Today I sit down and watch the iconic 2001: A Space Odyssey for the first time. Lots of fun movie magic and confusion!
Пікірлер: 419
@Agmanellium3 ай бұрын
You're the only person I've ever known to realize Dave left without his helmet before HAL mentions it.
@itubeutubewealltube13 ай бұрын
also the only reactor who realized its the same monolith that was on earth and the moon
@TTM96913 ай бұрын
......and knew that wasn't a real zebra!!!! And that it was a tapir! And lots of other stuff Very impressive reaction! Great eye for details. Very intelligent.
@sixstanger003 ай бұрын
@@itubeutubewealltube1 It's not the same monolith. In 2010, the dimensions of the one orbiting Jupiter are described and it's length is several kilometers.
@DocMicrowave2 ай бұрын
sixstanger00 But the ratio of the of the monolith has always been exactly the same no matter the size. 1x4x9.
@sixstanger002 ай бұрын
@@DocMicrowave Ratio, yes. But actual SIZE? No. What that means is that it's thickness has always been some factor of 1, it's length has always been some factor of 9, and it's width has always been some factor of 4.
@majkus3 ай бұрын
One of the injustices of the time is that the ape makeup in Planet of the Apes received an Academy Award, while this film's hominid costumes and makeup were ignored. I swear the Academy people thought those were real apes.
@anorthosite3 ай бұрын
Clarke and/or Kubrick quipped same :) But maybe the "real" reason was that so MANY Hollywood make-up artists were "conscripted/diverted" to make the P.O.T.A make-up actually work. While Kubrick produced 2001 mainly in the UK (food for thought).
@TheMrPeteChannel2 ай бұрын
@anorthosite Nowadays the accedamy would rather the awards go to foreign productions. Ten of the last 11 winners for best direction were born outside the USA. Apparently the accedamy still thinks this is Trump's America.
@stevetheduck14253 ай бұрын
The black screen is the 'Overture', which was run while the cinema's stage curtains were still closed, and people were making their way to their seats. The curtains go up and the lights go down for the MGM logo ( this one is only on this film ). Then the film begins.
@majkus3 ай бұрын
"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" also had an overture section.
@terencemccormick81783 ай бұрын
@@majkus Overtures used to be very common. Here are a few more from the period where they had started to wane: Lawrence of Arabia It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World The Black Hole (same year as Star Trek TMP) Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive list. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_with_overtures
@neilsimpson25003 ай бұрын
My God it's full of stars.
@jonathanroberts89813 ай бұрын
Much of it photographed with a “slit-scan” camera that took a minute to make each frame - and you need 24 frames each second.
@adamjondo3 ай бұрын
'I miss old movies. There's something nice about just existing in a story as it slowly unveils'. Great response. You're a natural.
@user-ec5bo8tx4n3 ай бұрын
7:07 "See, this is why practical effects are so better than CGI, because practical effects tend to hold up more." True.
@kellymoses85663 ай бұрын
The best CGI holds up just as well. The time travel suits in Avengers: Endgame were all 100% CGI and NO ONE could tell.
@ftumschk3 ай бұрын
@@kellymoses8566 Well "Endgame" was only made around 5 years ago. Who knows how well the CGI will look to audiences 15-20 years in the future.
@sixstanger003 ай бұрын
@@kellymoses8566 Hardly, and that's a really bad example of "best CGI" because in that particular case, it was completely unnecessary to do them CGI. Marvel has a penchant for overusing the f*** out of CGI, even on mundane shit that shouldn't require it, such as She-Hulk being shot with motion capture and then her green skin tone added in fucking post, or shooting a scene of Samuel L Jackson entirely against green screen, only for the finished product to just be a drywall background with a fucking lamp. It's lazy, and it's absurd. Besides, considering most Marvel films (as well as other modern action films) just look like a dizzying array of CGI FX crammed into every shot, there's no comparing practical FX of old to current trends. ALL modern films look like polished video games, with otherwise "connector shots" dressed up unnecessarily to make them look more artsy. The most common comparison I give is something like the sequence of model shots showing the Falcon entering the Death Star. These shots were intended to convey to the audience only ONE THING - "the Falcon has gone from being in space to not being in space; we are now IN the Death Star." In these shots, there is only the Falcon presented against a crystal clear starfield. We don't need anything else in these shots, because it could only serve to clutter things up. Compare this to a shot in say, "The Last Jedi," where the Falcon pops up into frame from the bottom -- a color filter is applied, artificial shaky cam, the ship itself wobbles as if it's a helicopter, the background is riddled with extra objects, resulting in a "busy" shot that is clearly inserted for no other reason than, "it'll look cool." The shot doesn't propel the story like the formers do; it's just inserted because...."cool shot of the Falcon."
@billolsen43602 ай бұрын
Like she remarked, CGI ages rather poorly. Now we've got a "modern" version of "Planet Of The Apes" all in cartoonish CGI. I'm sure it'll flop at the box office.
@pexxos13 ай бұрын
Comparing 2001 to Dr. Who is like comparing the Taj Mahal to a cardboard box.
@YngvarfoАй бұрын
Considering the shape of the monolith, which is the cardboard box? 😂
@markhill3858Ай бұрын
@@Yngvarfo the monolith is proportioned to 1:4:9, very exciting to a mathematician .. that would be the Taj.
@YngvarfoАй бұрын
@@markhill3858 - If you actually look at the monolith, the thickness is nowhere near 1:4 of the width, so the makers of the Taj were clearly much better at following the specifications. 😊
@markhill3858Ай бұрын
@@Yngvarfo well thats exactly what the proportions are .. youre mis-estimating it. In the film its 1.4.9 .. in the books its 1.4.8. Its supposed to be a message from the aliens
@YngvarfoАй бұрын
@@markhill3858 It was never mentioned in Stanley Kubrick's original movie. It was only in the book by Arthur C Clarke, and it was always 1:4:9 there. Never 1:4:8. When he wrote the sequel 2010 many years later, he mentioned it again, and when it was turned into a movie by Peter Hyams, those references made their way into the movie. That was the first time that the 1:4:9 ratio was mentioned in a movie. But I said "if you actually look at the monolith." It is quite clear that the proportions are *not* 1:4:9. It's much too narrow. As long as it was only in the book, not the movie, I could call it one of the inconsistencies, like Discovery going to Jupiter rather than Saturn. But in the sequel, Peter Hyams made the characters mention the ratio, while at the same time just copying the monolith from the first movie which was *not* 1:4:9. It's not such an exceptionally significant mathematical ratio anyway. It's just the first three integers squared. Mathematics is full of quirky sequences. I searched the web for images to show what I meant. I was lucky, and found that someone else made the same point in much greater detail, as well as an explanation of how the inconsistency happened. Apparently, Kubrick came up with the idea of a rectangular shape first (they had been thinking of a tetrahedron, like in Clarke's story The Sentinel), and Clarke came up with the 1:4:9 ratio from that, but Kubrick had already shot scenes of the monolith as he envisioned it. 2010odysseyarchive.blogspot.com/2015/12/monolith-metrics-component-one.html
@pjcornelius3 ай бұрын
I am impressed with your understanding of many aspects of this movie. Don’t feel bad that you don’t totally understand it, you are not supposed to. It is meant to make you think. Most of all I appreciate that a young person such as yourself does not dismiss it because it is not fast-paced, action packed, and predictable like most movies, especially today. As a few others have suggested, there are other classic SciFi movies you might appreciate, like Forbidden Planet, The Andromeda Strain, and (later) The Abyss. Of course even more I recommend reading classic SciFi, especially authors like Arthur C. Clarke (who I met), Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein (I prefer his earlier works), Harlan Ellison (who I also met), Poul Anderson, and of course H. G. Wells, to name just a few.
@Malfehzan3 ай бұрын
I don't like Heinlein much, but All You Zombies! is oh so freaking out there... !
@TomCarrell14 ай бұрын
The trip to Jupiter was, indeed, shot primarily on the inside of a rotating platform. It was a kind of Ferris wheel with the camera fixed in some shots and moving with the wheel in other shots. The "Ferris wheel" was where the crew lived to provide spin gravity, as you suspected. The rest of the ship was not rotating so moving from one part of the ship to another involved clever spin, slow-motion acrobatics. I saw 2001 when it came out (I was 15 years old in 1968) and I thought it was almost a blueprint for the future. I still haven't adjusted to the disappointment of reality not keeping up with the film😀! Each time I watch this movie I get more out of it and I enjoyed your perspective -- you have some great intuitions. I predict you will be thinking about this film for a long time to come.
@Tommy-xq5jw3 ай бұрын
This film influenced so many others; star wars, star trek, tron... they are all there. x)
@dcanmore3 ай бұрын
That was Stanley Kubrick's daughter on the video-phone. The entire movie was filmed on sound stages in London (UK), the only scene filmed outside was the bone thrower, which was shot in the studio car park. The actors didn't know what HAL sounded like until the premier of the movie because HAL's voice was added post production.
@thomasoa3 ай бұрын
My favorite part of this was that, during filming, HALs lines were spoken by a man with a thick cockney accent.
@jonathanroberts89813 ай бұрын
Hal was voiced by Douglas Rain. No relation to Rainn Wilson as far as I know, though there are some similarities to my ear.
@PointyTailofSatan3 ай бұрын
@@jonathanroberts8981 Rain was a famous Canadian Shakespearian stage actor.
@kirkdarling41204 ай бұрын
Speaking of practical effects, they built those sets full size, and yes, they did even spin them. The Discovery set was actually the size of a Ferris wheel that they spun slowly during filming. I believe this was the first time a "wormhole" was represented on screen. While there are many personal interpretations of what this movie is about, the author of the original short story ("The Sentinel") and the novelization of the movie, Arthur C. Clarke, did present his interpretation. The Monolith on earth affected the early hominoids to set them on their next phase of development. The triumphant ape tossed his primitive weapon into the air which transitioned into an orbiting nuclear weapon, The Monolith on the moon was an "alarm" that would be set off when humans had developed far enough to discover it. It sent a signal to the third Monolith with the intention of humans following the signal to the third Monolith and then being drawn through the wormhole. Yes, the last Monolith transformed Dave Poole into the next phase of humanity, a Star Child. In the novel, the Star Child destroys the orbital weapons with a thought and the reader is left with the explanation that the Star Child was in control of the world and didn't exactly know what to do next, but he'd think of something. The reason HAL went rogue was because it could not determine a logical reason why the humans had not been given all the information about the mission. It reasoned he was the only entity that had all the information because it was the only entity that was fully trustworthy. So, in its zeal to ensure the success of the mission, it reasoned that it should eliminate all the less trustworthy crew members. I saw this with my teen-aged crew in the theater in 68. We sat in the front row, and as Bowman went through the wormhole, one of my buddies (who was a stoner) started screaming, "It's blowing my mind! It's blowing my mind!"
@Richard_Ashton3 ай бұрын
This is an excellent synopsis.
@dominicschaeffer9093 ай бұрын
this is ridiculous
@kirkdarling41203 ай бұрын
@@dominicschaeffer909 What, the book recap?
@MsAppassionata3 ай бұрын
@@dominicschaeffer909 Why?
@CubanWriter3 ай бұрын
I can tell you that when this came out, people who had never read the book had no idea what to think about the ending. But Kubrick did not seem particularly concerned that you have a definitive idea about what you'd just seen. He seemed content to let you come to your own ideas and interpretations.
@randybass88423 ай бұрын
The book was written after the movie, by co-screenwriter Arthur C. Clarke.
@CubanWriter3 ай бұрын
@@randybass8842 The book was written concurrently with the film. It was released just after the film. But people who never read the book had no idea what the ending was supposed to mean, and could only guess at what the heck was going on.
@iamamaniaint3 ай бұрын
There are not enough storytellers who do this. Everything is explained and drained of mystery. I'd rather be challenged, it's much more engaging when an artist respects my intelligence
@rogeriopenna90143 ай бұрын
When our ancestor throws the bone in the air, the cut shows a nuclear weapons orbital platform, not any satellite. Thus, it's a 4 million years time cut, from the first human weapon to the most advanced human weapon. In some ways, it shows how much we advanced... And how much we are still the same.
@gregrtodd3 ай бұрын
Great review Wren. Very impressed that you picked up on so many of the details. A lot of reactors miss so much. The centrifuge shot in the Discovery wasn't a cut. Frank Poole was strapped into his seat and hanging upside down when Dave Bowman came down the ladder. You pretty much figured out the end, but for clarity read Arthur C Clarke's novel -it explains what happened in much greater detail
@cstephen983 ай бұрын
Frank Poole returns in 3001. His body is discovered drifting in space and brought back to life.
@benvandermerwe49342 күн бұрын
The girlfriend's discovey of "mutilation" was a cool "cultural reference". 🖖🏻
@stevetheduck14253 ай бұрын
Ape costumes: the same year, a film called 'Planet of the Apes' got the make-up Oscar. Apparently it made more money, soo... but it could also be because no-one in Hollywood realised they were costumes and masks.
@88wildcat3 ай бұрын
Or it could be because the actors performing as the apes were all mimes and no one likes mimes.
@ftumschk3 ай бұрын
@@88wildcat Marcel Marceau: "Hold my beer while I lean on this invisible shelf"
@ozmaile79383 ай бұрын
The worm hole effects didn't drag on Cinarama , huge curved wide screens in theaters. especially if on Acid (LSD) which I and a fair amount of people were tripping on
@MrGadfly7723 ай бұрын
"This is taking some time but I want some answers" suns the movie up nicely.
@claudioveliz98343 күн бұрын
A refreshing change in a young viewer. You're observant, and cleverly thoughtful. Good job!
@markmorningstar53743 ай бұрын
Great insights make for a fine reaction, Wren! Most of your questions will be answered in "2010: The Year We Make Contact"...a good movie! For other Sci-Fi movie suggestions: "The day the Earth stood still" 1951 "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" 1954 (Walt Disney) "Forbidden Planet" 1956 "Journey to the Center of the Earth" 1959 "The Time Machine" 1960 "Fantastic Voyage" 1966 "Farhenheit 451" 1966 "Planet of the Apes" 1968 "A Clockwork Orange" 1971 "The Andromeda Strain" 1971 "The Omega Man" 1971 (remade as 'I am Legend') "Silent Running" 1972 "Slaughterhouse-Five" 1972 "Soylent Green" 1973 (Edward G. Robinson's last movie) "Westworld" 1973 "The Stepford Wives" 1975 "Logan's Run" 1976 "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" 1977 "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" 2005 (Comedy Sci-Fi) Other movies are so iconic (Star Wars, Star Trek, Alien, Back to the Future, etc.) I won't list those. Good Luck with your job hunting! Mark
@paulsander54333 ай бұрын
Great recommendations! Let's see... "The day the Earth stood still" 1951 - Michael Rennie was dying during filming, but it doesn't show. There's also a recent remake starring Keanu Reeves that's not bad, but watch it after the original. "Forbidden Planet" 1956 - starring Leslie Nielsen, before he was known for "don't call me Shirley". "Planet of the Apes" 1968 - arguably better than the recent remake. "The Andromeda Strain" 1971 - Featuring Eric Christmas, also known for his roles as the high school principal in the Porky's movies and as a crazy priest in the Cheers TV series. He was one of my professors at university. Interesting guy. "Silent Running" 1972 - Scored by Peter Schickele, of P. D. Q. Bach fame. He also scored the musical "Oh! Calcutta!". Be sure to watch the full-length theatrical edition. Broadcast TV editions were shortened for commercials, and they sacrificed too much of the story. Although this is a thought-provoking story, I found it harder to watch than most of the 1970's apocalyptic movies. "Logan's Run" 1976 - Watch the movie. Then watch the TV series if you REALLY like the movie. "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" 2005 (Comedy Sci-Fi) - In addition to the movie, there's a TV mini series, radio program (and LP), and a stage production. Not to mention the books. All are great!
@markmorningstar53743 ай бұрын
Nice details, especially on Silent Running with your teacher! All of "THGTTG" were so far out of the box! It remains the ONLY book I have read, cover-to-cover without putting it down! Sooo funny: "It's Marvin!...He just phoned up to wash his head at us!" Just too much humor ut fell out of a trilogy into 5 books, and a short story! Have you read any of Douglas' other works? "The Meaning of Liff" was more information, you didn't realize you needed!
@geek10273 ай бұрын
the words Explosive Bolts was prominent on the door because in 1967, three astronauts died in a fire in a test of the lunar module when the escape door would not open. After that, NASA switched to explosive bolts on the door so that could not happen again
@stevenlowe30263 ай бұрын
They must have had explosive bolts in the spacecraft - Gus Grissom, one of the astronauts who died in the fire, had previously lost his Mercury spacecraft when the explosive bolts went off before the helicopter had hooked on, opening the hatch and allowing water in so it sank.
@paulsander54333 ай бұрын
The escape hatch on Apollo 1 opened inward, and the pressure build-up due to heat from the fire (which burned really fast in a pure oxygen atmosphere) prevented it from opening. The remaining existing Apollo command modules were used for unmanned missions, and a redesigned command module (with a quick-release hatch that opened outward) was used for crewed missions beginning with Apollo 7. Interestingly, Apollo 6 was planned to practice the free return trajectory used by Apollo 13, but engine failures prevented this trip to the moon. The remaining mission objectives were completed in Earth orbit using the service module engine.
@dudermcdudeface36743 ай бұрын
@@stevenlowe3026 They started out with bolts, then Grissom's mission had that mishap, so they took the bolts out and made the hatch open inward. Which is what killed him and the other two crewmen in the Apollo 1 fire. I'm not sure if the bolts came back, but the door was changed to open outward.
@Charles_Bro-son3 ай бұрын
The follow-up 2010, whilst not being as revolutionary and artsy, gives some answers to what happened to HAL and what might be behind the monolith. It's a good watch.
@nationaltrails95853 ай бұрын
The 1971 Robert Wise film, The Andromeda Strain, based on 1969 Michael Crichton novel, comes to mind as an excellent science fiction thriller. Good Film. :)
@rsvp91463 ай бұрын
+1 I think you would very much enjoy Andromeda Strain.
@donsample10023 ай бұрын
“The helmets look like faces.” The green one especially looks like Kermit.
@bertmckinney89943 ай бұрын
HAL was programmed to be 100% loyal and honest with Dave and Frank. He was also given a secret (the briefing). This created an unresolvable conflict that drove him mad. Or the computer equivalent.
@karidrgn3 ай бұрын
For another classic scifi film you should watch Forbidden Planet ... based on Shakespeare Tempest. And for even older... a silent film Metropolis, and Earth to the Moon.
@jasonp.11953 ай бұрын
Metropolis (1927) has an interesting anime version from the year 2001. Things to Come (1936) When Worlds Collide (1951) Outland (1981)
@mrwomby50073 ай бұрын
I second Forbidden Planet. At the time it was the most expensive SF movie ever made and was also unusual to show humans going to another planet.
@mikejankowski63213 ай бұрын
Also, The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951).
@fredrikkilander40443 ай бұрын
Re the portal sequence, paraphrasing the film makers: What would a stone age person understand riding a car down Broadway?
@THOMMGB3 ай бұрын
Hi Wren, You really were quite insightful and picked up on so many things. As others have mentioned, 2010: The Year We Make Contact should be reacted to as soon as you're able. It's more of a conventional movie, but it does explain a lot and is well worth your time. I just subscribed.
@johnpoile14513 ай бұрын
Dark Star, a sci fi film for consideration.
@TeddysTube3 ай бұрын
YES! Dark Star too. 👍
@HSR1073 ай бұрын
First time listener, first time caller, and new subscriber before you reached 1K. I'm here because this is one of my favorite pieces of cinema but I've seen it so many times over the past 40 years so it has nothing left to offer me. Seeing other people discover it, however... And at the moment you discussed it being more of an experience than a narrative I knew this would be good and, yeah, you picked up on so much more than any other first timer (including myself) I've seen. That was actually Stanley's intent, for the film to be experienced on a deeper more visceral level where it could be discovered which is why he's almost ever discussed what it's about. Also, the proto-humans were professional mimes and it wasn't so much WHAT Moonchild was thinking so much that it was THAT he was thinking. That was the moment the very first hominid became sapient. (the dawn of man) I don't want to say too much but the "Jupiter and Beyond" chapter was as incomprehensible for us because it was incomprehensible to Dave as it becoming sapient was for the first human it was for Moonchild when HE became something new. One quote from the book which applied to Moonchild at the end of "The Dawn of Man" and Starchild at the end of "Jupiter and Beyond" is, "Then he waited, marshaling his thoughts and brooding over his still untested powers. For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next. But he would think of something." One last thing from the book. When the bone cuts to a space craft: It's a satellite armed with nuclear missiles and all of the nuclear armed satellites were destroyed by Starchild when it returned to Earth. Oh yeah, I guess it's also important that the book and movie were both created at the same time Kubrick would show Clarke his dailies, Clarke would share his narrative with Kubrick, and the two would hash out where it went from there. So even the process (which had never happened before) was had the fictional universe emerge via evolution. Really looking forward to seeing how you read other thoughtful and philosophical cinema.
@that1guy3753 ай бұрын
This film is tremendous, one of my favorites. Everything in space is just perfect. The atmosphere, the effects, the music/lack thereof. My tastes fall more on the arty side, so I love sci-fi films like this and the original Solaris.
@philshorten32213 ай бұрын
And the follow up, 2010 helps
@donaldjz3 ай бұрын
FORBIDDEN PLANET 1956 is a good one to watch. Tom Baker as Doctor Who is my favorite. Star Trek TOS is a must see
@YngvarfoАй бұрын
There was no cut when Bowman walked around the centrifuge. It spun along with him. The tiles on the floor would part to give room for the camera when it followed him jogging. Poole was strapped to his chair, giving the illusion that he was stationary, when in fact he was the one revolving around. When we saw the two astronauts in the hallway, entering the spinning section, it in fact stopped spinning while the hallway and the camera started spinning in the opposite direction. If you look very closely, you can see that there is a slight stutter in the rotation when it changes, but it's hard to spot. It all makes the point that the circular room, the centrifuge, is the only part of the ship with a semblance of gravity. The cockpit and the pod bay are supposed to be zero G, and they only move about with some of the same kind of gripping shoes that the stewardess used earlier. While I can point to the movie 2010 for *some* answers, I think I can say right now that the alien intelligence behind the monolith had nothing to do with HAL's malfunction. They were separate events, only connected by a theme of creating intelligence. The aliens encouraged some intelligence in the man-apes, and millions of years later, man, in turn, created artificial intelligence.
@MrGadfly7723 ай бұрын
This movie has quite the story to it. One big part is that Kubrick didn't want to give any answers and really wanted audiences to be a part of the movie by being forced to sit with their questions. Clarke on the other hand is your pretty straightforward science geek that Kubrick kind of used Clarke to get through certain doors. Anyway, people will tell you that you can find answers in subsequent books and the movie 2010. But that's only Clarke's answers. I prefer it more open ended as Kubrick intended.
@jonathanroberts89813 ай бұрын
Kubrick aimed, I think, to tell a story in pure cinematic terms. There’s no dialogue in two of the three parts, and most dialogue in part two is completely mundane (Floyd is praised for a speech that is nothing special).
@imdiyu3 ай бұрын
If you love this film then you would also probably love the Soviet Sci-Fi film "Solaris" by Andrei Tarkovsky. Although both films are quite different.
@tlamb13792 ай бұрын
You are very intelligent! Loved watching you work out what is happening!
@cutthr0atjake3 ай бұрын
The food wouldn't be liquid, it would be paste. It's not done to conserve weight, but by being fully enclosed, it stops bits of food breaking off & floating away.
@paulsander54333 ай бұрын
And coating the walls, people, and equipment.
@CB-ju4mz3 ай бұрын
I first saw this film as a kid on a school trip to a local art house theater. It was one of the most confusing but interesting experiences and a formative experience in my love of science fiction.
@Cbcw763 ай бұрын
I think just about everyone in every audience has said the same thing: "WHAT WAS THAT?!!" One of the worst things is to suffer the loss when NOT seeing this on The Big Screen in a jammed theater. This movie has not been SEEN until you've had that experience.
@BigSleepyOx3 ай бұрын
Wow, your explanations of what happened are really great and pretty close to the mark. Took me three watches to come up with satisfying answers. 🤣
@miamicool6663 ай бұрын
It's a real pleasure to listen to someone so precocious and intelligent in his words, and this, for a classic of SF that is not really accessible the first time.
@miamicool6663 ай бұрын
@@group-music I still have good eyes to see that she is an intelligent young girl.
@Awaken2067833758Күн бұрын
That "tablet" is the best foreseen thing in that movie
@sixstanger003 ай бұрын
Details: Notice that when Dave first enters the emergency airlock, there is no sound. But once he closes the outer hatch and the air lock pressurizes, suddenly we can hear sound.
@user-ec5bo8tx4n2 ай бұрын
It's cinematic creative genius. One of the movie's most dramatic and physical scenes, Dave's "explosive" entrance into the airlock, is filmed in silence.
@sixstanger002 ай бұрын
@@user-ec5bo8tx4n Kubrick incorporated this into all scenes set in the vacuum of space: That's why when they're space walking, all we hear is their breathing - because air only exists inside their helmets. Or when Dave goes after Frank's body, we hear instruments beeping during cockpit scenes, but it cuts to silence during exterior shots.
@user-ec5bo8tx4n2 ай бұрын
@@sixstanger00 It's amazing to realize that the movie is over a half-century old. Even today, the space ships seem so realistic.
@spencerbookman25233 ай бұрын
I would guess that this movie had more of an influence on Star Trek: The Motion Picture than Star Wars. My candidate for creative influence to Star Wars is the movie Silent Running(1971), starring Bruce Dern and directed by Douglas Trumbull (his only director credit, if I’m not mistaken), a hidden gem of ‘70s B-movie sci-fi, IMHO.
@jonathanroberts89813 ай бұрын
People forget that Star Wars was supposed to be like a Saturday-afternoon serial, real space opera, swashbuckling adventure.
@tonybennett41593 ай бұрын
Smart reaction, Wren. I am old enough to have seen this movie on its original release as an adult, and I can tell you that for most of us nothing in the movie dragged. The main reason being that it was shown in Cinerama, a vast curved screen that even IMAX can't match. The sound systems had at that time only recently become stereophonic with sophisticated equipment that gave a full, rich sound compared with previous versions. As you rightly point out, the level of special effects was also unprecedented. The overall effect was that we were mesmerised and overwhelmed, we almost didn't care about the meaning behind it. Anyway, like many others I suspect, I went the following week having had that time to mull it over, and that was a fruitful revisit. It's up to you to decide if you wish to see the sequel 2010 : The year We Make Contact, but to me it lost the majesty and worse still, the mystery of the original. In some cases mystery is far better than the answer, and for me the feeling was one of anti-climax, so I forgot about it and will never seek it out again. Some people agree with me on this, others not, it's a personal thing.
@riadoc70013 ай бұрын
I hope this doesn't sound condescending but I'm taken aback by your spot on analysis of the movie as a whole and the various elements within it. You're certainly a better analyst than I was when I first saw this film - you have another subscriber.
@Lethgar_Smith3 ай бұрын
A very intelligent response to the movie. Your observations were refreshingly new and different than others I have watched. Good job!
@Cally.Summer27 күн бұрын
It's refreshing that there aren't scene changes every thirteen seconds. That's one significant thing we seem to have lost in the last few decades - the concept of an attention span. I also relish the fact that there aren't more explosions than scene changes.
@rancosteel18 күн бұрын
The black screen in the beginning is the monolith that Kubrick is forcing you to acknowledge.
@montylc20013 ай бұрын
Great reaction, kiddo. You got another subscriber. This movie was groundbreaking and considered a masterpiece in many ways, but it had it's flaws that I won't go into much. A study of it reveals Kubricks attention to not only detail but subtle tie in's from scene to scene. Constant visuals of rectangles the same dimensions of the Monolith, attention to detail, etc. One detail and continuity of story that most miss....and that's mainly because it's not clearly explained...is the scene and time transition from the bone tumbling in the air to the satellite millions of years later. The continuity here is advancement of tools used as weapons. The bone was a tool used to kill....and even though it's not explained, the satellite is an orbital nuclear weapon. I could go on and on, but perhaps you could watch it again and do a closer study. It truly is a remarkable film.
@carlazaz16903 ай бұрын
The dimensions of the monolith being one(squared) x two(squared) x three(squared) -- 1 x 4 x 9.
@randybass88423 ай бұрын
And you questioned before the end if it was going leave you wondering at the end! I had to laugh. Ha ha, yeah, it will. 😊
@EdwardBast3 ай бұрын
Done nothing since the moon? We have permanent space stations, we've done fly-byes for all the outer planets and many of their moons, we've had rovers on Mars, figured out and tested the technology to deflect dangerous asteroids, put the most powerful telescopes ever conceived into space, developed systems of communications and GPS satellites, identified thousands of exoplanets, seen the rise of private space companies using reusable boosters. Not sure what you were hoping for? ;-)
@DoctorShocktorАй бұрын
Seriously. It’s like someone saw the wright brother’s plane and says “that’s it” for transportation. Someone’s schooling seriously let her down, not to mention her parents and maybe herself a bit. Time for a bit of study there, Wrenster.
@TheChapelGrove3 ай бұрын
You have to remember that they're taking non-astronauts up in what's basically a space taxi to work in a space station. Keeping everything two-dimensional retains a sense of the "normal" for these people do they don't have to learn whole new ways of doing things. They can get to work much faster because things are where they expect them to be.
@pjcornelius3 ай бұрын
I appreciate your early comment about how we got to the moon and just stopped there. I was 12 (and a huge science fiction fan) when we landed on the moon the first time and have been disappointed all my life that we essentially gave up. Only now, with Elon Musk and SpaceX and a few others are we starting to truly advance again in a major way in space exploration. By the way, I once met Arthur C. Clarke, the author of 2001.
@jonathanroberts89813 ай бұрын
Clarke is credited by some with conceiving the geosynchronous communication satellite.
@DoctorShocktorАй бұрын
Gave up? Yeah, if you ignore deep space probes, probes to multiple planets, installation of deep space telescopes, set up of world wide space based communication networks, construction of the ISS and its continual operation and research, continued design and development of even more advanced rockets, engines, landers and other vehicles and probes, development of the shuttle transportation system and operation, development of land based radio telescopes and observatories, and massive research in to space flight, human factors, fuels, physics, etc. Yeah, we’ve hardly done “anything”. Maybe look into it a bit deeper?
@wagnarokkr3 ай бұрын
36:03 so my father was a grad student in Urbana in 1992. his university had a big "happy birthday HAL" party on that date. they found a guy who happened to be named Langley to sing the song
@kinokind2933 ай бұрын
Your observations are amazingly on point. There is no correct answer. Kubrick wanted it to be ambiguous. But your conclusions are better than most people's. Remember it was the 60s, and you appropriately used the word "Psychedelic" for that ending sequence. Back in the day, people would go to see it in the theatre stoned, just for that sequence. What always amazes me is how flawless the effects are, even today. all hail to the late, great Doug Trumbull, who created them. Fun fact: after production was over, Kubrick had all of the sets, models and documentation destroyed so that no one could ever use them to make an inferior sequel. Although eventually a sequel was made ("2010: The Year we Make Contact", in 1984) and it was quite good, but they had to remake much of Kubrick's stuff.
@BrianSiano3 ай бұрын
I truly wish people could see 2001 as it was intended-- on a mammoth screen from a 70mm print. I love watching people's reaction videos, but they have to watch it on a small screen, and they have to be commenting while watching. But it's great to know that 2001 can still knock people out.
@brucelamberton88193 ай бұрын
I saw it on the big screen around 1978-79 when it was re-released after the massive rise in the popularity of SF brought about from the original Star Wars. A lot of people went to see this expecting a SW-like movie but instead got "WTF???".
@TheMrPeteChannel2 ай бұрын
I saw it in both IMAX & 70mm for the 50th anniversary re-release in 2018. On the BIG 70mm Screen I noticed the space stations had painted flags & air force style roundels on them.
@CountScarlioni3 ай бұрын
"Almost looks like a time vortex in Doctor Who." Funny you should say that. The various versions of the Doctor Who opening titles from 1970 until 1986 were created using the same film technique of 'slit scan photography'. It was actually a relatively primitive process of pushing a camera along a track towards a thin strip of coloured light thousands of times over. Hugely time consuming! Douglas Trumbull who masterminded the sequence even automated the camera rig to speed the process up and it still took many months. Regardless, it's still highly effective and very trippy even today! Just one more of this film's many, many influences down the years. Anyway, very good reaction. I know for a fact I didn't deduce anything like as much of the film's meanings when I first saw it!
@TTM96913 ай бұрын
PS: The alternate version with the TikTok lady was hilarious, thanks for the demonstration of what you mean! :D Also, it's a small little detail, but even after seeing this film ten million times since I was, like, 11, I never noticed the guy at the space station slowly dragging his drink across the table with his finger. You don't get much fast stuff in this movie, not until you really need it!
@marke83233 ай бұрын
If you don't understand what you have just watched then welcome to the Millions of other people who have done the same thing. I think the true answer here (if there is one) is..."What does it mean to YOU?" The other movie, "2010" is not as Artsy and possibly LSD induced as this one but is still a very good movie. First time watcher, Thumbed and Subbed!
@Wolfinger19353 ай бұрын
There is not a reactor out there that has actually "experienced" 2001. You can't watch this movie on a small screen... even a 70 or 80 inch screen isn't big enough. It is sad that so many will never understand what this movie meant to audiences in the 60s.
@roberttaylor59973 ай бұрын
Well said. When this came out I was about 12, and I saw it on a big screen sitting in the front couple of rows of the cinema. The light show in particular was mind-blowing.
@DoctorShocktorАй бұрын
Nope. With modern VR headsets, you can view it on massive virtual screens, so no not so much on the “missing out”. Some people had to have viewed it by now on modern massive displays.
@SilverCloudMusic20123 күн бұрын
In the 2010 Space Odyssey, we learn that Hal was given mission priority and could not have the mission stopped by humans he acted locally, but broke the three laws of robotics. Watch 2010, It's not as good but it explains more.
@rayname9083 ай бұрын
By not explaining what the monolith is or what is happening made 2001 a mystery the audience has to fill-in-the-blank. This makes you more invested as co-author of the story and makes rewatvhes popular
@stevetheduck14253 ай бұрын
Space helmet design: the helmets in 2001 makes it so the view the occupant has is a rectangle, much like a movie screen, from his point of view. Interestingly, real space suits have to have a 'fishbowl' helmet with sunshields out side it, all so that the astronaut can look upwards, the direction he uses most when in zero-gravity. This was a discovery made just before the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon. Studying the different versions of the AL-7 suits they wore to the moon, each Apollo mission has something different about them as they were updated due to new discoveries.
@mikehenderson6313 ай бұрын
That's why I like the older movies over the new ones.They tell and they know how to tell a story
@SatelliteLily3 ай бұрын
I'm with you on the gritty dark sci-fi. I also agree sci-fi should be fun. 2001 is very nice to look at and can be fun to watch. I also recommend the sequel 2010: the Year We Make Contact. It is great-looking and has a lot of fun and action and answers some questions from 2001 and exists in its own place, very different from 2001. It is very good sci-fi and how I wish more of sci-fi felt. Not creepy or disturbing, just a good story and likeable characters. Thanks for a good video! Excellent observations on one of my favorites.
@perryallan35242 ай бұрын
Watch the movie 2010 to answer a lot of questions. There is also a book 2001 that came out at about the movie. It explains a lot more (and of course there are some details that are different).
@floorticket3 ай бұрын
That music at the beginning was for the audience to find their seats.
@perrinyone15963 ай бұрын
Yes, and be forewarned: Lawrence of Arabia, Gone With The Wind and a few other "epics" have the same stupid "overture" tacked on to the DVDs and steaming versions. Just fast-forward through them whenever you start a movie and you get something like that. It's only ever with really long epics.
@paulemery553 ай бұрын
I saw this when it came out. I was 13. What I got was the nature of our existence is unknowable. The sense of wonder is what drives the story. When I first saw HAL I thought it was the coolest thing but then I changed my mind.😮
@brianmiller42073 ай бұрын
You're pretty smart kid, you are so close to figuring it all out. It's fun watching a movie with you. Thanks ^__^
@philshorten32213 ай бұрын
A couple of classic SciFi I think you would love "Forbidden Planet" perfect example of what we "thought" a Robot would be😉 "Alien" changed what a Robot was forever. "Silent Running" back to those original Robots but an early warning "your f ing up the planet! Stop killing the environment" OR.... If you want to be truly terrified: "Plan 9 From Outer Space" Keep the lights on for this SciFi Horror!!!
@janneroz-photographyonabudget3 ай бұрын
Both fantastic movies, especially the former. The sets, the settings, the story, brilliant. I always felt that Alien, it's a horror film set in a spaceship, sci fi background. Great movie though. It's like Star Wars, more fantasy than sci fi. But all great and do get wedged quite rightly in to the Sci Fi genre.
@christianschoass30112 ай бұрын
The Story of this movie continues in the Film 2010 by Peter Hyams.
@StereoSpace3 ай бұрын
One thing that is confusing on first viewing this movie is that are multiple plots line running simultaneously. There is a 'tools' plot and how they change our destiny as a species, there is a 'mysterious interplanetary visitors' plot who left the black monoliths for us to find, an 'AI' plot and the promise and danger therein, and over it all is an 'evolution' plot, wherein we get reborn as non-material consciousness. Very cool movie, and some of the best movie cinematography I've ever seen. When this dropped in 1968, if nothing else, people were gobsmacked by the visual effects.
@cstephen983 ай бұрын
Remember this came out *before* the first moon landing. It changed how SciFi was portrayed. The big SciFi movie before this was Forbidden Planet with bright colours, flying saucers, etc. After this came out all movies looked this way for decades to come. Star Wars style came directly from this. Scientifically I don't think there was anything as nearly accurate until The Expanse came out.
@jonathanroberts89813 ай бұрын
A lot of “sci fi” films are just futuristic action/adventure movies. Ones that engage the mind have been rare.
@cstephen983 ай бұрын
NASA worked very closely with Kubrick and Clark. The spacsuits were based on one of the NASA prototype spacsuits that wasn't chosen.
@cubfanmike3 ай бұрын
The guys on the moon grabbed their helmets because of the enormous radio beacon aimed at Jupiter- HAL went paranoid because the Army ordered him to lie
@dylanthompson85113 ай бұрын
That "-" is misused and really makes it seem like you're saying something entirely different from what you actually are. Just lettin' ya know.
@harryrabbit28703 ай бұрын
Enjoyed your reaction. "2001" is an interesting work, allowing for a great deal of audience interpretation. My experience with it has been that repeat viewings help uncover greater insight. That said, you did pretty well first time out. I heard you mention looking at "Star Trek" possibly for future reactions. Suggest starting with a few of the TV episodes. The later content can be disappointing.
@diogenesagogo3 ай бұрын
Just occurred to me that the monoliths are shaped as they are to symbolise giant milestones man passes on his evolutionary journey ...
@stevenlowe30263 ай бұрын
But also the proportions are 1:4:9 - the squares of the first three numbers 1, 2, 3.
@mikejankowski63213 ай бұрын
@@stevenlowe3026 ...and they continue in higher dimensions.
@txmoneyАй бұрын
The good news is that all your unresolved questions is answered in the sequel: 2010: The Year We Make Contact. The bad news is, all your unresolved questions are answered in the sequel.
@TheMrPeteChannel2 ай бұрын
Congratulations. You're the first reviewer to figure out the "silly hats" are for Zero-G.
@jazzx2513 ай бұрын
That bit at the start (the black screen) was a nod to stage shows ... where you would have music playing as you entered the theatre and sat down That was clearly the filmmakers wanting the audience to be in the "headspace" as soon as they sat down I like it - better than endless stupid adverts anyway
@musicgarryj3 ай бұрын
Really good reaction! A sequel was made in 1984.... not by Stanley Kubrick but it had his seal of approval. 2010 The Year We Made Contact is more of a traditionally paced movie than the original, but it's really good and answers all your questions! It's definitely well worth reacting to: so..... PLEASE do it????? lol Btw....nice choice of glasses :)
@lazarochavez13 ай бұрын
Actually HAL is not IBM spelled one letter off at all, this is a myth. This was verified by one of the actors that worked closely with Kubrick in an interview (either Keir Dullea or Gary Lockwood, I forgot which). The actor said it was a technical acronym.
@djashley20023 ай бұрын
Except that Arthur C Clarke states in his book on the development and making of the movie The Lost Worlds of 2001 that he deliberately chose HAL as being one letter before IBM, and then came up with the term Heuristic ALgorithm to explain it.
@paintedjaguar3 ай бұрын
60's sound mixing, whether mono or stereo, actually had a lot more clarity than most current productions. And actors didn't constantly mumble or swallow their lines either - one didn't need subtitles to follow dialogue. As for the pacing of this film, it was much slower and deliberate than other movies of the time. If you haven't seen it before, you might be interested to compare the other major SF release from 1968, the original "Planet of the Apes", although now that I think of it, a significant portion of that one is pretty deliberate too, again for story reasons. If you want something really fast paced though, forget "modern" flicks and try a romcom or noir from the 1930s/1940s. "Bringing Up Baby" or "The Maltese Falcon" for instance. I've seen some current viewers have trouble keeping up, as it's the dialogue that is fast, not just a bunch of action shots. You're pretty much spot on regarding the plot, which really isn't that complicated. Kubrick deliberately kept some key points obscure, like HAL's motivations, for no other reason I can see but to seem mysterious and portentous.
@Yesquire03 ай бұрын
You now have a complete understanding of the ape fight in EEAaO.
@JulieFreyHomeWebBiz3 ай бұрын
Enjoy the soundtrack. (We saw movies rarely because they had to be in theaters or limited TV releases, so soundtracks were what we could experience with best stereo systems.) Explore the writer, Arthur C Clarke. See the next movie 2010: The Year We Make Contact Explore other Kubrick productions.
@therealsoeazy3 ай бұрын
"Put your helmet on! Put your helmet on!" bro just watched his best mate get launched into oblivion... It's showing that even the most prepared astronaut for the mission would still not be able to think straight if something like this happened, just my opinion.
@donsample10023 ай бұрын
But the whole reason for him being suited up in the first place was if he had to get outside to help in an emergency, and “get helmet and gloves” should have been thoroughly drilled into him for that situation.
@ozmaile79383 ай бұрын
The story is actually quite simple: A advanced being either monitored or contributed to our early development as a species (the early ape/men where on earth). They left a monolith (much cooler than slab) on the moon knowing that if we found it that we had advanced to space travel ... Hal goes nuts (do to conflicting programing regarding the responsibility of the mission) Bowman completes the mission by advancing to the monolith in Jupiter orbit and is sucked into a worm hole to be cared for in an earth like environment living timelessly till his natural death where he is transformed into a higher being. 2010 is no where near as good a movie but answer most of the questions
@stevetheduck14253 ай бұрын
It's a conflict between mankind and it's tools / weapons. Which of us would get to the aliens first; HAL or Dave. Humanity wins. But now the aliens have a human working for them back on Earth. Now see 2010: The Year We Make Contact. Then read 20161: Oddyssey Two, and 3001: the last novel.
@carlazaz16903 ай бұрын
Specifically, the alien beings knew when the signal went off by the Sunlight hitting it that the buried monolith has been uncovered, meaning that humanity had progressed to space travel.
@Oldhogleg3 ай бұрын
It was meant to be seen in a theater, not on a laptop in the bedroom with the lights on. That's why some of it seems kinda long, you weren't as engaged in it as the original theater goers were.
@sixstanger003 ай бұрын
You had me at, "I prefer practical FX."
@cesarvidelac3 ай бұрын
More than liquid, the food is paste. Less water, space and weight. It was actually the real food plan they were using for the real Apollo program.
@jonathanroberts89813 ай бұрын
You don’t want excess food floating about in zero g.
@cesarvidelac3 ай бұрын
@@jonathanroberts8981 Correct. That's why it was paste, you still can eat it floating without risking soaking any electronics, in case of a spill.
@BruceCarroll3 ай бұрын
If you enjoy old movies and practical effects, I recommend Alien (1979), The Thing (1982), Aliens (1986), and The Fly (1986)
@joebloggs3963 ай бұрын
Based on a novel by British writer Arthur C Clarke, Kubrick was something of an Anglophile living outside the US for years.
@richelliott93203 ай бұрын
Yes and no Clarke was writing the book as the movie was being made
@MattNolanCustom3 ай бұрын
Based on the short story, "The Sentinel" by Arthur C Clarke, then developed into a book during the production of the movie, while Clarke and Kubrick worked together closely. Clarke was a Brit, but had lived in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) since 1956.
@joebloggs3963 ай бұрын
@@MattNolanCustom And Kubrick had already moved to England by 1961.
@DrEsky9144 ай бұрын
Wow, this is quite a dive into old Sci Fi. this film is best watched on a HUGE screen and can be a little bit terrifying as well as wonderful! You MUST watch 2010 the follow up film of course. I have another suggestion for an older science fiction film which is The Andromeda Strain from the 1970's and a book by Michael Creighton. The technology is a bit dated but the story is great!
@DrEsky9144 ай бұрын
If you want to you could relate this movie as a progenitor of the Expanse in which alien contact comes from an extrasolar source but there is no instruction manual to figure it out. You just have to watch what it does and take it all in. in 2001, the apes are moved along their evolutionary path by the monolith, and then at some point the monolith buried on the moon is reporting back to Jupiter. the monolith is involved in rescuing Dave Bowman and taking him on a journey. How?? No idea. You just absorb it and relish the beauty of the story.
@billolsen43602 ай бұрын
8:46 Back then, the Cro Mangnums used to tease the Neandertals mercilessly, "Can't speak words! Can't use tools!" 12:05 You're the only reviewer of this movie who figured out exactly what those Flight Attendant hats were for. 19:28 Yes, those sets were set up to spin. This movie had tablets about 35 years before we really had them. 25:52 I wish they made HAL home computers.
@ardvark86993 ай бұрын
The space helmet is for crop dusting/pesticide spraying, farmers had them back in the 70s-80s.
@Richard-Vlk3 ай бұрын
That "slow drag" at 1:13 is because the artificial gravity at the space station was not as strong as on the Earth and the actor did not want to spill his beverage.
@finianlacy88272 ай бұрын
You were great fun to watch !! Love the film...and thoroughly enjoyed your reaction(S) 😀✨️✨️✨️ I'm Fin .currently in London. Often in New York..but not today..❤ Midnight Cowboy (1969) is a fantastic film ( not a Western) set in NYC with Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman. A total Award winning trip with a great heart and just about every other emotion you could feel..and express...regards xxx
@Phylonyous3 ай бұрын
This is my favourite movie of all time… great reaction!