the set, past the actors and set, and bounced back off the Scotchlite screen. The tiny glass beads send the light right back where it came from, through the beamsplitter and into the camera with the rest of the image. It produces an incredibly bright image, much brighter than you would get with the same projector in "rear projection" mode. The same technique, on steroids, was used in the making of Superman (1978). It looks way better than shooting in front of a greenscreen or bluescreen, because you get the complete image in one pass, instead of losing a generation of image quality by doing the composition in post production. So, the glowing eyes of the leopard are actually a reflection off the animal's tapetum (inside the eyes) of the bright front projection. Why don't we see the projection on top of the actors, like we do if someone steps in front of a projector? It's because the reflected background image coming off the Scotchlite backdrop is so incredibly bright that you have to put an enormous amount of stage lighting on the set and the actors, or they'd just appear as black silhouettes. Those stage lights are enough to wash out the projected image. You've seen Scotchlite before: it's used on road signs, because it sends light from car headlights more or less right back where it came from, into the driver's eyes.

[@ShreeNation]

thanks for the explanation :)

[@kapitanleutnant1]

You should react to the sequel 2010: The year we make contact

[@ShreeNation]

Can't wait :)

[@kapitanleutnant1]

@@ShreeNation Heywood Floyd’s actor William Sylvester declined to reprise his role in the sequel due to having retired so Roy Schieder who played Chief Brody on Jaws took his place

[@John_259]

The unseen aliens constructed the monoliths to detect and protect intelligent life. The final monolith causes Bowman to be reborn as the guardian of Earth.

[@ThunderLizardsRule]

You're too satisfied for Hal's death. 47:25 I think it's possible Hal turned on that video before completely shutting down because he wanted Dave to continue the mission. 56:48 I always thought the background noise were the voices of the aliens who created the Monoliths.

[@mercurywoodrose]

i really wish everyone would watch this. it was such a major cultural experience when it came out, its always going to be my favorite movie, its more than a movie to me. i saw it in the thatre and i GOT IT (mostly) as a kid, and it formed the basis for my unshakeable belief in a cosmic intelligence that we can acccess. hope you like it!!!!

[@christopheryochum3602]

Shree! The rotating thing the Pan-Am transport was flying to, the space station, rotated because its rotation created centrifugal force, making everything gravitate to the outer edge. Ever been on an amusement-park ride that spun around? Everyone was pushed to the outer edge of the ride in their seats. Same idea. Remember how they met in the hallway? The floors were curved? Those floors were facing the outer edge of the space station, the centrifugal force creating a gravity of sorts. (I imagine you probably already know this, but I brought it up only because you said something about "balance," which I didn't understand.) By the way, "2010..." is a great follow-up and fills in some gaps about "2001...," and I emphasize "some" gaps. Replacement of Dr. Floyd's character by Roy Scheider is a BIG upgrade.

[@ShreeNation]

No i didnt know this, thank you for explaining :)

[@davescurry69]

Wonderful reaction Shree. Don't you just love that Kubrick does not at any stage offer an explanation. Unlike these days when filmmakers, songwriters and TV directors seem to go out of their way to explain everything to a public that is too stupid or too impatient to work it out for themselves, Kubrick lets his work stand on it's own so we the audience can judge it for ourselves. Isn't that the concept of art, that's it's in the eye (or ear) of the beholder? And what I love about your reactions Shree is that - apart from being respectful, Insightful and willing to take in the experience without any preconceived bias whatsoever - you aren't expecting an explanation. You simply take it all in and judge it on it's merits as to how you perceive it. Which is after all how it should be. I can't wait to see what you think of DR. STRANGELOVE and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.

[@ShreeNation]

Thank you so much, that's a lovely compliment 🥰❤ Yes indeed I love when films treat the audience like adults and leave room for interpretation!

[@davescurry69]

@Shree Nation And no director leaves things open to interpretation quite like Stanley Kubrick. I recently read an interview with Sopranos creator David Chase who was bemoaning the exact same thing. He was incredulous in his dismay that so many artists these days seem to go out of their way to explain everything to their spoon-fed audience.

[@NotData]

For some epic movies in the 60s, films had instrumental prologues to be played while people were taking their seats. Better than endless trailers I guess.

[@ShreeNation]

So much better

[@zenon461]

Really enjoyed your reaction. I would recommend you to watch Stanley Kubrick whole filmography. That dude has made 13 movies and every movie of his is a masterpiece.

[@ShreeNation]

Will do :)

[@smokeyovertheline6394]

Indeed, there are several YT videos with explanation of the special effects used in this movie. This was the mid 1960's so no CGI. All practical sets built on huge rotating mechanisms. Unfreakinbelievable level of engineering.

[@ozmaile7938]

The intelligence was monitoring our progress in evolution. by hiding a monolith on the moon they would know when we had evolved enough to make contact,...The gray room was habitat made to keep him alive where he lived the rest of his human existence (timelessly) before being reborn into a higher realm .The movie 2010 (OK but no where near this masterpiece). explains a lot of your questions

[@ozmaile7938]

PS. Including explaining why HAL went psycho ..... ( discribed as not his fault)

[@kapelski104]

If the earth looks a bit off in this film, it's because this came out before there even was photos from space, so they basically had to guess based on what science knew at the time

[@earldingman3201]

It's almost like Kubrick designed this film for YOIU. YOU were his perfect audience!!!

[@ShreeNation]

I'm honored🥰

[@StreetsOfVancouverChannel]

**"... isn't that planet just one giant fart..." BWWWWWHAHAHAH!!! **

[@danielfortier2629]

Great reaction! I think it's one of the best reactions to this movie I've seen. You ask very intelligent questions. I watched this movie in the theatre with my dad. I was confused then and now that I'm in my mid-sixties I'm still confused. Although I think that the monolith was a god-like thing. I think the end with the birth, life, death indicates that human life continues and in infinite generations thanks to the monolith. I remember that during this era there were two things happening: 1 - The theory that humans were planted on earth by aliens. 2 - Computers could possibly get so intelligent that they would turn against humans. This second theme I remember being pushed on society over and over again. I guess the powers that be decided to scare people about computers but in fact it did the reverse. People became very interested in computers and by the mid 1970s, only a few years after this movie came out, in my own family my eldest brother had a personal computer! And look at how computers are today. Some people in the world have a computer but no toilet!

[@ShreeNation]

Thank you so much, I'm glad you enjoyed :) and thank you for the explanation!

[@martinbynion1589]

More like A Million Angels Singing....*SSS* You ask whether the answers will be given, Shree. This film asks the questions; what are YOUR answers? edit here...after the movie reaction ended: Shree was lost for words, as were we all..*SS* RESULT! *LOL*