CHRISTOPHER NOLAN TALKS ABOUT STANLEY KUBRICK AND 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY

Christopher Nolan on the Director's Director - Stanley Kubrick.
If you are a fan/collector of film art, pop-culture art, fan art, and fine art, follow the links below for high-quality art prints and merch (as well as options for customized/commissioned works). You'll find some of my artwork featured there:
Use Code EZZALX for a 20% discount
kulturarts.pixels.com/
You can also visit the KA Etsy store with the following link for a 20% discount:
kulturarts.etsy.com?coupon=KAKZbin
Code KAKZbin for a 20% discount
Like, subscribe, and share if you liked this video and want to see more like it. Your comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated, and I enjoy reading them as well as replying (time allowing).
Buying high-quality products via the links helps me directly, including the production of more videos and artwork as I am an affiliate, artistic contributor, and curator. I'm sure you will find something to your liking. So thank you all for your support.
ABOUT THIS VIDEO:
Director Christopher Nolan discusses Stanley Kubrick along with his thoughts on 2001, it's production, and working on the "unrestored" 70mm release. Featuring some amazing behind-the-scenes photographs taken during the making of this masterpiece.

[@xxnightopsxx]

I had the opportunity to see both the unrestored and restored versions of the film in cinemas and I think both had their merits. The unrestored version was hated by many but it brought back some of the warmth and nostalgia that the restored version lacked. Nolan definitely has reverence for Kubrick's work, do you think that he is the Kubrick of our time - not that anyone could really replace Stanley?

[@divyenjoshi1168]

I think Nolan is one of the greatest directors of modern times. Kubrick's motto was 'show don't tell' and Nolan's films with the exception of Dunkirk have a lot of exposition and over explanatory dialogue. I think Blade Runner 2049 by Denis Villeneuve is way more Kubrick esque and I think Villeneuve has a stronger style, especially for visuals.

[@salvulcano1665]

Divyen Joshi I’ve always said that Nolan is more of a mix of Kubrick, Cameron, and Mann and Villanueve is more closer to Kubrick than anyone else.

[@voiceover2191]

No, Nolan is not the new Kubrick, as much as I like quite a few of his movies, indeed topped by Interstellar but even that movie of course in no shape or form is quality wise even in the same ballpark as 2001, which is ok, no movie is in my opinion and I don't like all of Kubrick's movies, Still think that Full Metal Jacket is overrated, way better Vietnam movies around, like Platoon or Apocalypse Now and don't like The Shining, sorry, Kubrick is not the man for a movie about the supernatural, simply not his cup of tea and don't know what attracted him to make that movie. Even King hated that adaptation of his novel. I also didn't care for Barry Lyndon, couldn't connect to its story. All others to me are master pieces, well, ok The Killing is a good movie, not a masterpiece. Nolan's movies are conceptual efforts, which on the surface makes him similar to Kubrick, but they are so different in all other ways, I don't see grounds for comparison. Tenet was a boring mess of a movie even though it was filled with action, but it just exhausted me, but felt empty, like Villeneuve's Blade Runner sequel, a visual feast, but no heart or really any decent story to tell and characters you couldn't care less about.

[@MrGittz]

Lol. Nolan is so far removed from Kubrick this question is *almost* insulting. Kubrick was a MASTER. Shot composition, editing, writing, everything. Nolan? His shot compositions are haphazard & sloppy. His editing is often very poorly done, tho there are exceptions. But his writing? His writing is straight up poor. Kubrick would hate it. Nolan is all exposition & plot. Very little character or nuance. He relies on coincidence and contrivances far too often.

[@MrGittz]

@@divyenjoshi1168 I agree completely, except that Nolan is one of the great modern directors. I think he’s vastly overrated and his style is very poor. Denis Villeneuve is 100% more in line with Kubrick than Nolan. Nolan, like you say, is all exposition. Very little character work or nuance. He’s a very poor screenwriter.

[@JOEMORRISSEY70]

I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey during its opening week at New York's Capitol Theatre. It was a road show attraction and I was fifteen years old. From beginning to end it was the most astounding thing I'd ever seen. I'm not merely talking about the vaunted special effects but more importantly the narrative structure and the experience itself. When my cousin - who was also fifteen - and I left the theatre we laughed with joy. We could not believe that someone had actually pulled this off. A science-fiction film that was actually a multi layered interpretive work of art. Who would have thought to do that?

[@qounqer]

I saw it for the first time in 2013, and it was still so vastly different from most things I’ve seen. Just how silent and eerie space is made to feel

[@josephgrossenbacher7642]

i perfectly understand you , @Joe Morrissey , though you are a decade 'older' than me ( i.e. as old as my best friend ) & accordingly , i saw "2001" a decade later than you for __the first time__ : it was , back then , a "5 minute thing" & i instantly hold my seat for the next screening ... !!!

[@speedracer1945]

I saw it in the theater in 1972 , my class from jr high took us cuz I was young I didn't grasp the whole concept at the time but our teacher broke it down for us in class the next day.

[@gregsmith7949]

Only one person: Stanley Kubrick.

[@fidomusic]

I first saw 2001 when it came out on Cinerama in London, 1968. I was 16 years old, and it blew me away. I write this in 2021 and it is still by far my fav film. Nothing to touch it.

[@Charles_Bro-son]

Filmmakers and production companies don't have the courage anymore to create sequences that unfold themselves like in 2001. To be fair, audiences who appreciate that kind of uncompromised cinematography probably have become very niche as well.

[@josephpravda9452]

Huzzah.......similar frisson, one such that I have easily viewed in albeit on disc, 2001 times. Kubrick and Clarke's choice of monolith as construct vs 'alien' cliche was epic within a epic of an epoch.

[@josephgrossenbacher7642]

... mine too ... !!!

[@speedracer1945]

Nolan was saying people walked out in the premieres first half though the second half is the best part .

[@geneobrien8907]

I took acid when I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968, I was 18 and the experience left me with a lifelong passion for this film. I've read everything I could get my hands on about it and listened to countless analysis of it. But the original experience, without understanding everything, was incomparable, it was the most immersive experience of a work of art which I've ever known. Aside from that, I left the theater with so much hope for the future of space travel, I still pine for that feeling.

[@Markus_Andrew]

I know exactly where you're coming from, Gene. I was 9 when I first saw it in 1969 (mind-altering substances were still in my future, lol) and I was sure that by 2001 I'd be able to take a vacation on the moon. That turned out to be a pipe dream... Still, I love this movie for its pioneering originality and for Kubrick's masterful pushing of the cinematic envelope. I've always admired those who dare to be original and not kowtow to passing trends.

[@Mr_Kenneth]

Fuck yeah! I heard taking acid was the ultimate way to see the movie. Thanks for being do honest man. Extasy at a rave was my bag

[@russellszabadosaka5-pindin849]

@Gene O’Brien funny, I dropped acid and went to see its sequel, 2010, in early 1985 when I was 18 and walked out feeling exactly the same way. I had not watched 2001 yet, but I ran out the following week and bought the book, then watched the film. It started a fascination with that whole alternate reality Arthur C Clarke helped create, and expanded upon in three sequels (2010, 2061 and 3001) that persists to this day.

[@geneobrien8907]

@@russellszabadosaka5-pindin849 That's great! I read the sequel books also! After seeing the movie, I found a series of rather thin, brightly colored hardcover books which I located at the public library in Madison, NJ. Each book covered a separate movie and I wish I could recall the author or publisher but the one on 2001: A Space Odyssey provided the best insights out of any other material on that topic. In a way it's a shame you weren't around to experience the unity of 60's counterculture but it's good to know that people kept the dream alive.

[@dallasbhowell8485]

I watched it on acid two summers ago. Most LSD I've consumed and the biggest impact a film has had on me. It's still alive!

[@ProjectEnglishII]

So prescient. Just watched 2001 again tonight. I get something new every time. It really was so ahead of its time.

[@chonconnor6144]

2001 really does hold up in every aspect, the narrative, effects, acting, writing, cinematography, just come together to create a near perfect work of art.

[@Anti-FreedomD.P.R.ofSouthKorea]

I don't know if I could manage to appreciate any other movies after this one really 😂😂

[@IvorPresents]

In 1968 I turned twenty. I lived in New York and saw 2001 at the Cinerama theater. I was an Art major at college and was a movie fan. The movie hit me so hard I was stunned. Its was beautiful. and like magic. It showed a vision of more than thirty years in the future. Things looked real and believable and they did not yet exist. I have seen this movie dozens of times down the years. The old VCR's nearly killed it. Now I have a DVD in the widescreen format. it works. When they were talking about the timeless score. One of the fellows said that the music tends to date the film. I thought it Ironic that he should mention Forbidden Planet, 1956, He could have better used Destination Moon. 1950 for a more typical score. Forbidden planet, was groundbreaking, akin to 2001, for its Electronic Tonalities replacing a standard score. A first and daring move.and memorable.as was Kubric's choices. The "Atmospheres: by Ligeti is now timeless. I recall my disappointment finding that there was more than the fanfare in the composition," 'Also sprach Zarathustra'" But noting as stirring within.

[@patrickmulroney9452]

i was the same age as you..wonderful experience!

[@paxwallacejazz]

I was 8 in 68 saw it at the big theatre in my town. It became my favorite film by age 14. It remains so today. Oh BTW became a composer and Legiti is one of my favourites. Legiti isnt old music he was about Kubricks age.

[@tguy80]

Yes, I was 12 in 68 when I saw it for the first time. Going to see the re-restored 70mm print at Cinesphere in Toronto tonight. Feels like going full circle.

[@OrangePony75]

*Ligeti. Gyorgy Ligeti.

[@jamessmithe5490]

I saw this film when I was 13 under ideal circumstances. Curved, large screen and banks of speakers that blasted out Thus Spake Zarathustra. It was electrifying, especially for someone who watched movies on a black and white television at home. Best movie experience of my life.

[@xxnightopsxx]

I was in 6th grade and watched it sitting crossed legged on school gym floor with my class. The teachers and projectionist asked us questions afterwards and they admitted to not understanding the film. I remember the projectionist said he’d seen the film well over a few dozen times and still didn’t fully understand it. I didn’t fully understand what I’d seen but like other commenters here I was blown away. I managed to take my kids to an independent cinema to see the unrestored version which was a stones throw away from my school where I’d first seen 2001.

[@helisoma]

wow most of these production photos i've never seen 😳😳😳

[@WilliamHBaird-eq2hp]

One of the greatest films of all time... The Blue Danube Waltz is iconic for the Space Scenes

[@mikebasil4832]

Thank you, Chris, for all your thoughtful words on one of my favourite science-fiction films. 🖖🏻

[@stewartmackay]

I love the fact that there is no standard storyline, no usual American hero saving the day set to French horns, no cheesy love interest, and in fact sometimes it's hard to tell exactly whats going on & you have to fill in your own answers. The first time I saw it I was completely blown away, it made me realise what could be done with movies by a truly brilliant director. I don't think there's ever been anything like it since. For me, it's one of the most incredible movies ever made.

[@foetaltreborus2017]

Saw this in Bristol uk in 1969 ? ..in the gorgeous Centre Cinema , which as you did then , we qued out side with my parents ....never saw seating like it , curved screen & a curtain which didn't pull back till several minutes in to darkenning blue light ? . I was stunned coming out . I still have the original booklet they sold in the foyer , & have " Ligeti's " usual suspects " on my iPod .....an aftermath ...few years later that stunning cinema was ransacked & made into three small screen cinemas ..walked out of them - never went back to any cinema for years . On you tube you can watch an orchestra actually play "Atmospheres" ...to get those sounds- that glass breaking note that always stops me breathing ! ,, amazing & "Lux Aeterna " & "Requiem ll - Kyrie "....Ah Ligeti !

[@gregsmith7949]

Stanley Kubrick is in class all by himself. It's amazing that whatever genre he tackled, he ends up making the ultimate film in that genre. Whether It's a black comedy, a dystopian future, horror, a period piece, or war, he has set himself apart as a master of his craft.

[@xxnightopsxx]

A one of a kind, a shame he didn't make more films, but quality over quantity anyday....

[@davidawimsett]

Mr. Nolan, thank you for bringing 2001: A Space Odyssey back to it's glory. Your dedication is wonderful. I too prefer film to video. The 70mm print with the original six channel soundtrack is amazing. When HAL speaks, his voice echoes as if it's coming from speakers located around the ship. The same effect occurs with the background announcement in Space Station 5, "Will Mr. Travers please contact the MET office" and "A Blue Ladies Cashmere Sweater Has Been Found In The Restroom. It Can Be Claimed At The Managers Desk." Yet, this is not how the film was shot and originally released. Rather, it was shot and first shown in Cinerama, a process developed in the late 1950s to draw people back to the theaters from television. An 180 degree screen surrounds the audience so their forward and peripheral vision is immersed in the film. Three separate, synchronized projectors filled the massive screen. This gives a more realistic sense of 3D than modern films with Polaroid glasses. Early Cinerama films such as How the West was Won (which I also saw in Cinerama) were shot with three cameras, but 2001: A space Odyssey was shot with Super Panavision 70 cameras that used special lenses and 65mm film stock that was printed on 70mm with the extra 5mm used for the magnetic, six track sound track. That's how I first saw 2001: A Space Odyssey in Los Angeles at the age of 15 and it changed my life. It's the reason I became a novelist, photographer and film maker. I have now seen the film at least three dozen times since in Cinerama, 70mm, 35mm, drive-ins, TV (pan and Scan and wide screen), VHS, Laser Disk, DVD and Blur-Ray. It never gets old. I last viewed it in July of 2024 on Blue-Ray. I was just going to look at the opening and wound up watching the entire movie through the end credits and exit music.

[@maverick1685]

I was 12 years old when I saw it - Fantastic!

[@xxnightopsxx]

Same, for me it was sitting cross legged on the floor in the school gym. While I obviously couldn’t connect all the dots I knew I’d seen something amazing. Funnily enough I remember the projectionist saying he’d seen it well over a dozen times and still didn’t understand it….

[@alsoffice12]

One of my first clear memories is being five years old in the car and being told by my parents they were going to take me to a new movie that had just been released and they knew I would like it because I was into space. I saw 2001 in 1968 in cinema scope and even though I was only five years old, I remember being blown away. There’s been nothing like it since.

[@voiceover2191]

The first time I saw it, was as a student and the cinema had some pictures out front from the movie and all it showed were images of a space ship and space, so when it started and I saw this colony of apes, I actually thought I was in the wrong movie, but something about it compelled me to stay and even though I understood less than half of it, I was completely blown away by it and gave me a complete new look at how movies can be made, the same way my first experience of a Tarkowsky movie could give me.

[@lfrankow]

How incredible would it be, to see a restored version of 2001 in a proper Cinerama theater ?

[@ltmundy1164]

Teasing begets torture. Would greatly enjoy digital equivalent of 70mm, but the concept just doesn't fit the worldview of bean counters currently inhabiting Hollywood.

[@richardrose2606]

Many people think it's a Cinerama movie but it's not. Cinerama is a three camera filming method. 2001 was shown in Cinerama theaters because they were able to show wide-screen movies. Seeing a 70mm version is very close to the original aspect ratio.

[@xxnightopsxx]

Magical, in every respect….

[@Alexander-tj2dn]

The first time I saw 2001 I was ten years old and I loved it.

[@jgesselberty]

Saw 2001: A Space Odyssey, as a teen, when it first came out. In Cinerama, no less. Still one of my most memorable movie experiences.

[@xxnightopsxx]

An amazing experience from the sounds of it. Way back when in alt.movies.kubrick someone mentioned seeing 2001 in IMAX and said it was close to a religious experience. It was something I could only dream of until the 50th Anniversary when I saw the unrestored edition mentioned in this video and then the IMAX version, both were fantastic in their own way and I have to agree about the religious experience. As a bonus I got to take my 10 year old son to both and he loved it (he’d only seen it once on bluray previously)….

[@TinyMaths]

This is not one of those films where I think; " you know what, I feel like watching a film tonight, let me just pick something out ". I've thought of watching this film several times in the last few months, but haven't watched it because, I must be in the right mood. You know, to be completely transported away, with nothing to distract me, nobody in the house, or at least not being able to hear anybody talking or moving around. I want to be completely absorbed in it. I want to experience that 'what the hell just happened' feeling after coming back to reality once the movie is over. Will probably have to watch it in the middle of the night when all the other tenants are asleep to be able to enjoy the full effect; or perhaps very early on a Sunday morning when others want to lie in. 2001 was made a two years before I was born, but I got to see it on TV in around 1981 when I was 10; it was instant love. Not sure I'll ever get the cinema experience though. I remember lending my copy to a friend of mine and telling her to watch it. She said she couldn't finish it because she found it 'BORING'. It's great to hear that the presenters here are talking about how the film presents an 'unconventional' narrative. I almost feel that nothing in this movie is handed to you on a plate, and you are left completely on your own to make of it what you will; no safety net of meaning predetermined. I get how that might be uncomfortable for some people.

[@Guest_1138]

I was at the Cinerama dome in 2019 to see the version he speaks of. Nolan came to intro the film. Amazing accept for the morons behind me eating snacks very loudly during the section with no sound at all. Almost ruined the screening. The nerve of some people. We were there as fans and to see this rare one time screening of this version of the film and the people behind me, munched away as if they didn’t care. I actually turned and said something like, hey, this isn’t dinner theatre.

[@jgesselberty]

You find them in every theater.

[@Bubbles99718]

Demon Seed! Nolan referenced Demon Seed! That's thoroughly awesome. Wish he would talk about that little strangely awesome flick

[@kirkvoelcker5272]

I saw 2001 in the Las Vegas Cinerama in early 70s. While I can't say if the film was Todd-A0 or the original Cinerama format I will always remember the sound, which was early Dolby Surround. When the two hominid groups confront each other around the waterhole the unseen one I heard *behind* me.

[@jamesanderson348]

MY FAVORITE FILM EVER!!

[@lonerwiththecamera]

Speaking as an independent filmmaker for over 10 years, There Is Kubrick - and then there's everyone else. He is the Gold Standard on what is possible with films.

[@w9gb]

Kubrick’s visuals (no dialogue in first 30 minutes) is the differentiator.

[@cronobactersakazakii5133]

I’ve seen 2001 many times, and lately, I wanted to see it again in a great theater. In 2019, I had the opportunity to get a ticket to see it at the Grand Rex in Paris with its soundtrack played live by the Orchestre National de France and Radio France choir. So, that was a tremendous treat and I couldn’t dream about a better way to see it again in a theater after so many years.

[@xxnightopsxx]

That beats my IMAX experience hands down, sounds amazing....

[@honeysucklecat]

I got to see one of the prints he mentions twice. It was awesome. Saw it in 2001 in Seattle at a theater which could do the wide screen

[@robertgraziano]

127 weeks at the Glendale Cinerama Theatre...a world record! in Toronto.

[@Seekthetruth3000]

HAL's voice was mesmerizing.

[@leebronock887]

My Dad took a twelve year old me to a big screen showing of 2001 in 1968. Since, as the saying went, twelve is the Golden Age of science fiction, I was deeply affected by the film. Dad and I didn't say a thing driving home from the theatre. The effect had been that intense. I have to limit myself to rewatching it on the home screen to every two years or so. Today, seeing the film makes me depressed to realize that we had the chance to actually do the things portrayed in the film within our own lifetimes and bungled it.

[@OldSkoolBiker62]

Since the 70's 2001 had been my number one favourite movies, up until watching Interstellar, which is now my number one movie, followed very closely by 2001 and 2010.

[@xxnightopsxx]

That's interesting, while Interstellar is a good film owing a lot to 2001, what rates it over 2001 for you? As for 2010, I've always found it to be watchable but the unnecessary sequel to a film that really shouldn't have had any attempt at a sequel given anyone (apart from perhaps Kubrick, and that's a big perhaps) would always fall way short of the mark. Sort of like making a sequel to Citizen Kane or Casablanca, sequels almost always invariably dilute the original. With subsequent iterations getting increasingly worse like photocopies of photocopies. Doctor Sleep being an excellent example being a particularly terrible sequel to another Kubrick classic - especially after King endlessly trashed Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining. Of course that's my personal opinion and many people like 2010.

[@OldSkoolBiker62]

@xxnightopsxx Thanks for your reply.. Where do I start.. Maybe because I've watched the film 2001 since my dad first showed it to me when I was 8 or 9. Sorry, I can't remember it was a long time ago, lol.. My Godfather, my dad's best friend, was a projectionist, so I used to get to see lots of movies when I was a child... I then saw it another coup of times before reading the book when I was 11.. Then probably watched it another good few times before in my early 20's I read all of the books in the series, and I think there was 4 or maybe 5.. This is why the second film 2010 is important, 2001 is just the beginning 2001 is a Interlinking series.. a story which covers centuries.. so 2010 is very important to get the full story.. the other books not do much so.. Anyway like I said I've watched 2001 dozens of times and since 2010 came out I've watched them together at least every couple of years.. And read all the book at least twice.. so It had all grown a bit dull.. And then when I heard Nolan was a massive fan of 2001 and was making Interstellar I had to watch it.. and I wasn't disappointed, you can really see how much he adored Arthur C Clark.. And I'm a sucker for sci-fi all things space, factual astronomy, AI, robots and time travel, this film had them all.. and I have become accustomed to modern Sci-fi movies so 2001 as become a little dated and slow.. Interstellar is fresh and modern, but it does have lots of loopholes.. many mistakes which I'm willing to over look.. but much like 2001, in my opinion, the story, the actors and music make it a fantastic film.. I am a massive film Nerd.. I still collect physical media mainly on 4k these days and have a really good home cinema and even collect tv and film vintage collectables and have many framed movie posters on my walls, I even have a model of HAL 2000 which lights up and I've sort of linked it to an Alexa.. lol.. but have to use Computer as a wake word and not HAL unfortunately.. But 2001 will always be my number one movie even though these days I probably only watch it every 5 years or so but watch Interstellar every year, and that's why I'm saying Interstellar is now my number one movie.. In my eyes both ofvthese movies are miles in front of any other sci-fi movies I've watched or own.

[@xxnightopsxx]

Thanks for the reply, big cinephile here as well. I can’t remember whether I read 2010 or saw the film first but it was a noticable letdown for me even though I wasn’t a Kubrick fan at that time (in fact I was really just going through discovering film in terms of an art form). Oddly enough I prefer Hyams other effort Outland, it’s a guilty pleasure. As for 2010 - I tried reading the sequels but they really fell flat and gave up at that point (I read Dune after the movie and it’s my favourite sci-fi book, gave up on those sequels as well). I think now Kubrick was definitely the secret sauce when it came to 2001. I like Interstellar and think Nolan does good work. So I don’t understand why people dislike him or think he’s a Kubrick wannabe. However, while it’s gratifying that we have directors like him today making films that aren’t cookie-cutter drivel, 2001 still holds as the gold standard due to just the sheer level of work and effort it took to make such a film at that time. A film that changed cinema forever in so many ways. Being a film lover you might find Cinema Tyler’s channel of interest (if you haven’t discovered it already), he has quite a few “making of“ series including 2001 and Apocalypse Now. It’s gratifying to have started this channel way back when purely on a whim and as a personal project and to have drawn together so many like minded people.

[@UKHeritageRailways]

If you want to see 2001 it is being shown on Feb 18th 2023 at the Pictureville cinema, which is part of the National Media Museum in Bradford UK, on their Cinerama screen.

[@jf4113]

An amazing film.

[@alanagottalottasay997]

love the music comments...what struck me was how using music that old ultimately just makes it plainly human experience...surely what Kubrick created visually and sonically and its impact on those who saw it when it was new, was likely the same impact to those who were stunned by hearing/seeing those musical pieces performed when they were new to the world....another sub-layer of a sub-layer....

[@Apollo_Mint]

My mum saw this projected on the ceiling of the planetarium and said it was amazing but felt like she needed a neck brace afterwards. I’ve had this idea of broadcasting it to scuba divers, underwater to get the feeling of weightlessness.

[@2011littleguy]

Kudos to Nolan for not letting his ego get in the way of his enthusiasm for the movie. He sounds like a teenage fanboy who can’t express in words his love for the film. I saw George Lucas talk about 2001 and he acted like the movie was no big deal. Lucas’ ego wouldn’t allow him to admit that Star Wars was as close as he could come to imitating 2001. To answer the question the interviewer asked, yes, I think Christopher Nolan and Ridley Scott are the sci fi “successors” to Kubrick. My guess is that Kubrick would appreciate their art and craft of moviemaking and storytelling.

[@roywilson4514]

Star wars didnt want to imitate 2001. Idiot

[@julienperonne2347]

Star Wars belongs to a totally different genre than 2001... It's space opera... 2001 is hard weighty sci-fi with elements of horror and thriller thrown in. It's a better film than probably most of the Star Wars films, but aside from shots of spaceships, Star Wars has literally nothing in common with 2001.

[@pseudonymousbeing987]

I think you mistake Lucas' total chill for ego. He's just a chill dude. It's probably his philosophy that makes him so. Star Wars is a telling of a mythical world whose philosophy is largely that of its creator. Basically I'm saying his Buddhist beliefs alongside Jedi like code means he is one of those who are not inclined to outwardly express passion.

[@solospirit4212]

An interesting interview ..I agree very much that the switch to digital has changed the movie experience . I grew up watching on film..and there really is a huge difference in the image. The capacity to match a writer and directors imagination has also changed tho..so we lost out on one part of the experience ,nut gained in others,☺

[@xxnightopsxx]

Digital and CGI has given directors more flexibility however, the oversaturation of CGI means we're not impressed anymore by what we see on screen. Watching many movies is like watching a video game that you can't play. The thing about 2001 was that everything you see had to be meticulously crafted by hand. That's the amazing beauty of it.

[@xxnightopsxx]

Absolutely. they focused more on the story because SFX was time consuming and expensive to do, now they focus on CGI that impresses no one and the spend almost no time or money on the story. I watched 2001 in the cinema recently, still mindblowing - especially when you know how much work went into it.

[@solospirit4212]

2001 didn't spring from a total vacuum of practical effects tho..there is a progteddion..from Long through 20,000 Leagues..the talent and techniques were there and developing ☺20K Leagues would shame most current "blockbuster " effects movies ☺

[@xxnightopsxx]

No question, but 2001 set the gold standard. There had been nothing like it before.

[@voiceover2191]

@@xxnightopsxx Well, you could say, that, at a minimum, it was a watershed movie as it made every single movie in an entire genre that came before it, look antiquated and actually, 50 years on, in many (not all) ways still looks modern. I don't believe any movie, not even Citizen Kane, was able to pull that of.

[@Jcushing5]

Christopher Nolan is a fellow artist to Kubrick. There is a tendency for interviewers nowadays to dismiss current artists by reference to previous greats. But they do different things. Kubrick could not have made The Dark Knight. It is an everlasting masterpiece, and speaks of an artist of towering stature. I think this is why current greats are reluctant to enter into this territory. Kudos to Nolan for being deferential. But he would also be greatly admired, I suspect, by Kubrick, were he alive today.

[@marcogianesello6083]

Nope

[@robertgraziano]

The best movie ever made period!

[@xxnightopsxx]

Hands down a total game changer on so many levels, Kubrick's name is etched into a monolith buried under the Tyco crater....

[@TheMrPeteChannel]

Dear Nolan, PLEASE MAKE 2061 & 3001!!!!!

[@andrewmilesbroughton8222]

home video is great but the cinema experience changes your life. That's where your religion is altered forever. Movies like " Apocalypse Now" "Lawrence of arabia" "The abyss" "Close encounters" "Blade runner" "The devils" "Deer Hunter" and yes - "Interstellar" all changed me for the better. Regards to Mr Nolan for preserving 2001. I took my 15 year old son to the revival 70mm screenings, he thought he'd be bored but it made an indelible impression on him. That and the Lockwood/Dullea Q & A's too. I'll never forget that night!!

[@xxnightopsxx]

That would have been a great experience....

[@ShootMeMovieReviews]

2:00 one of the most frightening scenes in any non-horror film, and so simple.

[@attackofthecopyrightbots]

didnt know he was such a big fan of it

[@peteriuliano5846]

I Believe The POSITIVE AFFIRMATION Of 2001 Is That STAN Is An Unbeliever About Anything Except The Chaos That Man Brings Into Anything And Everything.

[@xxnightopsxx]

Fair assumption….

[@itzJuztThomas]

When he says 2001 doesn't need to be understood it needs to be felt, he could really be talking about Tenet later in his career.

[@ScottSullivanTV]

5:12-6:45 Love hearing that part hahaha

[@crujones5319]

I brought my daughter to see the unrestored 70mm print of 2001 at the Cinerama Dome. Nolan made an unscheduled appearance for our showing and introduced the film - kudos to him for doing that and his championing of the film. It is indeed a masterpiece of cinema. That said, the colors in the unrestored print were abysmal - very disappointing. Restored version all the way.

[@davidlean1060]

I saw that print years ago. magnificent! A massive screen, so wide your eyes can not take in the entire breadth of it, with the words 'Malfunction' blazed across it! Just awesome!

[@xxnightopsxx]

Wow, fantastic experience.

[@crujones5319]

@Your unfriendly Neighborhood Demon Agreed - that sound was indeed painfully loud! I love that this movie will be discussed, dissected and puzzled over forever!

[@yourhandlehere1]

Has anyone tested rotational "gravity" in space yet? I kind of feel like if you aren't connected to the rotating hull in some way there's a weightless area right above the "floor". You could just float there and watch it go around you. If you are in mid air...there's nothing to actually attract you to the floor.

[@shermanxxx]

Wheres the original interview from? And thanks for the video. Theres a whole lot of photos I hadn't seen

[@xxnightopsxx]

I managed to find a few interviews and thought cutting them together along with some backstage production photographs would make for a more interesting experience. It’s been a while since I made this so can’t remember the sources. Note to self - make more notes.

[@jazzouchejazzouche5827]

Does anyone know more about the first longer version?

[@xxnightopsxx]

From memory, Kubrick cut scenes like a full second space walk and generally trimmed the film to cut out some other repetitious/redundant scenes to make it about 15 minutes or so shorter.

[@betsyduane3461]

Not sure what he's talking about seeing the movie in London on a big screen in 1977 when he was 7. The UK never had a rerelease until March 2001.

[@xxnightopsxx]

Not sure either, alternate reality?

[@headfella]

I would encourage all fans to read THE LOST WORLDS OF 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY.

[@SuperSlik50]

Lloyd Nolan talked about Polident

[@bchick7598]

I think for the most part the person that was the moderator and some really valid points and good things and questions to ask and I think that the Pearson being interviewed seem to miss the point of a few of them and just went on and on and almost without taking your breath that's straight so far from the heart of the comment of the moderator, but other than that I mean this was interesting, I didn't think it shed any new information on the film or any new insights but it was more enthusiastic than anything else I think it could have been more if some of the moderators questions could have been explored the heart of the question that is.

[@ValentinPasseraH]

Nolan and a lot of people are wrong about the book. It was written by Clark and Kubrick (both name in the first publication) They were for month in an hotel writing together the book. Then they wrote the scenario. So the agreement was Book by "Arthur C. Clark and Stanley Kubrick" Screenplay by "Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark" I don't know why the name of Kubrick don't appear anymore on the re-print

[@botsjeh]

You don't write a book in one month. They did the outline of story together, based on a short story 'The Sentinel" by Clark. Then they did the movie and book in parallel. During this period they diverted quite a bit, like going to Saturn in the book and Jupiter in the movie, and the death of Poole.

[@KRAFTWERK2K6]

Sadly till this day i haven't seen "2001 - a space odyssey" on a large silverscreen as a 70mm projection yet. However i do own this film on VHS, Laserdisc (both the 1989 Criterion Collection, which was supervised by Kubrick himself, as well as the later MGM Laserdisc from the late 90s), on DVD, on Blu-ray and also on UHD. And the UHD version really is the one i so far loved the most. It is still no truly satisfying substitute for an actual cinematic experience. And no, i would NOT pay to watch a digital projection because i can have HD video projection at home if i want to.

[@xxnightopsxx]

I saw both the unrestored and restored versions within a few months of each other. The former was at an independent cinema just a stones throw from my old school where I first saw the film in 6th grade sitting on the gym floor with my class - it blew me away even then. The latter I saw at IMAX, both were very worthwhile experiences. No home cinema would compare to either so I’d definitely recommend grabbing the opportunity the next time it’s back in cinemas - which won’t be soon.

[@Khultan]

Stanley Kubrick invited Osamu Tezuka to work with him as his Art Director on his film, 2001, but had to refuse because of his own committment to his own workload, infamous for being late.

[@ValentinPasseraH]

The question that remain is where can I buy the Nolan restauration I have the DVD and original blu-ray. And the restored 4K (I was pretty disappointed by it). I really would like to watch Nolan version on my 65 OLED Panasonic (it would be an orgasm)

[@parthchopra2811]

Valentin Passera Hahaha we’d all want that. But sadly, Film is a different medium altogether. You can’t see it without projector. What you see on OTT platforms like Netflix is a digitally scanned- mostly 4k these days- version of these movies shot on celluloid. Look for theatres which showcase in celluloid in your country!! (None in India by the way, which is very sad...)

[@swifty1969]

why were you disappointed with the 4k version? It looks incredible to my eyes on my oled tv.

[@JSB103]

I often wonder if the original 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY presented to the public in 1968 was exactly what Stanley Kubrick had intended, or was it the best it could be done with the available resources and technology of that era. Was it 50%. 90% or 100% of what he actually wished could be achieved, both visually and sound-wise?

[@xxnightopsxx]

They say no work of art is truly finished just abandoned. I can definitely confirm this with my work. In terms of Kubrick and 2001 from what I’ve read and learned I can confirm he definitely wanted to do more but just ran out of money - the film cost a staggering $10 million at that time and the studio were not willing to go further. Does the movie have some flaws sure, but what Kubrick achieved for the time with the technology and budget is still amazing today. In the 90s he could have chosen to go back and re-edit or “fix” parts of the film much like George Lucas did, thankfully Kubrick didn’t. Also, just like films such as Alien and Jaws the film benefitted from limited budget and technology forcing Kubrick and his team to get creative and even to omit some things - for example they considered showing the aliens at one stage. These days they’d just do most of the film using CGI and throw in the kitchen sink. 2001 remains a masterpiece as a stand alone work of art as well as for what amazing results they were able achieve for that time with the resources at hand. In many ways I think of it as a meticulously handcrafted piece art compared to much of the mass produced knock offs we see today. I can highly recommend Cinema Tyler’s excellent KZbin series on the making of 2001, he has some great content on Kubrick and other directors/films as well.

[@speedracer1945]

2001's effects surpass the unpolished stuff today . Douglas Trumbull was the best in the field

[@SatelliteLily]

I'm scratching my head about people not trying to imitate 2001. It's one of the most imitated films of all time. It's also one of the most subject so revisionist critique, as if it is now impossible for there to me anything lacking about it. Don't get me wrong; I love 2001, but it is not too big to fail, nor is Kubrick. His work is monumental and has stood the test of time, but perfect, it is not.

[@paxwallacejazz]

There were many folks timing their acid so they'd be peaking when Through the Star Gate came on.

[@royceisthebestrapper7686]

paxwallacejazz holy shit foreal?? That’s brave lol, what a bunch of badasses

[@DrTWG]

5:16 . Flanking Kubrick and Clark are George Mueller (R) and Deke Slayton (L) .. The latter was the head of the NASA Office of Manned Space Flight - in other words , basically in charge of Apollo . Slayton was one of the original 7 NASA Mercury astronauts , grounded due to heart problems and heading the Astronaut Office . [Of course - the vacuous tinfoil-hat crowd love this .]

[@xxnightopsxx]

Are you saying Kubrick DiDN'T fake the moon landings and the Illuminati weren't also involved? ;)

[@DrTWG]

@@xxnightopsxx Not at all old chap . Not at all . I know I showed some flippancy in my post but now I'm certain that Mr Kubrick was involved . The penny dropped when I saw 'The Shining ' and saw that young lad Danny wearing an Apollo sweater - it's even possible that the fact was 'shined' into my brain at that very point . What more proof could anyone need . I don't , at this stage , know who filmed all the other landings . All those Lunar Rover shots are fantastic - back in the day of practical special effects as well.

[@nigeldonaldson1647]

night tops to answer your question - Ridley Scott or Paul Verhoeven perhaps?

[@xxnightopsxx]

Interesting choices, both made some great films and some not so great films.

[@peteriuliano5846]

Would NOW Be The Time That A BIOPIC Called KUBRICK Be Initiated? Seeing Stanley In His Rumpled Suit And Tie, His Almost Disheveled And Myopic Look, Confounds Our Sensibilities Of The Man From Brooklyn Who Seems Like Someone From Another Age.

[@Jhensy2012]

The Bronx!

[@xxnightopsxx]

Given how complex an individual he was I’d say just about any attempt at a biopic would do him a great injustice. Just look at some of the biographies of him. The best option would be for Stanley to direct it, although even if that were possible I’m very sure he would never agree to do it - his introvert intelligence being just one factor. So that really leaves only Nolan as the best candidate based on his handling of Oppenheimer. No doubt this comment will piss many people off…. ;)

[@maddoglive4612]

The only right way to persevere cellulose film is to print it on glass, both the negative & positive

[@ioodyssey3740]

cellulose is a good anti-caking agent for grated parmesan. Manufacturers grind up the wood and extract the cellulose.

[@louisgoldberg1755]

Nasa was involved with 2001, what I want to know is where the inspiration of monoliths came from. There are monoliths on the moon and Mars from some of the pictures I've seen. What are they? 2001 was a weird ass movie but then again all movies from that Era were nuts thanks to lsd and clockwork orange

[@lilbigman777]

14:25

[@colmoduffy6897]

Hitchcock out-Stanley's Stanley (from the Shining) in last few mins of Psycho.. Ditto Mr Perkins versus Jack (Nicholson). Beethoven versus Bizet..

[@xxnightopsxx]

Interesting comparison, never occured to me. IMO both are unique filmmakers, no doubt Hitchcock paved the way for Kubrick. I'd love to know Kubrick's take on Hitch, knowing he was an uber cinephile....

[@betsyduane3461]

2001 was not #1 at the box-office for 1968. Funny Girl was, 2001 was #2

[@xxnightopsxx]

Says a lot doesn't it, we just weren't ready for it on so many levels....

[@5Andysalive]

4:00 is the sum total of close up moon surface you see in 2001. With the kind of Uranus-ish featurelss earth the background. A movie often claimed by conspiracy theorists for alleged moon studio shots. That is NOT critisizing the movie of course. It predated any Moon flight by years and did an amazing job. But it completely disqualifies the connection and hijacking of it by these idiots. And it's obvious, why Kubrick avoided any too close look and kept it rather dark and brief, because he knew it wouldn't age well. As a result it aged perfectly.

[@nigeldonaldson1647]

it's all about feelings NOT facts, as is...ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, the mystique is the point and the danger within the story. (for 2001) i would say kubrick used the same abstract style for the classic SHINNING

[@BR-hi6yt]

It was the MUSIC by Ligatti that made the film 2001. Same with the film Psycho - the violin screeching made the film. Without the music they were crap movies. Why is little me so much smarter than most "experts"

[@peteriuliano5846]

The FUTURE Becomes The PAST.

[@xxnightopsxx]

Great line…

[@ChristyKSweet]

Now we know centrifugal force does not work but in one linear direction, useless for travel, and Jupiter is so radioactive humans couldn't get anywhere near it. Even Juno can only do quick flybys

[@xxnightopsxx]

Sure, but given the when time it was made. They also wanted to stargate at Saturn but couldn't pull it off convincingly so then opted for Jupiter....

[@Metrofarquhar]

Elvis Mitchell, is that you?

[@ekstradycja]

This masterpiece still stands out on its own as Si-Fi role model. Perhaps along with Tarkowski's Solaris

[@xxnightopsxx]

Definitely, the sequel was something that just wasn't needed but Clarke wanted to milk it as did the studios - as they do with everything....

[@tmseh]

I wonder what kind of film Nolan would have created directing A.I. instead of Spielberg. I believe Kubrick wanted Spielberg to complete the film before he died. It should have been much darker than what Spielberg made, Nolan would have avoided the shiny, neon cuteness that is Spielberg's style.

[@telectronix1368]

Kubrick's intent was, 10,000%, for AI to end at the underwater scene when he finds the ferris wheel and 'his' blue fairy. The ridiculous time-jump and 'a clone, but only for 24 hours' guff was totally out of place.

[@xxnightopsxx]

I think Nolan would have been a better choice than Spielberg. As is AI isn’t a bad film, it’s just not a great film. It has some great moments though.

[@JoseFernandez-qt8hm]

50 years later, no space aliens, no moon base, no nothing.......

[@Alexander-tj2dn]

Or Interstellar.

[@jorgefiguerola1239]

Over the years, the more I see this with all of its acclaim, I am less and less impressed with the film and more intrigued with how they managed to make it back then, from technical aspects, battling egos, and how everyone, although hating at first, grew to respect such an overblown chunk of cinematic crap.

[@glenthecarguy]

Can anyone ever explain how movies can put near dates and technology ie: 2001 we didn't even come close in 2001 to anything in this movie. We still don't have moon bases or space planes. Star Trek is more realistic with its stardates. Amazing movie with all its flat-screen monitors and such but we dont have Hal just Alexa , Siri and hey google.Not to mention no cell phones in the movie! Kubrick in clockwork orange had the first prototype usb sticks which star trek ripped off .But no SCI FI film back then had a cell phone prototype and that communication badge on a Star Trek officer or Kirks communicator dont count.

[@tmseh]

You would have to look at the author, Arthur C. Clarke and the era he wrote the book. The space race was going full tilt and the stakes were unimaginable, anything was possible. Once the US landed on the moon it seems that there was a political attitude that the finish line was crossed, no need to finish the next race. Clarke and many others believed the momentum of NASA and the Soviets would logically continue following the great sea voyages. I want my flying car dammit!!!

[@telectronix1368]

Even by 2001 there **could** have been moon bases. Nothing in the (human) technology depicted was impossible even in the late 60s. The human race didn't advance in the real world as far along into living working in space because of the costs, not because 'it could never have been done'.

[@Palaemon44]

@@telectronix1368 In the early to mid sixties when the movie was in development, NASA thought that the space race and the large budgets would continue, therefore space exploration would proceed along the lines shown in the movie. NASA had put requests for bid on the Nova-2 super heavy lifter that would orbit the huge amounts of materials needed to fulfill that vision. The NOVA-2’s would be able to carry a 500 ton payload into orbit, the same mass as four fully loaded Space Shuttle orbiters. Nuclear propulsion engines were also being tested for deep space exploration, and a Mars landing was targeted for 1984. The US focused spending on the wars in Vietnam and on poverty, the Russians dropped out of the space race and space exploration was scaled back to remote control golf carts.

[@telectronix1368]

@@Palaemon44 Well......yeah.

[@JSB103]

I wonder why you say "communication badge on a Star Trek officer or Kirk's communicator don't count." Why wouldn't it count?

[@davidlean1060]

I'm sure Nolan's love for 2001ASO is real, but clips of him speaking about the film strike me as marketing, more appreciation for appreciation's sake. Nolan's Interstellar was shallow, block buster nonsense compared with anything Kubrick ever made, but constantly associating himself with 2001 and Kubrick is meant to cement in the minds of his fans that Nolan is as good as Kubrick, which is so far from the truth, it makes my head spin! It flippin worked though! His fans all seem to have bought into the idea that Britain's answer to Michael Bay is up there alongside a great like Kubrick, which he most certainly is not.

[@xxnightopsxx]

Okay, but then you can say the same for Spielberg as well, even more so.

[@davidlean1060]

@@xxnightopsxx Speilberg is far more clever than he appears. I think he has topped Nolan artistically numerous times.

[@xxnightopsxx]

@@davidlean1060 I think Spielberg is a very good director, sometimes even great but he does tend to all too often go for the easy or the obvious. You can’t say the same about Kubrick and I think Nolan tends to go more with taking chances and making the audience work rather than making it easy for them. Again, I’m not saying Nolan is at Kubrick’s level but AI could have done with a darker approach and more ambiguity.

[@davidlean1060]

@@xxnightopsxx Nolan is a great blockbuster film maker and that is not damning him with faint praise. If you give him the money, he'll turn out something cinematic and profitable. My point is he is not an artist. His greatest movie, in my opinion, is The Prestige. He was, in fact, too clever with that movie. No one saw the trick he pulled (in short, the Angiers' machine is a stage prop, there are no clones and we never actually find out how he does his version of the trick). Tell this to any post Batman Nolan fans and they go ape and I think from that moment on Nolan has second guessed himself. Thus, we end up with Tenet. A spectacular bit of cinema to look at, but absolute tosh when it comes to story. I just think it has to be said that Nolan ain't all that, he is just marketed as such. I do hope the ultimate failure of Tenet will cop him on though. I may sound like a harsh critic, but I absolutely love The Prestige and it would be a joy to see him turn out something that good again. Pardon the long post, congrats on making it this far and thanks for the brief exchange!

[@joshuacasillas684]

@@davidlean1060 I totally agree.

[@baronvonteuchter1412]

There’s a lot I really like about 2001 and in some ways it still looks fresh but I also find it a bit ponderous and a bit disjointed in places. It’s beautiful, it’s epic, some of the camerawork is really impressive. I think it must have been dazzling original when it came out but I don’t really find it entertaining. Unpopular opinion, I know. For what it’s worth, I much, much, much prefer Interstellar.

[@Khultan]

Logan's Run looks shabby. Roger Corman's production is shabby. Sci-fi flicks after 1977's Star Wars awful items.

[@xxnightopsxx]

With 2001 you have a sleek, perfected fine art sculpture, like the monolith. While most sci-fi films are a stack of rocks in comparison….

[@Khultan]

@@xxnightopsxx George Lucas was inspired by Stanley Kubrick's aesthetics in visually depicting the spacescape in science fiction and added in his own sensibilities to it. Don't forget that George is a technical minded person and innovative best hinted by THX-1138 and displayed in SRAR WARS.

[@xxnightopsxx]

@@KhultanNo question Lucas is a very talented and skilled guy. He drove most of the effects for SW, so his achievement in making that film at that time is incredible. I consider THX to be his best film, followed by American Graffiti then Star Wars, purely in terms of filmmaking, narrative and themes. But then I'm weird like that. It's not to say SW doesn't top the other two in terms of sheer technical achievement. He did lift many of the ideas and themes from Tolkien and Herbert, amongst others, with some Flash Gordon and movie serials thrown in for good measure. He nearly screwed it up in the edit though. There's a great video about how that went....

[@Khultan]

@@xxnightopsxx No disrespect to you but this shit about George lifting from Frank Herbert is overreach. STAR WARS ISN'T ABOUT DRUGGED HUMAN BEINGS DEPENDING ON SANDWORMS. C'MON DUDE, COME TO YOUR GOOD SENSES. 😐

[@hive71recordinz89]

Always laugh when I see lenord rossitor Rigsby rising damp

[@telectronix1368]

#OhMissJones

[@jcjensenllc]

If someone like Nolan, a filmmaker, does not understand the movie "2001", then that film is NOT a success. Everyone should "GET IT".

[@ioodyssey3740]

I heard it was all fake!

[@Nick-we7lf]

Nolan ! You are no Kubrick ! End of discussion.

[@xxnightopsxx]

Can’t speak for him but do you think he regards himself as Kubrick’s equal and successor?

[@Beery1962]

Because what every great director needs is to have their work evaluated by a talentless hack.

[@xxnightopsxx]

Ouch

[@john-lenin]

Then how can you make a pile of crap like Dunkirk?

[@RightNowMan]

Is it really a pile of crap? That bad? I haven't watched it.

[@xxnightopsxx]

I wouldn’t say it’s a pile of crap. It’s actually a cut above most studio backed films these days. I’m surprised by the hate for Nolan, he’s gone on to make better and better movies in a time when most directors are just going by the numbers for the paycheque. He deserves, at the very least, the benefit of the doubt for making movies that are complex and challenging in a time when most do the opposite….

[@thetiktokman]

Nolan has a small mind; 2001 is easy to understand.

[@xxnightopsxx]

Riiiight, because complex, multilayered stories are so easy to understand.

[@lamportnholt9509]

The cut from Bone to Spacecraft was Amateurish...Instead of a straight cut, It should have Faded from Bone to Spacecraft and the Rotation of the two should have been synchronized ....Apart from that..Good Effort Stan.............

[@ericssmith2014]

Why take half measures? The bone should _morph into the satellite_ while the camera spins 360 around it.

[@telectronix1368]

100%

[@jamessmithe5490]

Too bad you weren't there to correct Kubrick. What a loss.

[@telectronix1368]

@@jamessmithe5490 Aside from the rest of the film, which is incredible, that transition was a missed opportunity. Noticed it the first time ever watching the film.

[@henrygonzalez8793]

I have to respectfully disagree. The cut was so sudden and unexpected that it took my breath away. It made on impression on me that has lasted more than 50 years.

[@shanemckenna9416]

Christopher Nolan is a overrated hack.

[@jamessmithe5490]

Are you having self esteem problems?