The Legacy of 2001: A Space Odyssey

[@allypoum]

As a massive Kubrick nerd I really appreciate this coming up in my recommendations. The best analysis of 2001 I've yet come across. You are right, it is, like all the other attempts at interpretation I've encountered, "all over the place" - but the film itself is well-described in the same terms. So far your take has chimed best with me personally.

[@marcelloursic424]

If anyone cares for a more technical look at 2001: A Space Odyessy, I strongly suggest you check out CinemaTyler's excellent series on the making of it.

[@TheInredibleMrH]

Thanks for the recommendation, friend!

[@pauliedibbs9028]

Rob Ager (Collative Learning) has excellent analysis videos on the film as well!

[@Filmtense]

Watched these and loved all of them

[@DavidSmith-ee6df]

Greatest film of all time.

[@Kenneth_Mac_Pherson]

@@pauliedibbs9028 YES! Rob Ager's QUITE EXCELLENT!

[@shoveitup_inc.9717]

Hour long video with no midroll ads, NighmareMasterclass, you the realest and best MVP

[@PurpleColonel]

There are 5 now.

[@jr9529]

"My mind is going... I can feel it" that was quite a poignant scene

[@barryosbourne2581]

Awesome vid! The bone is a weapon and it jump cuts to a satellite witch is a lazer weapon (said in the dvd commentary, look it up) .The ape man only thinks of using the bone as a weapon after it sees the monolith, the monolith progresses evolution, and also makes H.A.L. become self aware. Like the ape man, HAL kills members of the other tribe as a way of evolving into something else. Its very deep and people can go in a million different ways of interpretation

[@manmadegod100]

This movie was already considered a classic when I was a little kid and I was over 40 years old before I could stay awake all the way to the end.

[@harrisonwild750]

My dad always tells me how he falls asleep right away and wakes up at "The monkey bit." Dad... that's the first 25mins dammit.

[@MartinRMcGowan]

Years ago, I watched 2001 twice while it was available on Netflix. Both times I was convinced I’d watched something incredible, but something that I wasn’t grasping. Around the same time I’d had similar experiences with There Will Be Blood. Since then, I’ve rewatched There Will Be Blood and loved it. I’m hoping to have a similar experience when I rewatch 2001.

[@erictaylor5462]

Personally, I never really consider the book and movie (any book that is also a movie) to be the same story. This resolves a lot of conflicts they make others lose their minds. That way, if the book is fantastic and the movie sucks, it doesn't destroy the book for me.

[@wa2ise]

At 17:47 HAL says Frank will lose in two moves. But maybe Frank sees that he could survive a little longer than that, but will still lose. So he resigns anyway. Maybe he didn't notice the discrepancy, or think it significant.

[@watermelonlalala]

No, probably the intent was to show that Hal could lie and cheat. But most people missed the message. Or was it just to show an example of "human error"?

[@HealingMedicyn]

But that would mean HAL was wrong & the very first time this ever occurred so one would assume the reaction to that mistake would be much more noteworthy than what actually happened. I do think it was an intentional test of the human to spot the mistake, which he failed. & then the other crew member was tested. He caught on to the test but didn’t realize he had already been determined to be a threat to the mission, based on the disharmony of the programming, which was ultimately human error. I personally don’t think HAL ever made a mistake.

[@brianarbenz1329]

at the 4:00 mark when started pleading with viewers who had not watched the actual movie to stop this video, I thought you were gonna break into "Stop, Dave."

[@DawnHub666]

"I'm, sorry Dave. I'm afraid I cant do that."

[@Johnconno]

'My God, it's full of stars...'

[@valinormons]

My cousin went to see this film when it came out and she dismissed it as the dumbest movie she ever had seen. "They played classical music for outer space!" When I finally saw it I was truly amazed, and it was only after watching it a few times was I able to comprehend what it was all about in a basic sense. But I enjoy it, without going to deep as to what it means. There are many who don't understand it in even a simplistic sense! Each of us has our own interpretation of the film. Like Kubrick said soon after it's release when he was asked what it was about, he said that if we knew why the Mona Lisa was smiling then it would be ruined! Something like that. Although I watched this presentation, I really didn't get to much out of it. I prefer my own interpretation to this one. And on at least 2 occasions he inferred that it may have been bad acting as to why there was more life in the computer than there was in the astronauts. I've seen them talking about this film on other presentations and they said that their characters had been traveling through space for many months and they had gotten past the idle chit chat stage and everything was a dull routine. At least until the computer started to go astray. So they said that that's how they were instructed to play their parts, and it wasn't bad acting.

[@brianarbenz1329]

You have a packed this video with marvelous insights. So many of the multitude of 2001: A Space Odyssey youtubes have been made that they're sounding alike, but yours has a freshness. Thank you.

[@remfythecatcarolanne7599]

Very in lightening essay. I've watched this film over and over again, and like you said, I seem to come away with a different perspective each time. But, that's what makes it so timeless. I'll be watching more of your shows.

[@bradcollins1626]

Dickburger

[@gusgrizzel8397]

I don't think anyone is supposed to know. If you were Bowman, you would not have a narrator explaining things. When they found the Monolith, no one knew what it was. The genius of the film is that it lets you experience what happened, but you'd not know what was the cause.

[@retropian]

A really great analysis of the film. I enjoyed it very much. I recall reading years ago in a collection of essays "The Philosophy of Technology" a very interesting view on 2001. I don't recall the exact edition. It was one of those collections similar to "The Philosophy of the Matrix", or "The Philosophy of the Simpsons", etc, but the contributor put forth the view that Hal was right. The crew was endangering the mission. Hal realized it wasn't Aliens, they had gone extinct ages ago, but the Aliens continuing, self-replicating self-improving and expanding A.I. that had planted the Monoliths. It was not biological life, but the next generation that would supersede biological life: A.I., that was the goal. To create new and unique A.I., biological intelligence, the 1st generation had to be encouraged and cultivated. Hal realized it was he, not Humanity that was being sought. Bowman was an error. An interesting spin I've always thought.

[@NightmareMasterclass]

retropian Makes sense to me!

[@Enzaio]

That was exactly my interpretation when I saw 2001 for the first time about a year ago. I thought it was pretty genius of Kubrick to foresee the possible way AI might evolve, but watching this analysis (which is excellent by the way!) I thought I might have seen the movie through a too modern lens. Glad to see that I maybe wasn't.

[@gregsmith7949]

I took a film class in college and this was one of the films we watched. The teacher brought up that HAL knew the whole scope of the mission and the possibility that HAL determined that humans would ultimately screw it all up, and because of the mission's importance and significance, couldn't allow the humans to complete the mission.

[@chestermazurowski5167]

Also the book was written after the movie was made.

[@chrishintz1077]

Really enjoyed your analysis. It was ultimately oddly comforting. Thanks. Now to drift off to sleep w/o nightmare ;).

[@nunya___]

@8:40 I think HAL was trying to convey to Bowman that he was being deceived and he SHOULD question the mission. Bowman thought it was a psyc-test. HAL realizing Bowman wasn't going to follow this clue, viewed this a failure of communication and manifested this subconsciously by predicting failure in the ship's communication equipment. The chess game may also have been an attempt (conscience or subconscious) to let Bowman know something was wrong. HAL needed help.

[@shenzishenzi]

I love this analysis. It harmonizes with a lot of other compelling theories. Like how the monolith represents a cinema screen, commenting on how mass entertainment/media/communication initially sparked a revolution of progress that gave us enlightenment and control, but then ultimately twisted into something more malevolent that is manipulating us and keeping us disconnected from each other and by extension, reality.

[@mikerose51]

Ppl assume if a movie is so complex and does not answer any of its reasons for it scenes , it’s automatically a masterpiece

[@reddiculedog]

this was a very well done analysis. i'd love to see a video of yours where you explore the various theories relating to Kubrick's The Shining (or any other of his major works, for that matter)

[@NightmareMasterclass]

Thanks! The Shining is a whole other ball park. Maybe I'll do it somewhere down the line. I greatly enjoyed Room 237 on the topic, although some of those theories are borderline insane.

[@NightmareMasterclass]

I know, Room 237 is more entertaining than it is substantive. The whole moon landing theory is hilarious to me. Thanks, I'll check out your suggestions.

[@deanmillot]

habeas corpus p

[@Ofinfinitejest]

documentary maker Ascher included and gave extended screen time to the psychotic Jay Weider to ensure his documentary got a lot of attention. It worked, and some other things are absurd, but the native American symbolic undercurrents, as well as strange references to the Holocaust as identified by historian Jay Cocks, are very much a part of the overwhelmingly complex cinematic content Kubrick put into the film. The documentary is fun though because all of the people featured in "Room 237" are like blind people touching different single parts of an elephant and deciding what the whole thing is. Like other great artists such as DaVinci, Joyce, Nabokov, and Pynchon, Kubrick liked to fill his works with ridiculously many hidden or barely detectable symbolic elements and oddities. While some did touch on his primary themes about what is wrong with humanity, at this point it's clear that many are also there just as jokes and red herrings. People sense this density, some of it even subconsciously, and I think that's why "The Shining" is so deeply, endlessly hypnotic and mesmerizing as a horror film.

[@Miyukazukii]

I've only recently found your videos and I really enjoy them! These are really great and give me a lot to chew on while I'm working. I very much enjoy that you reference current and past geopolitical events and how they effected the work along with art movements and other media during that time period. It's something I rarely see so well done in other similar shows. You don't just scratch the surface either. It's really cool to get a deeper understanding of these things. And more then once what you reference has gotten me to stop what I'm doing and do a little digging myself. You're doing a great job! Keep it up!

[@aromardu]

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but Kubrick was contemplating ending the film with the Starchild activating all the weapons platforms we saw earlier and blowing up the world while it watches dispassionately. Then he reconsidered and left it open-ended instead of giving a more pessimistic definite end.

[@NightmareMasterclass]

I can't tell if you're joking or not, but honestly that would be an amazing end to the movie.

[@marbleman52]

I read Arthur C. Clarke's book before the movie came out, and If I remember correctly, ( and remember this was back in 1968 when I was a Junior in H.S. and I haven't read the book since.)....when the Star-Child appeared above Earth , it set off all of Earth's defensive alarms and I think that missiles were automatically launched toward the Star-Child but the Star-Child just destroyed the missiles with a thought. Then the last sentence says that the Star-Child wasn't sure what to do next, but he would think of something.

[@arctos49]

This is an excellent and insightful analysis of a great film. As to the relative blandness of the humans in the picture I remember that Keir Dullea said that Kubrick told him to underplay the role. I believe that this was just what Kubrick intended as a commentary on society and where it was going. Also remember when Dr. Floyd is met by the man at the space station and they are standing across from each other. They have the same kind of bland suits and their body types are the same. I am stunned at how well this film holds up even so many decades later it was released. The set design is also amazing and more realistic than movies that are far newer.

[@brungaria]

It’s not a “lack of emotion”, it’s just grown-up professionals who don’t caterwaul for their “safe space”. The cultural norms have shifted so far south since this film was made as to render attempts at “psychological analysis” asymptotic.

[@NightmareMasterclass]

Lmao. This is some reactionary chud shit. It's also just wrong. The flat expressionless faces in 2001 are very much a part of the work.

[@mx.viscera2247]

Never thought I’d see someone find a way to criticize “pc culture” in 2001 but go off I guess?

[@Crimson-Hat]

"There is no point in continuing, if you haven't seen the movie" Good thing i'm a master at pointlessness. *keeps watching*

[@Dashizzleface]

The Crimson Hat you should really watch the movie though. It’s a feast for the eyes and mind.

[@The22on]

good video~! I never thought of the cuban missile crisis compared to 2001 - how people in both situations spoke so unemotionally. I'm gonna look at more of your vids. You seem intelligent - a rare thing to be found online. Of course, one can praise another only if one has that attribute himself! lol I'm a giant 2001 fan who worked for NASA in the seventies. But I never had the opportunity to throw a bone up in the air. I can't wait to watch your Waterpik review. There are many interpretations of the meaning of the water. Some think it represents the flow of time. Others note the water's periodic nature because it is not a steady stream. The water reservoir represents human knowledge - a well from which we draw inspiration. Each person has their own way of thinking about this seemingly minor device.

[@dq405]

"A good science fiction movie, something that didn't exist prior to the making of this film." Really? IKARIE XB-1? THE MAN IN THE WHITE SUIT? THINGS TO COME? METROPOLIS? FORBIDDEN PLANET? Do these films not count for you?

[@jonathandaniels3237]

I saw the 1968 movie at least ten times. It's a timeless science fiction movie which also inspired me to think about the future of planet colonization by our species. I wonder if Kurbrick knew in advance of the moon landing in 1969. He therefore wanted to bring us the unknown and mysteries that we will experience in our future odyssey.

[@billykitahama3514]

19:39 "...he seems totally content with the idea of staying there [the neo-classical bedroom]." Bowman has absolutely no idea how he got there, and no idea how to get back. I've watched the movie a few times. Bowman seems resigned to, or ambivalent about, being in the neo-classical bedroom. After all, there is nothing he can do to change his situation. However, it is all fairly subjective. What you saw as contentment, I saw as resignation.

[@edwardarruda7215]

I saw it in 1970 when I was 14. It blew my mind. Didn't think it was "boaring" like so many today.

[@theflorgeormix]

The exception of course before 2001 which is its own thing, magnificent : Forbidden Planet is exceptional sci-fi.

[@nukustudio6882]

Coming from an African village to Europe for the first time and associating with some hard core European students in Germany, this will be my first movie in 1976. It is very interesting to watch 2001 after all these years and see what has become of me. The African naive kid died many many years ago, what is left, I have no idea.

[@patbau96]

The whole drones thing is getting even worse. Bilal Abdul Kareem, an natural-born American citizen and journalist of On the Ground News, has been nearly killed by drones strikes targeted at him multiple times. But nobody actually intentionally targeted him. The decision was made by an algorithm based on how many times his cell phone pinged in specific locations (he does lots of interviews with terrorists, victims of war, and news coverage of war-torn areas in the Middle East). So he was automatically added to the U.S. kill list (officially known as the very dispassionate 'Disposition Matrix'). He's sued and tried to have his name taken off the kill list, but a judge recently ruled that you can't have your name taken off. This essentially means the government has the unchallenged authority to kill any of its own citizens at any time without any warning, because they're on the kill list and can't get off.

[@AntiFaGoat]

@Richard Carte Oh look. A copypasta moron.

[@AntiFaGoat]

Do I still have the constitutional right to shoot down a drone?

[@patbau96]

@Richard Carte You have understandable anger against liberal politicians; I do too. But to side with conservatives is the worst response. I know it seems like there are only two options in the American political landscape, but if you really consider yourself a freethinker, you'll realize they're both useless and unsustainable. The only path forward of ethical humanity is the true left, the critical left, the empathetic left. The left that questions every idea and system that hinders humankind's progress. And it's ok if that seems too radical for you to accept at the moment, it is radical. But to understand we've all been brainwashed by the mainstream is the first step to breaking out of that box most people live in. Trump's a horrible president, Obama was a bad president, I'm tempted to say there's never been a good president. But the idea is that we need to move beyond presidents, beyond subservience to top-down rulership. And I hope you find your way on the right path at some point. I've been a hateful person, a toxic person in the past, but the only way forward is to recognize the potential of the collective will of all human beings. Don't get caught up in the specifics, find your own values, embed them deep down, believe them, and live them. All the best

[@landscapes5720]

I believe that the monolith is the earliest version of an I-Phone. A bit large to fit in your pocket.

[@DieHardjagged]

When i saw 2001 till the end, i literally thought it was made during the 1980s and was shocked when i found out it was actually released in 1968.

[@calql8er]

Sure. There were plenty of bad sci-fi movies before 2001. But don't forget "Forbidden Planet," "The Day the Earth Stood Still," "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," "Destination Moon," even "Them!" There were some good ones.

[@SpeakerBuilder]

If you are a true movie buff, this one is a must own, along side Citizen Kane, and a hand full of others that sit at the top of the list.

[@toditron]

I think the muted responses of the scientists is one of the more realistic aspects of the film and displays the dispassionate way we employ technologies. While we commonly think of technologies as assisting us, it is more often the case that we begin immediately serving those technologies and redesigning our way of living around them. In this respect the film depicts the concept of technology as a character, or perhaps the main character of both the film and of humanity itself, with HAL being the epitome of this concept. Also, I have always felt that HAL intentionally fabricated the false error detection as a way to justify eliminating the crew, believing this to be the best course of action in order to ensure a successful mission, the irony being that this is precisely what he was designed to do and yet the supernatural aspect of the mission completely eluded him.

[@garyschraa7947]

I believe that two geniuses got together and realized that there competing ideas could be whittled down into the ultimate short story prediction of an actual future like no other . Then Kubrick turned it into a minimalist masterpiece (albeit) he himself could not be one

[@DawnHub666]

1st -- WOO HAH - I think you could do a really nice video on ' The Witch - its amazing. Period drama. horror. psychology on beliefs and the psychology of real fear. Its really deep. Amazing period language. If you havnt seen it you really need to. I think it goes really deep into real beliefs and witch craft and the break down of a family. Its deep. That's all I can say. They use real language from the Salem witch trials and everything is very on point.

[@NightmareMasterclass]

I am a big fan of this movie! Maybe I'll do a video on it in the future. Just depends on whether or not I have something noteworthy to say about it.

[@emsnewssupkis6453]

At the opening of the film, the music is The Waltz King, JOHAN Strauss, not the Tone Poem composer, Richard Strauss. They are from two different time periods, one is 19th century and the other is 20th century.

[@emsnewssupkis6453]

The music at other points are Richard Strauss, but only a very small snippet. The space manouvers are done to the waltz music.

[@watermelonlalala]

I wondered why he said "tone poem".

[@stephenboyd6269]

The first four scenes are a depiction of our evolution from "Hairy Barbarians" through the phase where we develop the understanding of life, becoming technologically advanced enough to cede it around the galaxy. The third scene represents consciousness being blasted off, at the end of the cycle, with the starchild demonstrating our history and future. Consciousness creates. The cycle repeats, forever again, again forever.

[@jcordoneable]

No, the movie does not end with Dave (as the Star Child) looking at the Earth. It ends with him staring directly at you, the viewer.

[@rameyzamora1018]

I beg to differ. The face on view of the Star Child shows his eyes focused to his left (our right), still gazing at something over "our" right shoulder - Earth.

[@dirtyths]

@@rameyzamora1018 Same difference. There is a cut to a frontal star child shot, we are, then, the viewer, a representation of all Earth's inhabitants.

[@JohnPKING-nj8nc]

"I beg to differ. The face on view of the Star Child shows his eyes focused to his left (our right), still gazing at something over "our" right shoulder - Earth." The Star Child seems to be positioned right where we first see the spacecraft going on its Jupiter mission. The same way there's a jarring but uplifting transition from the moment where you jump or leap seeing a merely useless bone to making it into a powerful tool or weapon - there's a need to making the leap from an earth bound, biological consciousness to a massive, yet childlike consciousness that is not trammeled by biologically driven aggressiveness. I read a comment somewhere that the Starchild had returned to Earth to cleanse it of the mess of nuclear weapons humans had created. At the Space Station we hear about rumors of an unexplained outbreak on the moon - apparently this is a cover story to prevent a panic. We've progressed to a point where Information is power - the side that has the best Information can make the most strategic decisions - it's as if one side cannot see the chess board when it is trying to win the game. The fact that HAL ends the chess game before checkmate is suggesting that civilization has reached a point where no one wins - the only way to win is not to play. It might be that only the AI's can save the humans from themselves by taking control of the chess game and of the Jupiter mission although we're not sure if the AI's are actually acting in the best interest of the human race.

[@balrogdahomie]

“The movie doesn’t end with your interpretation of this abstract artistic shot. It ends with MY interpretation of this abstract artistic shot!”

[@shawnwales696]

I don't think the emotional muting here is a universal issue in society of the time. Astronauts are selected and trained to be more emotionally controlled and rational. No astronaut is going to be selected, particularly for a long term mission with a very small crew. Only the most rational and self disciplined candidates would be selected. That doesn't mean the whole culture at large is the same way. I mean to say, think about it, go look at the threads for more controversial subjects and judge for yourself, do most of them seem highly restrained and emotionally muted? Rather the other way, if you ask me. Somehow the relative anonymity of social media seems to have given them license to act out. Also HAL 9000 did not make an error, he falsely reported the failure to get the astronauts outside of the ship so he could kill them without damaging himself because he believed that the humans endangered the mission, which he was programmed to prioritize over everything else, including human life. His decision to kill the crew was logical given those parameters.

[@patbonny1175]

Thank you, I can't wait to see it again. I love your take on the drones.

[@NatchEvil]

Oh man, I can't wait to hair about that water pick. My teeth need a good cleaning, but I don't want to spend too much money.

[@NightmareMasterclass]

Dental hygiene is important. I'll keep you posted!

[@lynnharlow903]

Hayo, new subscriber here. You should do a video on Brazil. It is my absolute favorite film (a side from Pi). Love your material.

[@Arcane_Digital]

Yours is one of my all time favorite channels on KZbin

[@johnr7279]

Straight up great work on this one. I already knew a lot about this movie. Nonetheless, your analysis added to what I already knew. You dug in quite well by getting inside of the kind of details that Stanley Kubrick provides. Those impossibly small breadcrumbs that only a few people can even see...well, you got a few of them so great job!

[@Emma88178]

Well done analysis! This makes me want to go back and watch the film again and maybe pick up on some things I might have missed the first time I saw it. I'm also curious to read the book and see how different it is to the film. Although I agree that 2001 was truly the first of it's kind in the sci-fi film genre, and that many sci-fi films before that were very cheesy, I did think of two movies that came out way before 2001 that are actually considered classics today. The Day the Earth Stood Still, and The War of the Worlds. Would you consider those films to be "good sci-fi" or are they seen as equally cheesy in your opinion?

[@tonym994]

very,very, interesting. if I recall correctly, the outset of the film also has a few moments of darkness after the film has already begun.I better go back and watch it yet again. the darkness is exactly I think, in the shape of the monolith flipped over sideways, which is a movie screen in the modern format .(60's onward, essentially) the lights ,or window like whiteness in the meeting room w/ Floyd, again, are movie screen shaped. the monolith is everywhere.

[@stealthyjun]

4:09 ask us to stop watching if we haven't seen the movie, proceeds to narrate the whole damn movie.

[@toniduenas7223]

Makes sence just stop watching at that time and see the movie before you see thr rest of the video

[@watermelonlalala]

@@toniduenas7223 Doesn't make sense to repeat the plot in detail to people who already saw the movie.

[@richardgreeter4918]

Before 2001 they did have some really good sci-fi day the earth stood still 1951 War of the worlds forbidden planet but i agree 2001 a space Odyssey really revolutionised it

[@satanlover134]

4:18 Sorry just thought I'd spoil this, its Hals eyes. It's not aliens its the perspective of the contentiousness of a machine evolving learning from humanity, becoming truly free and living past us.

[@chasingchaos6960]

Not gonna lie, I get creeped out easily but I have a habit of watching creepy stuff, and so when you kept saying “Stop watching the video of you haven’t watched the movie. STOP WATCHING IT” I was so freaked out

[@souloftheage]

I viewed the meeting with the Russians as politics. And Khan Noonien Singh himself said in STAR TREK; "Social occasions are only warfare concealed". The politics with the Russians is more continuation of what happened hundreds of thousands of years ago between the proto-humans. But in space, everything is more "evolved", "concealed", "civilized".

[@paulh2468]

Thanks for all the information. It helped me to understand 2001 much better. Good work.

[@quinnzykir]

Could you do one on the Shinning. I’ve always thought that the movie is actually taking place in Danny’s head as an adult, reliving and trying to coup with the events that happened at the Overlook. So jack typing is actually Danny typing his accounts of the event

[@garyschraa7947]

I wish Stanley Kubrick could have made 3001 the final . Loved the novel . The idea of attached colonies above the major continents [with] elevators would be an absolutely new and future shocking element no one has seen in theaters . We could all dream about space again (since nasa has been slow dragging everything for so long now nobody thinks about "space" anymore )

[@AngelEarth2011]

The screenplay and the novel were both based on Clarke's earlier short stories The Sentinel and Encounter at Dawn.

[@yentavegan8823]

THere are numerous hints that this movie is one elongated farce. I am actually laughing aloud at the absurdities. Check out how many "monoliths" appear in each frame of the movie. They are in every scene. The lost/found disappearing reappearing sweater is not a mistake. It is deliberate. HAL 's paranoid behavior, the different colored space suits, the product placements, the baby chimps , the phone call from the parents, the fetus that resembles Dave....I could go on and on...this movie is CLASSIC and I love watching it more now through the lens that it is satire.

[@ireachy]

Masterclass indeed - as a scientist, appreciate an in-depth insight...

[@richardford3310]

violence, mass destruction and human frailty is common theme in SK films, my hypothesis is Borman’s lightshow journey was a reboot, reset and return to the dawn of man....

[@spinav8r]

2:57 - It is also important to note that there are a few glaring differences between the film and the movie. The FILM and the MOVIE?

[@tonym994]

as I understand it, Kubrick wanted the book written so he could make a film on it .he didn't do the ususal "I think I'll do a movie of this book".

[@kauswekazilimani3736]

No actually they were made at the same time separately. Only general ideas of what was to occur were agreed on.

[@sweethater8558]

Considering the violent nature of the first contact with the monolith and the secrecy surrounding the moon monolith, perhaps the 'star-child' shouldn't be viewed as some kind of positive transcendence? The way it looks at the Earth and at the camera could be interpreted as rather ominous, and the way it's floating in orbit could be considered similar to the nuclear platforms alluded to in the bone-transition. Yes, it's a step towards knowledge and a further evolution of humankind, but will it really buck the trend and be one of progress? Or will David simply return to Earth and wipe out the Soviets like an ape with a shiny new bone?

[@alexcastro7339]

Sweet Hater Actually that's wrong. In the book, the star child actually disarms the nuclear missles in orbit

[@sweethater8558]

It's not wrong because I wasn't talking about the book.

[@alexcastro7339]

But If you read the authors intention about the star child, it's a step up in evolution, both physically and morally. Just like from ape to human in the beginning of the film. Every time we come into contact with the monolith, we are ready for the next evolutionary step. That explains the strategic placements of the monoliths. Earth, Moon, Jupiter... In essence, the Star Child does destroy with a shiny new bone (new power). But this time he destroys the nuclear missles instead of simple bone. I get what you're saying, but interpreting the "look" of a fetus as "ominous" goes against the symbolic innocence Clark was trying to portray by manifesting a child, especially an unborn child that's not exposed to the evils of the world, in the first place.

[@watermelonlalala]

@@alexcastro7339 The author only made that story up later. Really, the star child was going to blow up the earth.

[@alexcastro7339]

@@watermelonlalala Yes... but Arthur C Clarke wrote the book along side the filming of the movie. One could argue that what you see in film was the intention of both the director and the author... There were definitely differences between the two, but from what I see, the differences were details, not major plot lines. And IMHO, that's a major plot line. But then again, everything is enigmatic and open to interpretation in the movie....So, who really knows, right?....😎

[@rkrw576]

Nice interpretation, particularly the acknowledgement that the film remains an enigma afterall. You referenced what appears to be cognitive neuroscience near the end. If you haven't read it yet, I would recommend you buy Inside The Neolithic Mind by the archaeologists David Lewis-Williams and David Pearce: there is a chapter in it that describes with stunning exactitude (and the latest neuroscience) what is going on in the hallucinatory descent into the monolith without reference to 2001 (if memory serves).

[@jweinrub]

Well done

[@Dion1957]

A bit didactic & verbose but compelling. There were some well crafted Sci Fi prior to "2001" Forbidden Plant, for example. Being an Actor/Writer/Director, I doubt Kubrick had anything to do with the Chess Game Gary Lockwood was playing but if that was true he knew no more than 50 people in the world would catch that. All in all I found this to be interesting and well done. P.S. I first saw this in 68 high on LSD

[@leslauner5062]

A good science fiction film didn't exist before this film?....Now wait a minute...that's not quite fair. There were several REALLY good science fiction films before "2001 A Space Odyssey." Were they as great?...probably not, but debatable. However, there were some thought provoking and conceptually profound science fiction films. Try the following: "The Day the Earth Stood Still"(1951) "The Incredible Shrinking Man"(1957) "Forbidden Planet"(1958) "Planet of the Apes"(1968) Those 4 films off the top of my head all preceded "2001 A Space Odyssey" and they all stand the test of time as classic science fiction films.

[@u2mister17]

Les Launer Your point is well taken. I was in the balcony 3rd row center on opening day. 13 years old with my 19 year old brother. 70mm - 3 screens - near THX music score - mind expanding visual detail - thought generating dimensional physics and we left the theater only able to nod at the quizzing ticket holders. I would pay $100 for each of 10 tickets to repeat that nights spectacle with family.

[@PaulKyriazi]

Great analysis of the movie with well edited visuals. I like the new chess game information. New to me.

[@stevenbrown1225]

I guess if a giant space fetus appeared floating in orbit around earth a huge argument would ensue down here as to if it should be terminated or not.

[@watermelonlalala]

Kubrick made an anti-abortion statement. Or maybe pro-abortion, we don't know what that baby is going to do.

[@exoplanet11]

Thanks for the analysis. I'm glad you included the Jung/Campbell connections.

[@shaggycan]

You cannot go by the novel, it was written quite separately.

[@NightmareMasterclass]

+Jim Humphries Hmm. Yes. Quite.

[@slicknick76]

Wow. This is one of the most incitful review of 2001. Great review man!

[@HunkyDork]

Wow! thank you for bothering to communicate all that. I have long been intrigued by the size of the monolith, it's ubiquity and it's multiplicity. In the books, all of which came after the film, the monolith is said to be always the required size: "The monolith was 11 feet high, and 11/4 by 5 feet in cross-section. When its dimensions were checked with great care, they were found to be in the exact ratio 1 to 4 to 9 - the squares of the first three integers". So, is it the same or are they the same...! In the fourth dimension it measure 16 units and in the fifth 25 I guess so good night now. HD

[@thecarman3693]

3:10 No good science fiction movie preceded 2001? I guess you've never watched Forbidden Planet.

[@heidiclark190]

The Day the Earth Stood Still another terrific classic the British film Five Million Years To Earth another good film. Logan’s Run is a very good film also.

[@SequentiallyCompact]

I can't believe I hesitated to subscribe, but... error fixed.

[@OfflineSetup]

The scripts are the best source of understanding. However the film is the film.

[@jamesedwards.1069]

I can't find your reply to my comment, Mr Nightmare Masterclass, so I can't reply to it directly, sorry. Don't get the wrong idea. I loved your video as I love the movie "2001." I love to discuss arcane and hypothetical metaphysical ideas, and I do take what Ligotti says very seriously, which is why I went what might be considered overly polemical against him. It is a great insight of his that is not exactly new that to know and to understand is to suffer great pain and sadness and grief. But without the negative thoughts and feelings we cannot understand positive thoughts and feelings, in my admittedly arrogant opinion. So, just like Captain Kirk said in Star Trek 5, "I need my pain." If other humans want to live like termites in a termite mound, they can't do it without my contempt and reproach for their opprobrium. Now, think about this: if I insult and contemn people for being unconscious, how the hell will the poor dumb bastards ever know about it? Finally, it is obvious to me, and it is the real reason I called Ligotti's approach a communist one, is because communism is atheistic and to reduce consciousness is to defy the will of God, who does not want us to be stupid. And if we don't understand suffering we will be stupid. In the immortal words of Solomon the Wise in Ecclesiastes, 1: " 17 And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. 18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

[@tonym994]

I don't play chess, but I'm sure Kubrick did. that scene may be the most interesting point u have made.

[@gregsmith7949]

Kubrick was a master chess player. As a teenager he would play for money in his local park.

[@briankoontz1]

I have a different theory on the emotional muteness - technology is eclipsing humanity. Technology is depicted as more emotional than humans because humans are creating technology to replace itself. Humans are giving birth to technology as the next step in evolution, and willfully going extinct. So Hal is like an excited child, his emotional immaturity is evident, while humans are depicted as old, resigned, and dying. While the movie is usually viewed as the progression of *humanity* , no way has yet been discovered to depict a technological fetus, so the closing image could simply be interpreted as the birth of the next step in the evolution of the agent of hegemonic *power* , rather than necessarily the next step in *human* evolution, as well as Kubrick not wanting to make such a bold statement.

[@richardjarrell3585]

“...this criteria...” The singular of criteria is criterion

[@rotisseriepossum]

I just watched the movie yesterday and honestly I was bored as hell-the parts with the monolith and apes were rly cool-and then by the time everything happened at the end, it was cool but at the same time I was just like ‘...well alright.’ Maybe I need to rewatch it or open my mind but I’m hoping this analysis will help me appreciate it Edit: also Hal dying was creepy af, and the transformation sequences were GREAT

[@rekinlas]

Much of the movie is really art, visually and musically. Many of the "boring" sequences weren't even thought of by the layman back in 1968. Some people think the star gate sequence gets boring. However, I look for interesting things in the images. Note that HAL's memory logic center is "replayed" in that star gate as well as other interesting imagery. There are so many little things people notice when watching the movie again. Why so many birthdays mentioned? (at least 3). Why is the shape of the monolith repeated in so many places (walls, meal trays, push buttons on spacesuits, even the intermission screen)? Kubrick offered viewers much more than what is in the novel, almost like a puzzle. This is why I still don't get bored watching the movie. And when you compare the photography and effects in 2001 to what's in other Sci-fi movies or real space photos of the era, it's really amazing what Kubrick did.

[@bradley6386]

Excellent branding. Your logo and name dead give away to the content !

[@sweethater8558]

Why did they need a human crew during the journey at all? They believed HAL to be infallible at the start of the journey but didn't trust him to run the ship by himself? Did they believe HAL by himself wouldn't have motive to awaken the frozen crew?

[@AlejandroGarcia-uz3ne]

That's a conceit of humanity. Logically HAL alone would suffice as you said. Just give him ways to make repairs (remember the ways humans do it is just as difficult and unintuitive) and design the ship for HAL and not humans. It's more efficient for time and resources. When asked if HAL has real emotions, the man simply says it seems so, but no one can really say. However, the very fact that humans were on board at all implies no one actually believes HAL to be truly conscious.

[@scottweaverphotovideo]

There is no "bad acting" in 2001. Although the best performance consists only of a voice, HAL.

[@TheProrage509]

The greatest achievement was reading the book

[@Rahoorkhuitable]

HAL is like Pluto that is reflected by the sun.But Pluto is not in Kether, it is in Daath.So, why can HAL speak? That which speaks, is the court that is NOT THERE.And the court that is NOT THERE is the center of our galaxy, which is a BLACK HOLE (watch "infinity" in 2001). And all the black holes at the center of each galaxy are connected with each other. I would set Neptune on Kether and Uranus on wisdom, for the sake of proper distances... As Pluto is the dog of Micky Mouse, there MUST be a connection to Anubis...(that was a joke...Dave).

[@waypoint1138]

Brilliant documentary! Well done!!

[@King_Richard01]

combat is still up close and personal. believe me.

[@RaikenXion]

I wish they would make a sequel to 2010

[@ernestolombardo5811]

They could (and probably should) skip 2061: Odyssey Three and go straight to 3001: The Final Odyssey. Get Christopher Nolan to direct it.

[@hypnotised-clover]

Raiken Xion Was it called 2011? Or is this a spell mistake?

[@RaikenXion]

+Ernesto Lombardo Yes! Or Denis Villenuve :-)

[@RaikenXion]

+Obnoxious Otter 2001, 2010, 2061, 3001 then Firstborn etc

[@marcelloursic424]

Ernesto Lombardo, or Dennis Villenuve

[@christopher19894]

Suicidal philosophies are too paradoxical to take seriously. If consciousness is a dangerous anomaly of nature, why would you ever trust in that consiousness to describe an accurate solution of it? The people who write those philosophies obviously think that their consiousness is useful, and they manage to finish their work before they take their own suicidal advice.

[@brooklyn113]

It's the Eternal Return.

[@rexremedy1733]

Shape of things to come and Metropolis are good precursor science fiction movies...

[@WestlineDI]

Well the four minutes of total darkness is nothing so deep. It's simply the play-out music common in Roadshow releases. The same with the 'darkness' at the beginning. That's the overture. Otherwise I really enjoyed your analysis.

[@LockSteady]

Why is it that my only memory of this movie was of the guy from Jaws telling everyone that HAL was programmed to lie, and it drove him insane...Yet you're talking about it only from an 'early drafts' perspective? Did i watch a director's cut or something?

[@montag4516]

LockSteady : "the guy from Jaws". That's actor Roy Sheider. He was in the sequel "2010" but not part of the original 2001 film. Stanley Kubrick directed 2001, but not 2010. The whole feel and production of these two films is extremely different. Subjectivily, 2001 may be the most intriguing and striking film ever made. So deep in detail and questions that seem to perpetuate rather than resolve.