My Mom Watches 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968) | Movie Reaction | First Time Watching

[@tawnieriekena7]

The "baby" at the end , called The star child, is Dave Bowman, and he represents the next step in human evolution. The film thematically represents mankind's insignificance in the universe. Kubrick said that what is frightening about the universe is not that it is hostile, but that it is indifferent.

[@djdrkavorkian]

2010 does answer a lot of questions and it was reported that the hippies of the time purposely took acid when watching this movie.

[@tawnieriekena7]

We did.

[@y00t00b3r]

"I thought this took place in space!" - Well, you know what? Earth **is** in space.

[@FrancisXLord]

I would actually love to see your reaction to 2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984). It's not as artistically leaning as 2001, more of a straightforward narrative that concentrates a lot more on the human element as they try to figure out what's happening amid the peril they find themselves in. Starring Roy Scheider (Jaws), Bob Balaban (Close Encounters of the Third Kind) and John Lithgow (Rise of the Planet of the Apes). Directed by Peter Hyams (Capricorn One).

[@miller-joel]

2010 is so underrated.

[@tawnieriekena7]

Don't forget Helen Mirram.

[@bjgandalf69]

I actually prefer Peter Hyams' film as it is more straightforward and character driven. I realize that is a controversial opinion but I don't really care.

[@christhornycroft3686]

Growing up in the 80s and 90s, I found a lot of kids my age had a hard time with this one. To me, it's one of the greatest films of all time, certainly visually and philosophically. But it's also 1960s pacing. My dad used to tell me that he knew a girl who loved this film, but she was literally tripping out on acid when she watched it. Obviously, they didn't have CGI in 1968, so everything you see is practically done, right in front of the camera. For that reason, I think, it still holds up to this day and there are no shots that look fake. The effects as far as I'm concerned are as good as anything you see today. Stanley Kubrick is easily one of the greatest directors of the 20th century. It's incredible that he went from Spartacus to this to A Clockwork Orange to Eyes Wide Shut (and others). The guy could do anything and make it seem legit. If you've ever seen the classic 1974 Bob Clark Canadian slasher film Black Christmas, Keir Dullea, who plays Dave here, plays the creepy, controlling boyfriend in BC. I don't remember seeing him in much else besides the sequel to this film, 2010 (which is worth your time), but he's had some impressive and varied performances. The ending always leaves people stunned, but there's a lot of evolutionary and philosophical questions here to go with the cinematography and eerie music.

[@davidfox5383]

I was 6 when my dad and mom took me and my brother to see this in a Texas drive-in theater. My poor little brain couldn't handle it and completely freaked out at the last image of the space baby, or "Star Child" as it is called in the novel. It took me until my first year of college to watch the film again and now I consider it my favorite... It is a profound film that benefits from multiple viewings and studies. But I had to go through years of nightmares to get there!!!

[@deepermind4884]

On a clear, moonless night in Texas, you can look up & see the space babies floating back & forth in the universe. 🌌🌌🌌

[@davidfox5383]

@@deepermind4884 OMG that was my nightmare...haha!

[@DRACULAFLOWMUSIC]

the basica interpretation of the story is: super advanced aliens left the first monolith for the apes to find that made the apes intelligent enough to learn to use tools therefore leading us to be able to space travel a couple thousand years later then they left another one on the moon to alert them that we had now reached the stars then a third one beyond jupiter which dave flies into and is reborn as a super advanced conciousness at the end. the story is basically about evolution

[@cnault3244]

To alert them we had reached the stars when the sunlight struck the uncovered monolith. And a more subtle interpretation would suggest that humans are so aggressive because the first tool we came up with was a weapon.

[@stevetheduck1425]

The conflict between life and machine / tool is what the alien's experiment was set up to test: humans made weapons and tools the same thing. The first spacecraft we see are orbiting nuclear weapons platforms, with national flags on them; tribes fighting over a waterhole in space. The human / machine conflict continues until HAL ( programmed by the worst humanity can offer, politicals who act and think like machines; Heywood Floyd being foremost among them ), is defeated by the artistic, imperfect and caring Dave Bowman. Bowman re-discovers his humanity through breaking free of the programmed mission, continuing it alone after HAL is reduced to a tool again. He meets the aliens (call them the Firstborn ) and not HAL. Which is the correct one to meet them is a mystery, as after millions of years, they may not exist as they were, or at all.

[@andreshernandez1180]

Since you asked, dropping acid is not like just seeing shapes and colors on a screen, everything around you comes alive and literally breathes, matter is made out of light and is always changing form. The first time, as I didn´t think the effects would be so drastic, I took it before going to sleep thinking it would help me sleep peacefully, boy was I wrong. The room was completely dark except for a little bit of light from outside coming in above the curtains barely illuminating the ceiling, and then the LSD hit, which happens in a split second btw, one moment you're wondering if something is ever going to happen and the next you're tripping balls, so as I tried to fall asleep suddenly I felt and literally heard an explosion in my head and I opened my eyes wide open very alarmed not knowing what had happened and I noticed the room wasn't dark anymore, it was bright as noon, and the ceiling wasn't white anymore, I saw all the colors and they all kept becoming the other. It's hard to explain, multi-color lights were moving and interacting with each other but they never mixed like the blue and the yellow becoming green, no, they changed shapes and became the color next to it, constantly over and over again, a little like a lava lamp if it was filled with different colors of "lava" and they all kept changing colors and shape as they move around, and all these colors made up the ceiling, yes, just like it sounds, the ceiling was made of shape-shifting multi-color lights constantly moving and creating matter. And closing your eyes won't help, it only makes it more intense because it's all entirely in your mind now, with your eyes opened the LSD interacts with your surroundings and you're acutely aware that you're high, but with your eyes closed your mind takes over and you forget about the outside world and what's real, the dream becomes your reality and you can’t always open your eyes because the dream seems so real that you don’t even realize they’re closed. Once I closed my eyes for what I thought had been a few hours, I had conversations with people and lived entire experiences in my head that seemed real in the moment, it's hard to remember you're on acid when that happens because it all seems real, it's like being in the Matrix, you're just enjoying the ride and forgot all about your body, then I opened my eyes and only 3 minutes had passed and I thought "oh crap, 8 more hours of this, I'm not going to make it", but I did. It's an extremely intense experience, maybe even a spiritual one, and it opens your mind, I honestly can't tell if it makes you hallucinate or if it allows you to see more of reality than what we usually can see, or both.

[@lindabell6638]

Absolutely fascinating!!! Thank you for the great description of the experience! 😖

[@JarodMoonchild1975]

@andreshernandez1180 Well, it's known as and called a hallucinogenic, so it giving hallucinations, is an established fact. But that doesn't mean that it can't help you look beyond the veil, either. And I've never tried it, so I can't really comment on it. But I know from a definition standpoint, it IS a hallucinogenic substance. Where those hallucinations come from, is another question, that's been debated since acid hit the streets, back in the 60's and 70's.

[@andreshernandez1180]

@@JarodMoonchild1975 It’s called a hallucinogenic because those who determined what it does don’t believe or can’t prove it’s more than that, not because it isn’t though. Scientists believe there can be life in the universe but not intelligent life, apparently that can only happen on Earth, why is that? I doubt scientists believe that’s because The Bible says so, but it’s what’s convenient to believe. People who don’t understand or believe in other dimensions shouldn’t define effects of “hallucinogenics”. They don’t believe in the soul either yet I’ve seen mine, and no, it wasn’t an effect of LSD since it was years before I tried it. We know for a fact that our eyes can’t see everything that’s out there and yet we run to determine what’s real and what isn’t. That’s on us.

[@andreshernandez1180]

@@JarodMoonchild1975 It’s called that because those who defined it believe that’s what it does, not because they proved it doesn’t allow one to see beyond the perceived reality though. We already know for a fact our eyes are limited and can’t see the entire spectrum, in other words there are things out there that we can’t see and yet are real. Mainstream scientists also say there can be life in the universe but not intelligent life, apparently that can only happen on Earth, why? Because The Bible said so? I doubt it, they have other reasons to claim that, convenience perhaps, or just limited knowledge. Remember, they side with whomever pays their bills, and those who don’t are silenced, we already saw that first hand during covid, doctors in favor of natural immunity were blocked and banned, but now that the damage is done it turns out they were right.

[@andreshernandez1180]

@@JarodMoonchild1975 Do you believe in the soul? Astral projections? Telekinesis? Telepathy? Premonitions? I’ve personally experienced all of them, it’s all real, and LSD doesn’t feel like hallucinating, it feels like opening your eyes.

[@iKvetch558]

Oh my...the 2001 Worm...I mean rabbit hole LOL...definitely one of the most interesting movies to see folks react to for the first time. I hope Mom loves it. I definitely recommend she read the book by Clarke...and then she can read his sequel, 2010: Odyssey Two...then there was a movie made from that with Roy Scheider, Helen Mirren, John Lithgow and others...it is really underrated. But be aware...Kubrick deliberately did not give answers to pretty much any questions in this movie, and you are left to figure it out and interpret it for yourself...but Clarke definitely gives many many more answers to the questions of why things happened they way they did with HAL and many other elements. So if you and/or Mom are hugely attached to the mysteries that Kubrick left for you, you may want to just avoid any books or the other movie...just letting you know so you can make an informed decision of whether to go down the rabbit hole of Space Odyssey.

[@FilmNerdy]

Excellent reaction guys once again. For me this film I am reminded of Alfred Hitchcock's philosophy of film making of "show don't tell". This film is an exercise of "show, don't tell" taken to the extreme, where Kubrick seemingly opted for "show, show, and show some more, but never quite tell." Much like a cryptic crossword puzzle where the clues are beautifully presented but the answers remain elusive, 2001: A Space Odyssey invites you to marvel at its enigmatic visuals while leaving you scratching your head for coherent explanations. If I had to describe this movie to someone in one sentence I would say to them "Its an experience" like you said. I completely understand both your reactions. Maybe I am not smart enough but consider myself a cultured guy and reasonably intelligent but I just never got the ending. I am somewhat always left feeling cold.

[@dabe1971]

Yep. Being open to interpretation was exactly what Stanley wanted from this and many of his movies - he hated certainty and relished ambiguity. I used to work for a UK photographic retailer in 1995 and we had a telephone call from Kubricks personal assistant Tony Frewin wanting to order a newly released Minolta Camera. I recognised the address we had to courier it to as being Stanleys manor house in Hertfordshire and we cheekily asked if it was for him. Mr Frewin confirmed that it was and that Stanley was actually sat next to him. Then we took our chance and asked if he was able to explain what the ending of the movie actually means. His answer - which he shouted out to us - was: "Use whatever stimulation you choose to partake in, watch the movie on the biggest and loudest screen you can and at the end, whatever the story means to you - that's what I wanted." ​​⁠ This was always his intention. He gave an interview to Playboy in 1968 where they kept asking him to explain what the message of the film was. He was adamant that he wouldn't: "I intended the film to be an intensely subjective experience that reaches the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does; to “explain” a Beethoven symphony would be to emasculate it by creating an artificial barrier between conception and appreciation. You’re free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film-and such speculation is indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a very deep level-but I don’t want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or fear he’s missed the point. How much would we appreciate La Gioconda today if Leonardo had written at the bottom of the canvas: “This lady is smiling slightly because she has rotted teeth”-or “because she’s hiding a secret from her lover”? It would shut off the viewer’s appreciation and shackle him to a “reality” other than his own. I don’t want that to happen to 2001." Peter Hyams the director of 2010: The Year We Make Contact was respectful enough to approach Stanley to ask if he would approve of him making a sequel even though Kubrick held no rights to do so - he just wanted his OK. Kubrick said sure but he didn't care for the final result since it's far more explanatory in it's own story and in reference to 2001. It's still worth a watch though so I'd encourage you to seek it out

[@yzolakitchi]

What fascinating insights! Thanks for sharing. It's hard not to be blown away by so many aspects of this film, but I love the ambiguity. I watched Ad Astra (2019) recently and had similar feelings while watching, perhaps due to the slow pacing and quite beautiful and emotional storytelling. I really like 2010 as a standalone film and feel it gets far too maligned by purists, sadly. Here's hoping they do react to it on the channel. 🥰

[@marhawkman303]

@@yzolakitchi As someone who DID read the book.... the space baby is actually Dave being reborn as an ethereal being... designed to be a TOOL used by the elder beings who made the monoliths. I imagine you're curious what purpose he was made for... lol, you think there's any real answers? :p

[@yzolakitchi]

@@marhawkman303 yes, I think 2010 gave me that sense of him being a kind of interface. 😊 Taking 2001 the film as a creative work in its own right, (the whole book Vs film debate gets me riled up at times) I'm happy as a movie watcher for directors not to spoon feed me and allow space for subjectivity. I worked with an abstract contemporary artist for a while who very much felt you had to be smart enough to get the meaning of his work. He didn't think the 'general population' should have access to any art they didn't 'get right' thanks to studying. I found that view really upsetting, as if he was saying some people's eyes looked at things wrong. For me, artistic expression in any form can be transformative and therefore deserves as wide an audience as possible, no matter the subjective analysis. Haven't read the books in years, they definitely need to be back on my reading list 🥰

[@andreshernandez1180]

FUN FACT: The significance of the song *Daisy Bell* HAL sings as it's shutting down is that it was the first song sang by a computer, the IBM 7094, back in 1961.

[@andreshernandez1180]

FUN FACT: When thinking of a name for the evil computer they had a great inspiration, HAL is just IBM going back one letter from each character. I - 1 = H B - 1 = A M - 1 = L

[@Flix2Us]

That is brilliant and hysterical!

[@Macilmoyle]

According to Clarke, that was pure coincidence.

[@andreshernandez1180]

@@Macilmoyle Yes, I heard that too, the supposed meaning of HAL is ridiculously far-fetched though, Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer? 😂

[@Yngvarfo]

​@@andreshernandez1180- Not really. They picked the letters that would form a name. If Clarke insists that it was a coincidence (and he even had his characters in the sequel 2010 say so), I'm quite happy to accept it.

[@andreshernandez1180]

@@Yngvarfo That’s fine by me, be happy.

[@robertpearson8798]

“I’ve never seen anything like it” is a good way of putting it. There really is no other film that one can use as an example for comparison when trying to describe it to someone who hasn’t seen it. The only truly ambiguous part of the film is the Star Child at the end. The rest of it has a relatively straightforward has an explanation including the strange room at the end (an artificial environment where normal time has no meaning created from Dave’s memories of hotel rooms that he’s stayed in, in which he can be aged and transformed).

[@80Jay71]

"Daisy" was the first song sung by a computer.

[@heavycritic9554]

I'm gonna add my voice to the choir recommending that you watch 2010: The Year We Make Contact, as well. It really is an underrated movie, as others have said, and it has some great performances.

[@rtracy1216]

When we had a desktop computer, we got an add-on where our screen was Hal’s eye, and all the different pop up messages were Hal quotes (ie error was “I’m sorry Dave” etc). It was so great. I miss it.

[@therenegade79]

3 Laws was Asimov, this is Clark, who had a friendly rivalry with Asimov. The malfunction of HAL was due to conflicting orders - He's programmed to fully assist the crew and share all information with them. But then he's ordered to keep all information about the monolith secret. So HAL had to kill the crew to keep the secret, so HAL was right, the error was human error. The second monolith was on the moon, not Mars. It looks so real because Kubrick took the opportunity to film on location when doing the moon landing for NASA (This is a joke)

[@MyraJean1951]

I read the book before going to see this when it was initially released, and was glad I did. I understood a lot more of what I was seeing, although not everything was explained. The story was that people would drop acid and go sit in the front row of the film to trip out on the lights, music and images. I personally didn't find it necessary to do all of that - it is a trip in and of itself, which I know you experienced here. Thanks for watching it with me again!

[@luiscoelho77]

Fun fact. The minutes of black screen on the begining and middle of the movie it were made on purpose but not in the sense of something special, just were made to get the people time to enter before the begin of the movie. Think like the commercials nowadays before each movie. This is a nice touch to not get people to miss a thing and to get time to go to the bathroom in the case of the middle movie black screen.

[@DinerLingo]

To your point about the score, this was the first film Kubrick used all existing music for the score. He had originally hired Alex North to compose the film, who he used to score Spartacus, but never used that score & stuck w the guide tracks. From here on out he only used existing music. Unfortunately he never told Alex North about the change. North found out when he was watching the film at the premiere. You can actually find the original score if you’re intrigued enough to listen to it.

[@DamnQuilty]

Apparently there's an interview where Keir Dullea said that he took inspiration from Of mice and men while performing HALs deactivation scene. Yes, in the novelization because they can go into the mind of the characters you get a clearer view of HAL descent into paranoia and psychosis. The sequel movie works as both a sequel to the book and this movie. Its a great film and much more straightforward. It has many answers to this movie various questions. Also, Daisy Bell is the first song a computer ever sang.

[@remohio]

2010 helps with some of the questions. It is a VERY different movie but i found it worthwhile to watch.

[@IvorPresents]

Nothing like it in 1968, Back then television was a tube, phones on walls, and computers had no internet and were run by punchcards. This movie was a post card from thirty five years in the future. What it anticipated from cards to swipe to flat screen pads a list that continues to amaze. Saw it when it opened, at the Cinerama theater in New York. Huge screen. I was in my twenties and an Art student at college.

[@ilionreactor1079]

"Daisy (A bicycle built for two)" was the first thing uttered by the first voice synthesizer at IBM in the 1960s, and Arthur C. Clark knew that.

[@brandonflorida1092]

The monolith did to David Bowman essentially what it had done to the apes - it took him the next level. It changed him into what mankind would have taken millions of years of evolution to achieve.

[@stephendavis5530]

Important to remember that there was no pictures of the earth in space until 1972, so they could only guess what the earth looked like. Also, rather than travelling mattes, most of the effects were done 'in camera' rather than with optical printers. That's how it still looks so damn good even now.

[@mikejankowski6321]

Apollo 8, 1968, Earth rise over the moon.

[@stevetheduck1425]

At the White Sands missile range, V-2 missiles of project 'Bumper' were fired into low Earth orbit regions, but did not achieve orbit. This was soon after World War 2, using WWII missiles developed in Germany. The films and photographs they took are often seen in older SF movies and TV, as the Earth is seen to be left behind, the rocket to turn and show the curved horizon from altitude enough to be above the air. Earth seen from space, but not all in one picture. The movie 'The Quatermass EXperiment', 'Fail-Safe' and others used this film as stock footage.

[@voyager4441]

when the film played in the cinermadome in '68-69 in Los Angeles, more than a few people would drop acid for the light show ride near the end of the movie

[@Calamity_Jack]

Glad you watched this, one of my favorite movies! I've seen it dozens and dozens of times over my life and still love it. A real work of art in every sense. One interesting scene was right after the flying bone where it cuts to a satellite in orbit, that's supposedly one of several military weapons platforms. An early script references five: Russia, Germany, France, China, and America. It also details how the Star Child (the "glowing space fetus" as you called it!) flies to earth and detonates all the orbital nukes. But Kubrick reportedly changed his mind when he became concerned about people associating "2001" with his earlier movie, "Dr. Strangelove," so he changed the script to skip that Star Child scene and not specify anything about war-related nuclear satellites. It's a minor - but to hardcore fans, interesting - tidbit. As others have mentioned, the movie was purposely written and filmed to be obscure. Like some other artists, he wanted the viewer to make up his/her mind about what it really meant. Which is very interesting to us, yet also somewhat infuriating! lol

[@Yngvarfo]

The book differs from the movie in a few respects. The most major being that in the book, the destination was Saturn, not Jupiter. The reason for HAL"s breakdown was, as you said, a conflict of instructions, when he was made to hide the purpose of the mission. The "star gate" sequence is described from Dave's viewpoint, but he is of course just as confused as we are. The hotel room is apparently built by examining his mind and trying to make something familiar looking. Like a fishbowl, which we decorate with plants and stuff that might seem familiar to the fish. It's not described as psychedelic, with the shifts to an older and older Dave. Rather, he just leaves the pod, walks around in the room, eventually dares to remove the spacesuit, and finally goes to sleep. Then he regresses, wakes up as a baby, it's *suggested* that there are aliens there, but never clearly described. But he has a mind, and powers, beyond human now. Now the "Star Child," he returns to Earth, apparently by himself, blows up an orbiting space weapon because he "preferred a cleaner sky." The book ends with the same words as the end of the "Dawn of Man" sequence. Then it was Moon-Watcher, the main ape man. Now it's the Star Child. "Though he was master of the world, he did not know what to do next. But he would think of something."

[@rowenatulley852]

It's funny how HAL's neurosis seems pertinent to today's discussions about AI . . .

[@stevev2492]

I think the point of the video from his parents, wishing him a happy birthday, is to illustrate his lack of emotion. The human astronauts lack emotion and the artificial HAL sounds very emotional at various points in the film.

[@Dreamfox-df6bg]

It's a small detail but HAL doesn't protect himself or 'lash out'. That's a side effect. His absolute priority is the mission. If the success of the mission had demanded his destruction, he would have destroyed himself. If the crew found out that he lied about the mission, they might have doubted his reliability and there was a risk they would endanger the mission by shutting him off, so he did his best to take them out. That wouldn't have gone well with mission control, so he had them switch off the dish that connected them to earth. HAL did exactly what humans told him to do, even though they didn't know they told him.

[@lesgrice4419]

The protagonist is us the human race and the Odyssey is our journey through time and space, evolving with the help of the Monolith, representing an advanced species until a sole representative, Dave Bowman is invited into a place where they examine him (the comfortable baroque area) where he evolves into a super human who comes back to Earth to help evolve the species into a peaceful species....

[@arturocostantino623]

He was also the scientist who basically invented the idea of satellites.

[@lindabell6638]

I've sat through this film twice, even read the book, and I am still just as confused as ever!! 😖 It is a marvel of production, music and cinematography, Kubrick was a genius!

[@TurningoffyourGaslights]

I saw this movie in the theater when it came out. Mind blowing.

[@donsample1002]

Isaac Asimov, creator of the three laws of robotics, told the story of seeing this in the theatre, and when the intermission started, he went over to a friend he saw a couple of rows up and said “They’re going to break he first law!” and the friend replied “Well why don’t you strike them with lightning, Isaac?”

[@silikon2]

The slow pace is because the journey is the destination. The novel does explain in quite a lot of detail what occurred here. The opening scene, the main ape was named Moonwatcher. In the final act, Dave travels through a stargate to… somewhere. The aliens create the hotel room where Dave spends the rest of his life in a timeless place until he’s returned as a star child which is returned to Earth. The book and film were developed together and have a couple notable differences. The destination was meant to be Saturn but they couldn’t get the rings of the fx to work so changed it to Jupiter in the movie. (The BBC reporter mouths “Saturn” but the voice was looped to say “Jupiter”.) Also in the novel, Hal attempts to unalive Dave by decompressing the ship, not stranding him outside. The cut from the bone Moonwatcher throws into the air to the satellite: it’s a nuclear weapons satellite, showing man’s progression to the earliest weapon to the most advanced. There was a MUCH more explicit nuclear weapons theme in the novel that was all but excised from the movie for fear it would be too similar to Kubrick’s previous film Dr Strangelove. In the novel, the star child’s arrival (probably) activates the orbiting warheads and the star child destroys/detonates them.

[@Lethgar_Smith]

I've read the instructions for the zero gravity toilet. (it's available on line) Most of it has to do with using the zero gravity shower.

[@Lynxdoc]

Star Wars and 2001 were both filmed in the same Studio. Their release dates were only 9 years apart. Aldo interesting how Leias ship at the beginning looks like it could have been in 2001

[@plinfesty]

No they weren't. Both were shot in Elstree, but there were several studios located in that area. Borehamwood, where 2001 was shot, closed in 1970 and bulldozed in 1973 for suburban housing.

[@johnmaynardable]

I dropped acid once and no, it was nothing like this. I love this movie. I've always said the effects in this movie still holds up fine.

[@beannathrach2417]

The movie is a speculation on human evolution from Australopithecus to modern humans to maybe a future where we no longer need bodies. See also Clarke's Childhood's End. Something helps our ancestors learn tools; that Something might be collecting a lab sample to see what five million years did those hairy ape guys. Spoilers? Clarke's novel explains HAL's breakdown, not shown in this movie, but explained in the sequel movie 2010. It tells a little about the Somethings. They were from long ago; they develop a wormhole style transportation network that Dave accidentally enters. The Somethings went around the universe looking for life with potential that could use help. Then they did Ended their Childhood and no longer need physicalities like wormholes, space craft, cities, planets. After helping out our ancestors, the monolith was buried on the moon. When humans crossed that space, they exposed the buried monolith to the sun; that powered the monolith to send a signal to the portal monolith near Jupiter. That alerted the Something that the hairy apes survived and crossed the 220.000 miles to the Moon. So they collected Dave and studied what we had become.

[@stevetheduck1425]

One chapter of the book begins: 'Call them The Firstborn'.

[@meghanmonroe]

Acid is always such a subjective and unique experience, but for this purpose, I'll tell you that none of my trips (5+) have looked like the visuals in this movie. Usually I experienced weird sensory stuff like synesthesia. I was watching the movie Fantasia once and during the scene where the dinosaurs are dying a fiery death, my brain provided the word "ashes" and suddenly every bit of food or drink I put in my mouth tasted like dry, dusty, chalky ash. It was foul. I did occasionally have tracers or things that looked like actual things were "breathing" or pulsing, but I can't ever remember seeing just full-on hallucinations.

[@johankaewberg8162]

I watched this age 11, with my father. It was the extended, 4 hour version, with the intermission. My mind was blown from Also Spracht Zarathustra and all the way through.

[@mark-nm4tc]

Kubrick never went to Africa, he famously hated flying. The ape scenes were all done on a sound stage with front-projected slides of African scenes shot by a stills unit. The famous stewardess-walks-upside down - scene was done by the oldest trick in the book. The set & fixed camera were rotating, the actress was 'walking on the spot'. It was the same for the Discovery interiors, the entire set was built like a 'hamster wheel'.

[@billolsen4360]

This was great when I saw it in a Cinerama theater. 13:01 They found that black slab on the moon, but so no one has ever found Alice Kramden. 20:31 "I've got a bad feeling about it" Lucas also stole that from this movie 😁.

[@SatelliteLily]

Thanks! This was so much fun! My mom took me to see 2010 the Year We Make Contact when I was a kid and I remember her trying to catcvh me up on the story before it started. After that I became obsessed with both movies. I still am! I'd love to ask her to sit and watch 2001 with me now!

[@FilmNerdy]

If you guys are interested in watching more avant-garde, artsy films, it would do me a great pleasure if you could watch "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife And Her Lover". It has got such good subtext about the corruption of greed, consumerism, excess, and wealth. It's beautifully shot, great performances by Michael Gambon and Helen Mirren. Sadly, I can't find streaming services for the film in my country, maybe in Canada they might do? It's definitely worth watching if you can get a hold of it. Dark, disturbing, beautiful, haunting, and amazing.

[@ritarene2965]

*of the Alien intelligence* "And because, in all the Galaxy, they had found nothing more precious than Mind, they encouraged its dawning everywhere. They became farmers in the fields of stars; they sowed, and sometimes they reaped. And sometimes, dispassionately, they had to weed." ~ Arthur C. Clarke

[@RickTBL]

Kubrick portrayed the humans with as little emotion as possible, while making HAL quite emotional. HAL said it was "human error". Which human? Wasn't HAL the "human" who made the error? Whom else can HAL point the finger at?

[@charleshays5407]

1968 was the year that classic films Planet of The Apes, Night Of The Living Dead, and Rosemary's Baby were released. Since you did Planet of The Apes, you should do the other two.

[@rg3388]

The Strauss “Zarathustra” music immediately points to Nietzsche’s ape/man/superman idea. (Dwayne is reading Nietzsche’s book at the start of LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE.)

[@PaulHansen-h5y]

If you like to read, the book explains everything. It's not very long and is a really good read.

[@scottneil1187]

Awesome film and that really takes time to get your head around, hope you give the sequel a watch, it's really good.

[@80Jay71]

2010 is also really good. It also explains why Hal did what he did.

[@stevenlowe3026]

From what I've heard, Kubrik experimented with possible "aliens" but wasn't satisfied with any of them - there was no configuration that wouldn't have been slightly ridiculous and detracted from the movie, So he made the (brilliant) decision that it would be much better if we never saw them.

[@brigidsingleton1596]

❤❤ "Also Sprach Zarathustra"❤❤ - Opus 30 by Richard Strauss (German) - opening piece. + ❤❤ "The Blue Danube" ❤❤ by Johann Sebastian Strauss (Austrian) - entering the space station. ('HAL' stands for Heuristic Algorithm & has nothing to do with IBM)' 😡'Star Wars'😡 is _not_ _anywhere_ near the quality of ❤❤"2001, A Space Odyssey"❤❤ The ape-creature at the beginning of this film was called "Moon Watcher" ...he tried to reach the image of the Moon in the sky "but couldnt reach it...but then he realised he would just need to climb a taller tree"... I first watched this film when it was first aired here in the UK when I was _15_.😊 I have the film* on dvd, and the full series of Arthur C.Clarje's novels from '2001...'* (2010..., 2061..., '3001...') plus the full Theme music of '2001...' on 12inch vinyl record, and, the film sequel to '2001...' "2010..." on dvd.❤❤😊🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🎵🇬🇧🖖

[@larryk731]

This film may be the most influential science fiction film ever made. It's probable many people watched the end of the film under the influence of less than legal substances

[@jamesalexander5623]

I saw this myself the Day it Opened and then with Friends, on the Big Screen the Week it Premiered! We all had different interpretations! But I must say it changed my conception of the Universe and my place in it! The Arc of the Film is Human Evolution!

[@barrywilson1294]

Arthur C Clarke, the famous science fiction author, wrote this screenplay concurrently with Kubrick making the movie. I had read most of his work when the movie was released and quickly read the story too. Put fairly simply the alien intelligence responsible for the monoliths sends Bowman back to earth as a star child to usher in a new era. And to stop the nuclear armaments proliferation and threat of earth’s destruction. But if you don’t want to read the book version then watching the sequel 2010 answers a lot of the questions. Clarke wrote two more books in the series but those never made it to film.

[@TheFalconerNZ]

Respect for reacting to this movie, it is not an action packed, easy to react to movie so thanks. I hope you react to the sequel 2010 as it answers many of the questions left open by this one & is much more easy to have reactions to. So for my 'Head Cannon' opinions, 2:22 the long dark opening is 'Before Time'. 6:24 'The Blue Danube' a waltz by the Austrian composer Johann Strauss II, composed in 1866 & the soundtrack to the first real 3D computer game 'Elite' based in space. 10:03 Hope you're not urgently needing to go 🤣15:08 HAL 9000 coming to your home by OpenAI in 2025 (not that far from this prediction)

[@NoHandleGrr]

2001, like most live musical plays, or grand movies, had an overture, and an intermission. I can understand this confusing kids today, but an older person should remember that this used to be the standard for prestige productions. It's not "artsy." It's JUST AN OVERTURE. No more "artsy" than the intermission.

[@charleshays5407]

The piece is Thus Sprach Zarathustra by Richard Strauss.

[@cnault3244]

Now you two should watch "Colossus: The Forbin Project" (1970) a very under-rated science fiction film.

[@NancyHibberd]

HAL Represents the letters preceding IBM, the leading edge in tech firms at the time. And The classical work heard thriughout is Also Sprach Zarathustra by Richard Strauss.

[@joshuayeager3686]

There’s a small theater in my town that does a classic film night and the gentleman who runs it is a big Kubrick fan so he’s done 2 marathons of his films there. I’ve had the opportunity to see a good portion of Kubrick’s films on a large screen because of this and watching 2001 was very overwhelming. I walked out twice just because it’s so much. My only regret is that I wasn’t able to see “A Clockwork Orange” either time they had the marathon. It’s one of my favorite Kubrick films.

[@Psergiorivera]

That ending is wacky

[@miller-joel]

17:00 The Moon is one light second away. Jupiter is between 33 minutes and 54 minutes away, depending on the position of the planets.

[@DamnQuilty]

I really hope you watch the sequel. 2010 the year we make contact is a wonderful movie in its own right.

[@rayname908]

Kubrick gave little bits of the script to Arthur C. Clarke to write the book as the filming was taking place. Stanley needed funding for such an effects heavy production so he had to keep criticism of space travel quiet so NASA & IBM would fund and assist. This means the book tells the story of aliens who spark evolution of apes & Kubrick could tell that story and another which is critical of technology, computers and space exploration. He has black rectangular monoliths which can be seen as aliens, tech, or a movie screen. I like both versions. 😉

[@susanfox6666]

I remember seeing this in a theatre at 16 or so. Everyone was trying to figure it out, so I went to see it. THE MOST boring film I ever saw in my life. I watched with you two, and that's still my opinion. I think it's biggest draw for young audiences was that it was the film to see if you were high.

[@y00t00b3r]

6:27 You got the story about the music kinda backwards and sideways. The music used in the move /IS/ the classical music he used as placeholders. He had originally commissioned Walter/Wendy Carlos to create a musical soundtrack for the movie, but it turned out to be a synthesized monstrosity. (My words, not Kubrick's)

[@80Jay71]

"Also sprach Zarathustra" is the name of the title tune.

[@robertpearson8798]

With respect, if the film had been cut down to only the essentials of the story and all of the extended shots that create mood and atmosphere had been cut you wouldn’t be reacting to it now because it would have been forgotten long ago instead of still fascinating audiences more than fifty years later.

[@somthingbrutal]

unfortunately acid doesn't quite feel like that, but if you took enough of it without melting your brain it might ;)

[@bcsr4ever]

Yep. Read the book. And the sequels...

[@cesarvidelac]

About that music... when they find the Monolith it's "Requiem for orchestra and two mixed choirs written by Gyorgi Ligeti around 1966, quite radical composition. They also used "Lux Æterna", also from Ligeti.

[@yooochoooob]

For another movie in a similar vein, see " Silent Running " from 1972 😉

[@cgbleak]

Jeez, Mom's smart! Kudos, ma'am. You're originally from the far northern midwest, eh?

[@jacobjones5269]

I always thought the unnatural appearance of the monolith is or was the spark.. Not necessarily touching it.. It has right angles and I think that made them think differently.. It’s forged..

[@Doverkin]

u should watch 2010 space odyssey to understand it a little bit more.... ish lol but its got that guy from jaws in it also

[@TallyDrake]

I came to the comments to see who admits to taking acid. 😁

[@andreshernandez1180]

I did, you can read mine.

[@tawnieriekena7]

Yes, but not the first time that I saw it in 1968. Saw it many times since, frequently "enhanced ", sometimes on a double feature with El Topo, Tommy, The Song Remains the Same, or Altered States.

[@michiganjfrog366]

There are more stars ✨in space than grains of sand on earth... Imagine how many in just a cup of sand.. just saying. Kier Dullea was Peter Smithe in Black Christmas 🖤🌲1974.. a Canadian classic and my favorite horror movie ever 👍

[@newpapyrus]

The novel is equally as good-- but a lot easier to understand. Its probably the best science fiction novels ever written, IMO. But its about Saturn-- not Jupiter.

[@frankmahovlich5099]

This movie made the actual reality year of 2001 very disappointing for me much like Back To The Future II made the year 2015 and Blade Runner made 2019 disappointments as far as having flying automobiles that still were believable as cars when traveling on terra firma. Anyway I prefer to see something like Luke's landspeeder developed; a hovercraft with 1950's sports car style.

[@1wwtom]

Saw it 1st run in my 2nd year of high school. Apollo landed the next year so this film seemed not that far fetched with 2001 being 33 years away. Who would have thought that we wouldn't be back to the Moon in over 50 years. Hilton is still around, not sure if Howard Johnsons is though. Obviously Ma Bell is long gone. Who would have guessed PanAm would fold back then. Hopefully I'll see us go back to the Moon again before my time is up.

[@y00t00b3r]

So sad about Pan American

[@joanward1578]

Please watch the sequel.

[@jasonp.1195]

Very few reactions to 2010, as an incentive.

[@cesarvidelac]

Oh, I'm starting to watch this, I'm glad. I watched when I was like 15, I was a very unusual kid enjoying all this complex movies... this ones requires to be aware of the last knowledge of the time about evolution and fossil registers, and of course astronautics, that made this film very misunderstood. But I'm sure we will have a great time 😊

[@yogibear6363]

The Blue Danube Waltz is not from the Nutcracker Ballet.

[@martinsandt1135]

Thx for another great Reaction

[@johankaewberg8162]

You rotate the whole set as the actor moves…

[@Tiisiphone]

I'm one of these heretics who found the movie quite boring for many years. I learnt to like it only a few years ago. The fear of IA is already described. My favorite part is the opening sequence when you see our defenseless ancestors learning to create weapons (not tools - lethal weapons!) after touching the Monolith. It triggers an evolution shift.When you see the bone thrown into the air and the transition to a space station, I think the symbolism is incorrect. Since the bone became a weapon, we should have seen it turning into an ICBM missile shooting through space, not a harmless structure . I think it is the case in the novel, but I'm not sure. EDIT: Thanks to another commentator, I understand now that the "harmless structure" is an orbital defence platform full of nukes. For me the Monolith symbolizes God. Galileo described God as the ultimate mathematician, the only one able to reach perfection. The Monolith perfect 1x4x9 proportions would suggest it is a divine manifestation. There can be other interpretations of course. The movie raises many philosophical questions. Can Hal be considered as a sentient being or is he just a machine? Does the Monolith refer to God or some advanced alien civilisation? Is violence part of our DNA, as shown in the intro (I believe it is)? I really recommend watching the sequel, 2010. It answers some of the important questions raised in 2001.

[@y00t00b3r]

> Since the bone became a weapon, we should have seen it turning into an ICBM missile shooting through space, not a harmless structure. It doesn't transform into a "harmless structure". It transforms into an orbital weapons platform, basically a missile silo in space, pointing at the earth.

[@Tiisiphone]

@@y00t00b3r I see! I never really paid attention and thought it was a civilian application satellite. How naive! Thanks for the info.

[@y00t00b3r]

@@Tiisiphone It isn't obvious if you aren't looking for it. I think Kubrick thought people would catch on to it, but orbital weapons platforms were banned by treaty. Consequently, the concept didn't penetrate into wider society. Prior to them being banned, there was a lot of anxiety about the possibility of them being deployed, but only amongst types who were following policy developments closely. This was the backdrop which prevailed as Kubrick and Clarke were developing the project. It was many years before I realized why that satellite was shaped the way it was. So, there are two metaphors in play: general: tools --> technology specific: weapons --> weapons

[@Tiisiphone]

@@y00t00b3r I live in Europe and was a teenager then young adult during the last decade of the Cold War. I believed there was a good chance that we humans would nuke each other to oblivion. As a science nerd, I was very much aware of the US Strategic Defense Initiative project, aka Star Was project. The possibility of a nuclear weapons proliferation in space was discussed in our media quite often, and the fear was real on our side of the pond. I do believe such weapons systems will be put in place some day, and that I might even see them in my lifetime.

[@leeyaferguson9019]

My first thoughts the last time...... still the same.🤯🤯🤯🤯

[@mostlyharmless1]

They look real eh? lol, your mom Canadian??

[@Jen-Mom]

🇨🇦😊

[@gallendugall8913]

Unpopular Opinion! 2010 is a better movie. This is a nice art piece but not much of a story. 2010 is a better story, not much of an art piece.