When George said "this movie is such an acid trip" just prior to Bowman going into the monolith I literally hurt my sides laughing knowing what was coming next!!!!! A definite "wait for it" moment!! The child inside the womb was called the starchild in the book and it does represent the next stage in evolution for mankind. If you want some answers and to react to a darn good sequel do "2010 the year we make contact"! It has a fantastic cast and it's also very well done and answers a lot of questions from 2001!!!
From the last chapter of the book, on the last page: "There before him, a glittering toy no Star Child could resist, lay the planet Earth and all its peoples."
Plus the fact that when the film first came out, a load of people actually did see this in theatres on acid, and some even timed it just right so they'd be completely stoned for the Stargate sequence. MGM caught on and eventually gave the film the tagline "The ultimate trip". Apparently one young man at a showing in Los Angeles plunged through the screen, shouting “It’s God! It’s God!”
The zero g toilet instuctions are: 1. The toilet is of the standard zero-gravity type. Depending on requirements, System A and/or System B can be used, details of which are clearly marked in the toilet compartment. When operating System A, depress lever and a plastic dalkron eliminator will be dispensed through the slot immediately underneath. When you have fastened the adhesive lip, attach connection marked by the large "X" outlet hose. Twist the silver coloured ring one inch below the connection point until you feel it lock. The toilet is now ready for use. The Sonovac cleanser is activated by the small switch on the lip. When securing, twist the ring back to its initial-condition, so that the two orange line meet. Disconnect. Place the dalkron eliminator in the vacuum receptacle to the rear. Activate by pressing the blue button. The controls for System B are located on the opposite wall. The red release switch places the uroliminator into position; it can be adjusted manually up or down by pressing the blue manual release button. The opening is self adjusting. To secure after use, press the green button which simultaneously activates the evaporator and returns the uroliminator to its storage position. You may leave the lavatory if the green exit light is on over the door. If the red light is illuminated, one of the lavatory facilities is not properly secured. Press the "Stewardess" call button on the right of the door. She will secure all facilities from her controll panel outside. When gren exit light goes on you may open the door and leave. Please close the door behind you. To use the Sonoshower, first undress and place all your clothes in the clothes rack. Put on the velcro slippers located in the cabinet immediately below. Enter the shower. On the control panel to your upper right upon entering you will see a "Shower seal" button. Press to activate. A green light will then be illuminated immediately below. On the intensity knob select the desired setting. Now depress the Sonovac activation lever. Bathe normally. The Sonovac will automatically go off after three minutes unless you activate the "Manual off" over-ride switch by flipping it up. When you are ready to leave, press the blue "Shower seal" release button. The door will open and you may leave. Please remove the velcro slippers and place them in their container. If the red light above this panel is on, the toilet is in use. When the green light is illuminated you may enter. However, you must carefully follow all instructions when using the facilities duting coasting (Zero G) flight. Inside there are three facilities: (1) the Sonowasher, (2) the Sonoshower, (3) the toilet. All three are designed to be used under weightless conditions. Please observe the sequence of operations for each individual facility. Two modes for Sonowashing your face and hands are available, the "moist-towel" mode and the "Sonovac" ultrasonic cleaner mode. You may select either mode by moving the appropriate lever to the "Activate" position. If you choose the "moist-towel" mode, depress the indicated yellow button and withdraw item. When you have finished, discard the towel in the vacuum dispenser, holding the indicated lever in the "active" position until the green light goes on…showing that the rollers have passed the towel completely into the dispenser. If you desire an additional towel, press the yellow button and repeat the cycle. If you prefer the "Sonovac" ultrasonic cleaning mode, press the indicated blue button. When the twin panels open, pull forward by rings A & B. For cleaning the hands, use in this position. Set the timer to positions 10, 20, 30 or 40…indicative of the number of seconds required. The knob to the left, just below the blue light, has three settings, low, medium or high. For normal use, the medium setting is suggested. After these settings have been made, you can activate the device by switching to the "ON" position the clearly marked red switch. If during the washing operation, you wish to change the settings, place the "manual off" over-ride switch in the "OFF" position. you may now make the change and repeat the cycle.
In case no one has mentioned this: the opening is intended for a closed-curtain viewing. The curtains would part when the MGM logo came on. This can also be seen with _Lawrence of Arabia_ and _West Side Story_ from the 1960s. Like theatrical overtures it was.
I believe that the accepted date for the "death" of the film overture is 1979, with the releases of and Wikipedia says that they still happen, but with such rarity that they've fallen out of the public consciousness. As noted below, ads and previews have since taken up the space between when the lights go down and the film itself starts.
This was a thing until the mid-90s in UK cinemas when silk curtains were still used and filmmakers/studios were often very involved in what music was selected. I miss it, honestly!
Fun Fact, pertinent to the film: My local cinema was originally run by MGM and retained the practice when it was taken over by Virgin Cinemas. It was later bought out by a European company who became part of Cineworld/Picturehouse and they gradually phased it out over a period of 3-5 years.
In the jogging scene the entire room is on a rotating gimbal. So the actor is not running around it, the room is rotating around the actor, who is simply running in place. The trick is in the clever camera placement that fools you. Brilliant stuff.
Douglas Rain's vocal performance as HAL 9000 is still one of the most chilling performances ever. That calm and calculating demeanour with emotionless intentions behind that soulless and unmoving red eye. Geez!
17:11 - FUN FACT: The "VIBRATOR" light is for an actual device that would be mounted on aircraft instrument panels to make sure all mechanical gauges are reading correctly. (i.e. like constantly tapping on a gauge.) Here's the definition from a parts manufacturer, "A mechanical device, electrically operated, designed to be mounted to the instrument panel of an aircraft to prevent instruments from intermittently sticking."
I was a 12 yr old sci-fi geek when I went to see this in the cinema here in the UK. To say that I and the rest of the audience were completely blown away is an understatement. It was all we talked about at school for days afterwards. To see it through your (fresh) eyes 55yrs later kinda brought back the wonder that we all felt back in the day...
I'm nearly the same exact age as the movie (I turn 55 on Saturday), discovered it first through the soundtrack LP (Dad's), then got the novel, and finally saw it on the big screen in 1977 or so, aged 9 or 10, by which time I was pretty damned prepared to see it. And of course it still blew me away. Then, as now, it will always be my favorite movie, perhaps my favorite work of the imagination in any medium (considered together with Clarke's novel). I know I've watched it hundreds of times, and I still notice new things on every viewing. I was 15 when the sequel hit theaters in 1984 and you'd better believe I was first in line. The only other franchise that's the work of substantially one creator that I hold in the same esteem is The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams, a different flavor of high satire in hard science fiction form.
Kubrick was a highbrow who made middle-brow movies once he left Hollywood. His achievements are all technical; he was a cold clinician whose English movies are devoid of profundity or humanity. Except for Clockwork Orange, which is a Malcolm McDowell film since he leaps off the screen in the sheer joy of being a criminal. True story: McDowell asked Kubrick how he wanted him to play a specific scene. Not wanting to appear ignorant of his own film, he shot off the words, "You're the actor! Act!" To which McDowell shouted, "You're the director, direct!" Kubrick movies remind me of Hitchcock films and what he said about actors; actors are cattle...or should be treated like cattle. As both have said, once the movie has been completely story-boarded, the fun was gone and all that was left was the drudgery of actually having to film the damn thing.
Kubrick never tells his audience what to think or how to react; he presents the scenes, gives clues, steers the story toward the issues he wants to explore and expects the audience to respond using their own knowledge & experience, and possibly to continually debate the meaning of his films. I have found that watching 2001 at different points in my life, at different ages and in different circumstances brings fresh perspectives and understanding. I also HIGHLY RECOMMEND that everyone watch this at least one time on the large screen as it was meant to be seen. Altho Cinerama no longer exists (it was a huge curved screen that used multiple cameras to project the image), in many cities there are film festivals featuring “70 mm” releases and 2001 is often shown. Seeing the film in such an immersive environment really makes the audience feel as if they are in space and deepens the impression the film and its music makes.
The National Media Museum in Bradford is home to Pictureville; one of the best equipped cinemas in the world. It is equipped for 35 mm, 70 mm, 4K resolution and Cinerama projection. The cinema features Dolby Digital EX, DTS and 8 Channel SDDS digital sound systems. It has the only public Cinerama projection system outside the USA. The museum is also home to what was the first IMAX system in England; & still to this day is one of only three true IMAX 1.44:1 screens with the 70mm/15perf projection system in the UK (the others being Manchester Print Works & The Science Museum, London)
To answer your questions regarding the "old classical" music. The first piece is "Also Sprach Zarathustra" by Richard Strauss. It was written before this movie, but this movie is what put that piece of music into the popular culture. The second piece is not from Nutcracker (though that was a good guess), it's the Blue Danube Waltz by Johann Strauss (no relation). That piece was already in the pop culture before this movie.
There was a composer hired to write a sandtrack for the movie. When Kubric would watch the dailies, he used classical music as filler. But he liked it more than newer music so he used it instead. No one told the hired composer. This is what I've heard.
Every writer gives their own explanation, but not Kubrick's explanation, which he never revealed or wrote down. Lots of fake Kubrick conversations, supposedly of Kubrick explaining the movie, but even Clarke's book, explains what Kubrick was saying. Clarke wrote the novel, as the movie was being made, and followed the movie plot. It's not a movie made from the book.
At 24:50 Dave shuts his eyes tightly and exhales, which is what you should do if you know you're about to be exposed to a vacuum. It isn't guaranteed to save your life, but it will keep you alive the longest.
You need to watch 'Moon' (2009) now, Duncan Jones's directorial debut is a criminally underrated gem and completely stunning considering its meagre budget, it has several nods to 2001.
@@dolphinsrr not just underrated but almost unknown if your not into the Sci-Fi genre, I'm continually amazed at how many people I now who have never even heard of it!
The opening theme is from Richard Strauss’ Also Sprach Zarathustra, a tone poem about Frederic Nietzche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra. And the “ballet” song is The Blue Danube Waltz by Johann Strauss.
2010 is an overlooked and worthy sequel. Some things do get explained especially with HAL. It's worth a watch even though it's steeped in the Cold War. Also, my dad saw this in theaters and said it was so amazing to see spaceships, but you could also see the people inside them walking around. No one had seen that before. Also...the ending no one got and at the time, it pissed a few people off. It's definitely an acid trip.
The centrifuge set was actually built as it looks: a complete rotating wheel - albeit in two halves that could separated very slightly to allow a camera to follow the actor (who was always at the bottom of the set as it rotated). A similar filming technique was used for the scene of the flight attendant who was delivering food to the pilots. The set rotated with the camera locked into position so that she appeared to walk up the wall then upside-down.
I saw this while in junior high when it was released. Told my folks for my birthday I wanted them to drive us into Pittsburgh, about 30 miles, to see this movie in one of the giant curved screen theaters. It was a mind blowing experience. Trying to tell my class mates what this movie was about afterwards was beyond my brain's ability at the time. LOL.
Sight and Sound Magazine had a poll, and this was chosen by directors as the greatest film ever made... And the music is a mix of very modern and late-Victorian sound (Richard and Johann Strauss; Penderecki; Ligeti; etc.) Oh, and the little girl in the phone call is one of Kubrick’s daughters!
I only just now realized that the _real_ theme of this movie is the Evolution of Food. At first the apes were fighting off tapirs for the shrubbery, then they were "uplifted" to red meat. 4 million years later we had advanced to drinking peas and carrots through straws, then crustless sandwiches, TV dinners, and finally in Beyond the Infinite Dave was able to sit down for a proper dinner. Then he botched _that_ up, and the aliens went "we can't have nice things" and started feeding him umbilically.
Kubrik actually explains the ending quite well. At the end, Bowman enters the monolith and is placed into a kind of zoo exhibit to be studied by the builders of the monolith which are beings of energy. Because they exist inside the monolith beyond time and space, Bowman's life inside his exhibit happens instantaneously. Time has no meaning inside the monolith. And upon his death, he is reborn and retuned to Earth.
In the novel the book ends with the Star Child return to earth just as humanity is on the verge of nuclear war.... he just waves the nuclear missiles away and contemplates other things. It's a remarkably mundane and quick passage given the implications.
Kubrick didn’t explain any of that, Clarke did. All that stuff about the zoo is explicitly narrated in the book. Kubrick wasn’t an explaining kind of guy.
As I understand it, the novel and the screen play were written in parallel with input going both ways. I too was very confused by the movie but the novel made things much clearer. Check it out, it's a great read!
If you want to know more, 2001: A Space Odyssey the novel was also released in '68. It was written by Arthur C Clark jointly with Kubrick. 2010: Odyssey Two was the 1984 sequel by Clark & the movie 2010: The Year We Make Contact came out in 84. It's definitely worth the watch!
to answer George, when released in '68, Apollo was headed for Moon for Christmas 68. NASA had already had LIVE Earth-link transmissions for Gemini & several Apollo missions.... I WAS A MOON-BABY BOOMER, drank Tang & my school followed all space flights since 4-5 astronauts from my state.
I saw this a couple Of Years ago with a group of friends, in 70mm in Manhattan… it was really quite the experience on the big screen. (Yes, we were in an “altered state” at the time) Existentially one of the towering achievements in Sci-Fi and just generally showing what can be made with film….
Рік тому+133
I like how you guys very quickly picked up on the monoliths enhancing humanity and serving as alien checkpoints. And you can trace that to the ending as well. Once the monkey touches the monolith he evolves. Once Dave touches the monolith he evolves too.
That was not my read. I thought that the first monolith triggered an evolutionary leap, the second monolith activated the signal from Jupiter, and the third monolith was a transportation device. Dave's evolution doesn't start until he reaches the classical bedroom.
Yep. The other thing is that they aren't reacting completely in the dark they mention various things that Patreon people have told them. There no shame of not getting all of it. Took me multiple rewatches and reading up on it to fully appreciate and understand, but that's why I like it, it takes effort on behave of the viewer to get the meaning and it's open to interpretation. That's what most art is about to provoke thought not spoon feed you one predetermined correct message.@@Nick-pu3of
It’s so interesting to watch this again 50+ years later. The technology that blew me away in the theater: video calls, computer screens, AI… you barely noticed now, forgetting they didn’t exist then. However, the styles, the “stewardesses”, the tiny shorts, the space food all seem absurd now. And of course an AI is going to be able to read your lips, duh. 🤣🤣🤣
The term "uplift" was pretty specific, and I'll take it as a reference to David Brin's "Uplift" series, which is worth a read if you haven't already read it.
The first monolith seeds intelligence. The second monothlith is the sentinel. I don't think I've seen a reaction channel pick up on it yet, but the monolith doesn't scream because it doesn't want to be in the picture when they are all grouped together (lol), it's sending a signal to Jupiter because it's seeing sunlight for the first time after being uncovered. It was buried by the aliens millions of years ago, waiting for the time when the apes would evolve to the point when space travel was possible and they had the technology to go to the moon and find the monolith.
My father and I bonded over his SF magazines and books, and going to see SF movies. In 1968 I was 15 and dad was 58, when we watched this in Cinerama .... we were astounded. It took SF to a new level. Sadly he had passed by the time Sat Wars came out....He would have loves it.
george, your first theory is pretty widely accepted as the thesis to the film; that the obelisk appears at moments of evolution and growth in the human race, and indeed within the individual self, seen in the end as the rebirth of a person (or another theory is that the last obelisk represents learning non-linear time)
I can't remember where I read this, maybe just the 2001 book. Simply the existence of the monolith being non-natural would give the idea that tools could be made to the men who saw it. "This is clearly unnatural, something/someone made this, I could make something." Which is a lot more subtle than the monolith actively modifying the brain of the person who touch it.
Douglas Rain, who played HAL was a Canadian actor and founding member of the Stratford Ontario Shakespearean Festival, His voice work was truly awesome.
The ship is so long because the propulsion system was meant to be nuclear and had to be separated from the crew. The panning shots of huge spacecraft in other movies is more likely reference to Star Wars rather than this movie, though.
Georges embarrassment at being sung to can be easily countered by knowing when they finish you simply smile and clap in approval back to them. Focusing on this activity gives one something to focus on while they warble away.
The reason why Hal went crazy was explained in the book sequel, if you want to learn: So Hal was programmed to process and relay information accurately and without concealment to the crew, but the government added orders that demanded Hal keeps confidential information from the crew about the mission they’re on. It created a contradiction in Hal: how could he lie despite being literally incapable of lying? As the crew discovered more and more about the mission, Hal decided the best way to keep a secret from the crew is if the crew’s dead.
Hal was forced to make a logic decision....and he did. It was similar to Ash the android from Alien. His primary mission was paramount, all other considerations were secondary, including the crews' lives.
@@tadcooper9733 No the point is that HAL was given contradictory orders and programming. He was made to lie but was incapable of lying. He was told the priority was the mission. The point was made that it has never made a mistake is a plot device to outline the conflict within HAL. That is why the HAL on earth did not make the same mistake. And I did read the whole series and did see 2010 where this is explained.
It was also explained in the sequel film 2010: The Year We Make Contact. George would totally grok the explanation they give for Hal’s homicidal behavior.
You have to keep in mind that all subsequent material is retconned. It’s a mistake to think that Clarke’s literary work holds precedence because it doesn’t. Clarke and Kubrick collaborated on the screenplay before Clarke wrote the novel. The novel is a novelization of the movie, rather than the movie being based on the novel. The subsequent novels cannot be canonical and don’t really explain any of the mysteries of the original work.
Kubrick took 5 years to make this film. He invented new cameras, a new front projection system for the apes in the beginning. (most films had rear projection systems, this system project the image OVER the apes. He hired the vanguard of special effects artists to work on the SLIT SCAN SECTION of the film. The most famous was Douglas Trumbull, a young special effects wizard who later directed his own movie called 'SILENT RUNNING", which featured three droids very similar to R2D2. I happened to go to the NY PREMIER and was wowed by the effects and story. I went on to watch this film 20 times in the theater. It was my favorite film for many years. Thanks for the reaction to this great film.
The "Spooky Chant" is The Requiem by the Hungarian composer György Ligeti is a large-scale choral and orchestral composition, composed between 1963 and 1965.
There are at least three pieces by Ligeti here. A mix of "Atmosphères" during the "interdimensional trip"; the "Kyrie" movement of Ligeti's Requiem, as the "spooky chant" next to the monolith; and the beautiful "Lux Aeterna" when the elongate-shaped ship on the moon travels from the conference center to where the monolith is.
I saw this movie in a theatre in the original 2.20:1 format. It had a wrap around screen that was even better than Imax. The movie also had a special sound system installed just for 2001. I was about 10 years old and it totally blew me away! There was nothing even close to this in a Sci Fi movie for realism and art. The only similar experience was seeing Star Wars for the first time. It was interesting that you didn't mention some details because they are now common, the I pad like flat screens they watched while they were eating on board Discovery and many of the digital displays. We didn't even have a colour TV back then! The voice of HAL lived in my home town at the time and my friend and I used to call his house, (the number was in the phone book), just to hear his voice!! We built models of all the spaceships and became huge science fiction fans. To top it all off, they were still sending manned missions to the moon at the time, it was total space immersion!!!
The way they did the crew deck of the Discovery is both brilliant and simple- they built the set into a Ferris Wheel. In that one long shot of Poole jogging, the camera was fixed, the actor playing Bowman was strapped into his seat, and the actor playing Poole jogged in place while they rotated the entire set around him.
Yes, the sets on this were monumental. Unfortunately for us, Kubrick arranged for nearly all the sets, decorations, and props to be destroyed after filming. (He didn't want them appearing in other films, which was commonly done in those days.) Some things, though, like the Aries 1b spacecraft (the spheroid one) were later found and restored, as well as some spacesuits and a precious few other items. According to an eyewitness, several years after the movie, the station was dropped off at a dump near the MGM Studios site in England and kids soon smashed it.
2001 is both super scientifically accurate and also super trippy. Highly recommend watching 2010: The Year we made contact it's Sequel made by another director but based on the sequel of the book this is based on since it answers some questions.
No it isn’t. It completely ignores gas law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If any specific velocities are mentioned in the books then it ignores rigid body rotation physics also. There is a huge difference between science and pseudoscience.
Clarke had much more say in 2010. 2001 was written simultaneously with the film production and Kubrick negotiated rights to not be tied to Clarke’s concepts or stores at all. In 2010 Clarke wanted to go back against Kubrick’s themes of man’s creation of machines and then loosing control. He wrote in redemption of HAL saying the program directives to keep the mission secret and continue without them at all costs made him calculate that human imperfections were a threat to the mission. He also wanted to shift the story to one of peaceful geopolitical messages. Kubrick had zero intention of these concepts in his story.
I saw this in the theater in '68. It was likely the biggest leap in effects ever (and great other ways of course). Before this spacecraft looked like toys on wires with sparklers out back as engines. Kubrick likely did the most research with incredible attention to detail. At one point he thought he might get arrested due to the interior detail of the bomber in "Dr. Strangelove." There is a documentary "Kubrick's Boxes" that is amazing and greatly enhances understanding who he was, if interested.
5:00 that texture that George is noticing is actually the edges of torn up pieces of 3M Scotchlite, used in the front projection rig for the Dawn of Man sequence (and one other in as the golf-ball shaped spaceship is seen by the astronauts on the moon as it descends for landing). The background image is actually projected over the actors onto the Scotchlite screen behind them, which reflects the light back where it came from, like modern highway signs do. A beamsplitter in front of the camera lets the projector be off to the side (90 degrees to the camera) so that everything lines up perfectly. You can't see the background image on the actors because they added key lights to wash it out and light the actors against the incredibly bright reflection coming off the Scotchlite. The reason they tore the Scotchlite into random pieces was because if you just use strips of it straight off the roll, you can see the seams. A much more sophisticated version of this rig was used to film many of the best looking flying scenes in Superman (1978), created by Zoran Perisic, who worked as an animation blob artist on this film. The centrifuge set was indeed a giant hamster wheel. The place where George thinks there's a cut, there isn't. Gary Lockwood was strapped in upside down while Keir Dullea walked the bottom of the rotating set. Since the set is 40 feet in diameter, that's some real trust in rigging on the part of the actors.
I am pretty sure that most recent remaster is the only version where we can see those strips -- a case where it's actually too high def. Which goes to show that updates and remasters are not always better.
@@Wizardofgosz Yes, as stated, it's visible on earlier home video transfers. But not everywhere, just a couple of shots. My guess is that either he was using a long lens, or the foreground subjects were particularly close to the screen. I have since seen online a "patented" hexagon-based stencil one can use to machine-cut Scotchlite into patches that reduce (it is claimed) the visibility of the seams, so far as possible, down to the smallest practical circle of confusion. You can still buy the exact same product in 48" wide rolls from 3M, in 2023: it's used all over the place in retroflective signage. It's just millions of tiny spherical glass beads, baked into a transparent vinyl substrate, and the whole thing has a peel-off adhesive backing. (They make it in colors too, not sure how that works).
@@Wizardofgosz Just because the information is there on the negative doesn't mean that it's going to stand out on the theatrical print. There is a whole that happens between the capture of the negative and exhibition, including pushing color and contrast this way and that, and there is also contemporary film grain to account for. All this adds up to the Scotchlite strips having been far less visible on film. Maybe apparent to those who were looking for it, but otherwise no, which is very much in keeping with Kubrick's perfectionism. Now, where I am completely wrong is the 4K transfer, which by all accounts has LESS visible cross hatching than previous digital transfers. The theory is that this was an attempt to more accurately recreate the original audience experience.
I was born 13 years after this movie came out, but about 5 years ago one of the multiplexes here where I live showed a classic once a month, so I managed to finally watch it on the big screen. Amazing. This has been one of my favorite movies for over two decades, and to be able to finally see it in a movie theater made me so happy.
This is such an art piece that it is impossible to watch the last 50 years movies and don't see references, parodies, sequences, shots inspired by it. From Star Wars to Avengers, it is incredible.
Most people think that space sci-fi didn't exist before Star Wars... 🙄 "2001" was , and still is , unique for proving that Science-Fiction could make for impressive cinematic art.
Simone: "The Universe is run by seven d4's... [then they invert] or d8's rather" George: "It's just going to be 42 at the end". Arthur: "I always thought something was fundamentally wrong with the universe."
6:28 - If you were wondering how they did the floating pen without CGI, If was glued to a very very polished glass panel that they were moving in front of the camera. The actress had to believably take it off to give the illusion she was grabbing a flying object. 9:57 - The funny hat design was because they thought long hair in micro-gravity would be a problem. Also, as a side note, I always found it funny that they are watching Judo, a sport based on falls, in micro-gravity. 10:01 - This liquid/pasty food was also an old concept from before the space age. It was assumed it'd be a much more efficient way to bring food to space missions in terms of volume and mass but in reality astronauts need the experience of consuming a real meal for their mental sanity in long missions so they now use dehydrated food and recipes from different cuisines (in earlier missions, like Apollo, they used food bars and they realized it wasn't psychologically nice to eat food bars for days). The seal-packed sandwiches at 12:34 would be more believable. 16:32 - Yes, they did. 24:52 - Research suggests you would be able to stay conscious for a time between 10 and 15 seconds. After that you pass out and soon later die from a variety of complications but nothing gruesome. It's actually not the worst way to die. So there's a chance he could pull that off, depending on the design of the entrance module.
The ISS crews can eat proper food since they are frequently resupplied, but the Discovery mission has to store enough food to last several years. Paste might be the only way to do it.
I first saw this at the age of 7 with my father (who was born in 1915) when it came out the year before Apollo 11. At the time everyone assumed the level of space travel in 2001 would be more or less what they saw in the movie, if not better. My take on the final "Starchild" shot is merely a comment to audiences in 1968 that we on Earth are about to enter a new evolutionary phase by becoming a truly spacefaring civilization. I have a book on the filming of it called 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony with a forward by Arthur C. Clarke. Aurum Press Ltd. Copyright 1994
Now you have to watch the 2010 sequel. My dad took me to see this at a cinema in central London when it came out...yes I'm that old. FYI, It's called a Monolith and it's kind of like a Swiss Army Knife. Fun fact - The Daisy song is a real thing in the 60's.
That song was a thing in the 1890s. 🙂 I too saw this in a theater with a friend. Around the same time we also saw "Where Eagles Dare". Both came out in '68 and we were little 4th grade rebels. Guess that's why I like South Park. LOL!
"Daisy" was a real thing in 1892. That was the year the song was published, as sheet music, which was the pop music media at the time. No audio or video and I think mass manufacture and distribution of records was not happening yet. All of us kids in the '60s knew the song. It must have appeared in pop media for years by then. It was a favorite nonsense tune to sing while swinging on swings. You could be silly with a girl on the swings singing it at 8 or 9 or 10, which at 10 years old would have been the precursor to romance.
Arthur C. Clarke was touring a computer lab in the early sixties and they gave him a demonstration of one of the first synthetic voices ever created. The computer was programmed to sing a little tune…Daisy.
The guy who did the effects was Douglas Trumbull and he also did the effects for Spielberg's dazzling sci-fi masterpiece "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind" from 1977, definitely worth watching. To have those two movies on your visual effects resume, no one can touch you! "name your price, sir" 😆 PS: Planet Of The Apes was released the SAME DAY as "2001"! You should see that one! Another great sci-fi classic, impeccably done. notjing can touch "2001", but Close Encounters and Planet Of The Apes (and also "Forbidden Planet!") are all special top shelf sci-fi, well-worth checking out.
Three things George and Simone need to do immediately: (1) Read the short story "The Sentinel" by Arthur C. Clarke, (2) Watch the sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact." Those two things will help you to fully understand and appreciate the story in "2001." Then, (3) Watch again the first hot dog fingers scene in EEAAO for the "2001" homage!
The Sentinel is good, but really you should just read the novelization of the movie, also by Clarke. It wasn't made after the movie, the script and the book were written concurrently, so every major detail in the book is accurate to the movie. The only difference is small visual things that didn't work well in the special effects.
None of the music was written for the movie. The oldest piece was the Blue Danube Waltz (1866). The famous intro piece was the opening bars of Also Sprach Zarathustra (So Spoke Zoroaster, 1896). There are several pieces composed by György Ligeti during the 1960s -- the more psychedelic ones. When the first Star Wars movie was released, there were a lot of comparisons to this movie, and a documentary showing how much more advanced Star Wars was in terms of special effects. (I don't remember where I saw the documentary, or what it was called.) One of Arthur C. Clarke's early novels was called Childhood's End, dealing with the theme of human advancement with alien help -- and whether humans can handle their new powers without the benevolent aliens watching to be sure there are no catastrophes. No one has made a movie of it as far as I know. Very interesting story.
Arthur C Clarke was writting the novel at the same time the movie was being filmed. Sometimes he was ahead of the script and sometimes the script was ahead of him. Theres a lot of behind the scenes in his book "The Lost Worlds of 2001." 2010 is very underrated as a followup. People didnt think it would hold up because of the US/Russia plot point; but its held up presciently well. Plus, 2010 has gorgeous visual effects in its own right, especially the space walk sequences.
As I read the stargate sequence in “Lost Worlds,” the middle part of “In A Gadda Da Vida” was playing on the radio. The drum and organ solos provided a great accompaniment for it. 😊
Yep... when Simone mentioned a "Hamster wheel", I was like, "Bingo!". So yeah, the core of the Discovery was basically a giant hamster wheel. When Frank is jogging around, he's always at the bottom. Depending on the required shot, the camera is either locked in place so it appears in one spot while Frank runs around and past, or it's on rollers to "follow" Frank while the set rotates. George was also right as far as the camera being locked on the foreground tube, which rotated, while the actors were in a disconnected, fixed tube (including the stewardess scene earlier in the film).
The music at the beginning of the movie is called _Sonnenaufgang_ (German for "Sunrise"). It's the opening piece from _Also Sprach Zarathustra, Opus 30,_ composed by German composer Richard Strauss in 1896. I would suggest reading the _2001: A Space Odyssey_ novel by Arthur C. Clarke to get a more explicit understanding of some of the things that happened in the movie, especially in regard to what exactly the monoliths (the "dominoes") were doing. There are actually three sequels to the first novel, but the last two, _2061: Odyssey Three_ and _3001: The Final Odyssey,_ have yet to be adapted for the screen.
I was fortunate to catch this when it was remastered and shown in theaters. I was able to see it at the IMAX in NYC. Even though I’d seen it before a few times, seeing it on the big screen was breathtaking
Saw the 70mm print from Nolan with non remastered 6 track magnetic audio (just straight digitised on DTS CD) in Berlin, a few years ago. It was a pleasure and an interesting experience, since audio is mixed far different today. The few dialogues were directional and not fixed to the center speaker.
In the Apollo space program of the late 1960s, the astronauts ate paste food like that to not have crumbs and food debris floating around the capsule. It was not imagined that things would advance beyond that, just a wider selection of food.
@@platzhalter2581 I grew up in L.A. and went to see it at the Cinerama Dome every few years when they had revival showings. Having the correct sound equipment for this movie makes a huge difference. I remember it sounding very different from what I hear today.
The Hollywood Theater in Portland Oregon has their own 70mm print. I recently got to see it in the same room where I first saw it 55 years ago. It was a real treat.
In 1984, a sequel was made to this film called "2010: The Year We Make Contact", in which many of the questions stirred up in this film are answered. It is not, however, the art film that this is. And while it is wholeheartedly a product of the 80s, I highly recommend checking it out. It's not a bad film.
I also. Cinerama Theater in Seattle at age 11. The Cinerama theater / projection technology (70mm, ultra-wide curved screen, incredible sound system, etc.) was far beyond your typical theater experience of the day (and was still better than 90% of the typical multiplex theaters today). It's unfortunate that most people today experience this classic first on a small screen. The high quality projection and audio made the film even more impressive. On that day I became a huge Kubrick fan (and also a Johann Strauss II fan. I still equate the Blue Danube with space travel more than with Viennese waltzes).
I saw it in 70mm in 2018 for the 50th anniversary. The colors were a little off, but it was still a great experience. And they actually did have a 10-minute intermission.
Me too, saw in Chicago when it first came out while I was in high school,and many many times since, no longer on a curved screen but at least in 70 mm. It was only in recent years that I decided to relent from my determination to never watch it on a small screen, and allowed myself to view it on tv. But the impression built up over the years from seeing it on the big screen has never left me. Many cities have at least one theatre which has the capacity to project 70 mm film, and a large screen, and they have “70 mm” Film Festivals- 2001 is usually one of the main draws.
At 7:15, those graphic displays the crew is using were absolute state of the art for 1968. We take them for granted today, but believe me, at the time they were spectacular.
So right. And I wonder how many young computer scientists and other such minds began to whir and wonder about how THEY could get their hands on such whiz-bang coolness or even make it themselves. Like, Steve Jobs MUST have been obsessed with this movie, right?
In the movie, the computer graphics were all hand-drawn cel animations, composited into the film shots. But they certainly influenced generations of future computer scientists and others. (Me being one of them.)
I was a 10-year-old kid in 1968. My parents took me to see this movie in a wide screen theater in Detroit. I wish I could remember if my two sisters were there, but I don't remember them. That black screen opening with the ominous music was magical for me. The entire movie was. Remember the only parts I didn't like the time was all that yap yap yapping in the dialog bits, like with the Russians on the space station. All of the slowness of moving in space was really cool to me. And the complete silence in the Frank rescue sequence. We all knew watching the movie that the pod couldn't move instantaneously and so right from the start we knew Frank was a goner. Even the early ape scenes were mesmerizing to me. I soon found out watching the movie in school about 4 years later that middle school kids did not think the movie was all that cool. Nobody in the auditorium was paying attention to the movie.
I’d like to recommend the sequel, 2010. Compared to this movie, which has a much more detached perspective, 2010 has a much more human, feeling perspective, and features people trying to understand what took place in this Jupiter mission. It offers some decent explanation for a few big details, and also has a very satisfying ending to conclude on.
@@aznthy I would argue that 2001 offers a cinematic perspective that feels very set apart from any of the human characters (primitive or otherwise) in the film. Always felt like we were watching an alien’s nature documentary about these weird bipeds and their millions-of-years-long journey to reach this Jupiter goal post. P.S. You might consider trying to understand what someone is actually saying before jumping to asinine condescension. Makes you look bad.
Although it’s not explicitly stated in the movie, when the bone is thrown in the Dawn of man section, the “ship” it transitions to is actually a nuclear weapon according to the script.
2010 Isn't everyone's jam but I love it. It also makes HAL's action less sinister and part of a larger plan. Incidentally HAL is one letter up per character from IBM
Looking it up, IBM rebranded _into_ IBM (International Business Machines Company) in 1972, from which it had been "Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company" since 1911. Given the date of rebranding, it makes you wonder if they picked IBM as a little geekout reference to 2001, haha.
A work of art, rather than just a movie. It is amazing when you consider all of the effects are practical - no CGI at all. eg: The pen floating in zero G - it was stuck on a sheet of glass which was rotated in front of the camera. The shots of the pod emerging from the Discovery 1 were shot stop frame - one frame at a time with long exposure - for maximum depth of field. The whole set for the centrifuge was built and mounted on motors and the astronaut jogged as the entire set and cameras rotated around him at the correct pace. I saw this at age 16 in 1968 - in full curved screen Cinerama. The memory stays with me vividly still, including that long black screen overture. What a ride! PS: The key to surviving vacuum for a short time well away from the sun - empty your lungs: you breathe out before decompression. Don't breathe in! That will blow up you up.
The background shots for the early man desert scenes were filmed at and around Spitzkoppe, Namibia. I had the privilege of visiting there on a family holiday a few years ago, it was stunning. Just a few miles away from where Mad Max Fury Road was filmed. An astonishing country.
Also, fun point: The shape of the Monolith is the same as a movie screen. Or your cell phone. Access to all human knowledge and the ability to share it.
One of my favourite theories and one which I’ve personally adopted is that the two and a half minutes of dark screen at the beginning is the audience actually looking directly into the monolith.
The music all comes from elsewhere. The opening theme is Also Sprach Zarathustra, by Richard Strauss. The vocal mass of noise when the monolith appears is from Ligeti's Requiem. The space docking scene uses the Blue Danube Waltz by Johann Strauss, Jr. The musical prelude, when the picture is dark, is also Ligeti, a challenging 20th century composer.
@@willmartin7293 Ah well, I didn't know these pieces before I saw this movie, I just first watched the movie a very long time ago. Only recently learned the name Ligeti.
'One ape slapped another and the next thing you know it's nuclear bombs' - Interesting observation, George. When the bone is thrown into the air and the film cuts to a space craft it's actually showing one of many nuclear missile platforms orbiting the earth as MAD deterrents, so you were kinda spot on.
Kubrick is one of my favorites. His eye, his vision, was spectacular. I love his movies for the visuals alone, but add everything else in and you get a true master. And this film is so visually stunning, even today, that I can only imagine what it would have been like to see in the theater on opening day.
The opening music is Also sprach Zarathustra composed in 1896. The music used during the docking sequence is The Blue Danube composed in 1866. That whole docking sequence became so iconic that it inspired similar docking sequences in many video games. In fact, if a space game has you docking with a rotating space station, it's probably based on this movie. Many versions of the game Elite would even play The Blue Danube when you switched on the docking computer. It's probably in the latest iteration, Elite: Dangerous, as well. 14:44 - "I don't want to keep calling it a domino piece, I don't know what the word to call it is, but..." - The word you're looking for is "monolith". 24:52 - "The lack of pressure and the vacuum would just pull the air out of your lungs." - Which is why Bowman exhales all the air from his lungs before the door blows. Experts have said that doing so can help a person survive being exposed to a vacuum, although it also severely limits how long that person can function before passing out from lack of oxygen.
This is what you get when you put Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke in the same room. The premise is based on Clarke's story, "The Sentinel." From Wikipedia, here is the best definition of the function of the monoliths in this movie: "In the most literal narrative sense, as found in the concurrently written novel, the Monolith is a tool, an artifact of an alien civilization. It comes in many sizes and appears in many places, always in the purpose of advancing intelligent life." This movie was mind blowing for audiences when it first came out. It still holds up pretty well after all this time, considering all of the practical effects and how good everything looked on screen. Many films have borrowed from or mocked this movie, but I think maybe the most interesting one, "Event Horizon," was the most fun. Hope you get around to seeing that one someday.
One of the reasons they eat food like that is because some solid foods, a bread for example, would create crumbs and in gravity zero environment you'd have tons of little things floating around and it might get into tinny little places and create malfunctions.
I may be one of your oldest viewers as I was already in my mid twenties when this was released, so I remember it with great clarity. It was released in Cinerama and as there was a Cinerama cinema in the city where I was living, that was where I saw it. For anyone who doesn't know, Cinerama was on a massive curved screen. In its early days, Cinerama films were projected by three synchronised cameras for the left, central and right images. However, the lines between the images were still faintly visible with just a little jiggle at the intersections. By the time 2001 was made however, they'd developed a huge lens that could film, then project a seamless image. I feel sure that had this not been the case, Kubrick the perfectionist would not have opted for the old Cinerama process. The experience of seeing it on this mighty screen with newly perfected sound systems, was therefore absolutely mind-blowing. We had seen nothing like it before. Cinema had undergone some changes prior to this movie, as the French film Last Year in Marienbad was enigmatic and ambiguous with a storyline that refused to explain itself, and the Italian film L'Avventura likewise dispensed with traditional plot points (a young woman's disappearance is never resolved), so that for me, at least the enigma of 2001 was not too taxing. In fact I would go as far as saying that viewing 2010, the sequel, I quickly erased from my mind as the explanation was just too pat. Now, of course, so many people are aware of the cultural tropes associated with the film, which somewhat diminishes its impact, that they can't imagine what the original experience, freshly minted was like. Now, reviewing the film it's my original memories I'm really experiencing.
I guess you're both going to have to include '2010: The Year We Make Contact' to your future watchlist. Plus the sequel stars the actor who played the sheriff in Jaws. Regarding the Zero Gravity Toilets, it would have been fun if the company who makes the toilets had a Star Trek slogan 'To boldly go where no-one has gone before' or perhaps an 'Alien' 'one 'In space no-one can hear you poo'.
21:49 Fun fact, Gary Lockwood who plays Astronaut Frank Poole is a Star Trek alumni. He played the character Lt. Commander Gary Mitchell in the episode “ Where No Man Has Gone Before “. Mitchell was Captain Kirk’s best friend prior to Spock. He underwent an accidental transformation that gave him superpowers and made him psychotic.
I saw this movie with a few fellow graduate students in California, when it was first released. We were very impressed, but it was also exactly what we were expecting. I’ve always liked the idea that the three ascending notes of Also Sprach Zarathustra at the beginning signal three stages: 1) Biological development of the human species, 2) Human civilization, technology, & the venture into space, 3) Cosmic consciousness or transcendence. The monolith marks and influences each stage. - - BTW, like George, we also appreciated the silence of space.
The three notes are also the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th harmonics of the overtone series. I think the "primal" character of these notes may have influenced Kubrick in choosing the piece.
The kinder egg reference was closer than you thought 😁. You cannot imagine what watching this was like with its original camera set up in a big cinema in 1969. I was sitting in the balcony & when the opening shots with the organ pedal note arrived all the crisp packet rustling, sweet wrapper opening & background hubbub stopped dead in its tracks. I was suspended in space & time, looking down the line of the sun, moon & earth. Never experienced anything like it before or since. This film is in a category of its own for me so I have no way to rate it. All I know is I'll never forget it.
26:26 - "This movie is such an acid trip" was basically how the film was resold to a new audience after it had done the rounds of theatres but hadn't done well. The posters were shots from that last sequence with the words "It's a trip!" or something similar added. It worked! Many hippies on acid went to see the film! In one of the opening shots, a pen is seen floating and slowly revolving. This effect was achieved by sticking a pen to a sheet of glass and having it slowly revolved in shot but with the operators out of shot. Simple but very effective!
I saw 2001 just after it was released - the theaters were packed. It was taken quite seriously, an (as was mentioned previously) was quite mind blowing. There was plenty of discussion about what the movie was about, and what it meant.
I’m so glad to see younger people discover this film. I’m 62 and I remember my older brother seeing it when it first came out. He then bought what he thought was the soundtrack but was really just a full length performance of Strauss’s Also Sprach Zarathustra, which is actually 35 minutes long and refers back to the opening music several times in the course of the piece. Taking a deep dive into that work and its Nietzschean inspiration actually also takes you deeper into Kubrick and Clarke’s mindset about what they were saying with this film. While I wasn’t able to see this film until many years later, I fell in love with the Strauss, which inspired me to get into classical music and read the novel 2001 as well as Nietzsche. It is amazing to compare this to other things that came out in 1968. It makes you realize that the reason Star Trek (the original series, the last season of which was airing at this time) looks so chintzy in comparison is because of their budget, not because the technology didn’t exist. And it’s infuriating to think that 2001 lost to Planet of the Apes for makeup because the apes in 2001 looked so real they thought they were just trained apes! (The idiocy of that conclusion makes the fact that this movie came out at that time even more of a miracle…) Anyway thank you for this. This remains one of my three favorite films along with City Lights and L’enfants du Paradis, both of which I would highly recommend for your perusal.
The score was largely entirely classic pieces. I believe Kubrick originally had them in as temp pieces & inspiration for the original score until that could be written & recorded, but then he liked it so much he kept that in & didn't use the original score. The composer - who had scored a coupe of earlier Kubrick films - did not know of the switch until he saw the movie at the premiere.
Great reaction as always! A local theatre where I live had a Kubrick month last month and I was privileged with getting to see this in theatres. It was such an insane experience and made certain scenes that much more ominous.
This movie is one that's worthy of multiple viewings. I had a hard time following what was going on the first time I saw it, but gained much more realization of what was happening on my 2nd viewing.
The opening music is a piece called Also Sprake Zarathustra written by Richard Strauss in 1896. It's use in this movie has inspired a number of parody scenes like in Zoolander.
For the outer space sequences, the actors were strapped on wires and the camera was positioned on the ground under them. And in some instances, to get the fluid and slow motion of a person in the vacuum of space, the camera captured the actors at a frame rate of 96 fps and in the edit, it was played back at the standard 24fps.
![How Kubrick Made 2001: A Space Odyssey - Part 4: Jupiter Mission [A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nxDA_PL-XzA/mqdefault.jpg)
When George said "this movie is such an acid trip" just prior to Bowman going into the monolith I literally hurt my sides laughing knowing what was coming next!!!!! A definite "wait for it" moment!!
The child inside the womb was called the starchild in the book and it does represent the next stage in evolution for mankind. If you want some answers and to react to a darn good sequel do "2010 the year we make contact"! It has a fantastic cast and it's also very well done and answers a lot of questions from 2001!!!
When this movie came out me and my friends dropped acid before we went to see it, acid was legal at the time.
From the last chapter of the book, on the last page: "There before him, a glittering toy no Star Child could resist, lay the planet Earth and all its peoples."
I had the same reaction to George saying this movie was an acid trip. Talk about foreshadowing.
2010 is a must watch.
Exactly what I thought... lol... And yes, 2010 IS A MUST.
The timing of George's "This movie is such an acid trip." was so perfect.
Yes! I was thinking “wait a minute for a real trip”
@@MrSinnerBOFH I thought, "hold on tight to your mind...you ain't seen nothing yet"
Plus the fact that when the film first came out, a load of people actually did see this in theatres on acid, and some even timed it just right so they'd be completely stoned for the Stargate sequence. MGM caught on and eventually gave the film the tagline "The ultimate trip". Apparently one young man at a showing in Los Angeles plunged through the screen, shouting “It’s God! It’s God!”
Simone: What the hell was that?!
George: Discovery One, they've gone plaid!
Kubrick actually did shoot the Moon landing.
As a perfectionist though, he demanded it be shot on location.
They saved a lot of money on sets by faking the moon landing on the moon.
Excellent.
You almost had me.
He almost drove Neil Armstrong crazy after the 127th take.
@@88wildcat It got him so flustered that he forgot the “A”.
But Kubrick would not have been willing to have the footage beamed to Australia over a bad TV signal that nearly didn't work.
The zero g toilet instuctions are:
1. The toilet is of the standard zero-gravity type. Depending on requirements, System A and/or System B can be used, details of which are clearly marked in the toilet compartment. When operating System A, depress lever and a plastic dalkron eliminator will be dispensed through the slot immediately underneath. When you have fastened the adhesive lip, attach connection marked by the large "X" outlet hose. Twist the silver coloured ring one inch below the connection point until you feel it lock.
The toilet is now ready for use. The Sonovac cleanser is activated by the small switch on the lip. When securing, twist the ring back to its initial-condition, so that the two orange line meet. Disconnect. Place the dalkron eliminator in the vacuum receptacle to the rear. Activate by pressing the blue button.
The controls for System B are located on the opposite wall. The red release switch places the uroliminator into position; it can be adjusted manually up or down by pressing the blue manual release button. The opening is self adjusting. To secure after use, press the green button which simultaneously activates the evaporator and returns the uroliminator to its storage position.
You may leave the lavatory if the green exit light is on over the door. If the red light is illuminated, one of the lavatory facilities is not properly secured. Press the "Stewardess" call button on the right of the door. She will secure all facilities from her controll panel outside. When gren exit light goes on you may open the door and leave. Please close the door behind you.
To use the Sonoshower, first undress and place all your clothes in the clothes rack. Put on the velcro slippers located in the cabinet immediately below. Enter the shower. On the control panel to your upper right upon entering you will see a "Shower seal" button. Press to activate. A green light will then be illuminated immediately below. On the intensity knob select the desired setting. Now depress the Sonovac activation lever. Bathe normally.
The Sonovac will automatically go off after three minutes unless you activate the "Manual off" over-ride switch by flipping it up. When you are ready to leave, press the blue "Shower seal" release button. The door will open and you may leave. Please remove the velcro slippers and place them in their container.
If the red light above this panel is on, the toilet is in use. When the green light is illuminated you may enter. However, you must carefully follow all instructions when using the facilities duting coasting (Zero G) flight. Inside there are three facilities: (1) the Sonowasher, (2) the Sonoshower, (3) the toilet. All three are designed to be used under weightless conditions. Please observe the sequence of operations for each individual facility.
Two modes for Sonowashing your face and hands are available, the "moist-towel" mode and the "Sonovac" ultrasonic cleaner mode. You may select either mode by moving the appropriate lever to the "Activate" position.
If you choose the "moist-towel" mode, depress the indicated yellow button and withdraw item. When you have finished, discard the towel in the vacuum dispenser, holding the indicated lever in the "active" position until the green light goes on…showing that the rollers have passed the towel completely into the dispenser. If you desire an additional towel, press the yellow button and repeat the cycle.
If you prefer the "Sonovac" ultrasonic cleaning mode, press the indicated blue button. When the twin panels open, pull forward by rings A & B. For cleaning the hands, use in this position. Set the timer to positions 10, 20, 30 or 40…indicative of the number of seconds required. The knob to the left, just below the blue light, has three settings, low, medium or high. For normal use, the medium setting is suggested.
After these settings have been made, you can activate the device by switching to the "ON" position the clearly marked red switch. If during the washing operation, you wish to change the settings, place the "manual off" over-ride switch in the "OFF" position. you may now make the change and repeat the cycle.
I'll empty my bowels & bladder before I leave Space Station V.
I shall keep a copy of these instructions, in case I should need to travel into space.
The food was so bad he had to use the toilet. 😮
@@mombaassa I wonder if the instructions are the same on the I.S.S.?
In case no one has mentioned this: the opening is intended for a closed-curtain viewing. The curtains would part when the MGM logo came on. This can also be seen with _Lawrence of Arabia_ and _West Side Story_ from the 1960s. Like theatrical overtures it was.
Now they run ads, then previews, then the film.
I believe that the accepted date for the "death" of the film overture is 1979, with the releases of and Wikipedia says that they still happen, but with such rarity that they've fallen out of the public consciousness. As noted below, ads and previews have since taken up the space between when the lights go down and the film itself starts.
"Find your seats" music.
This was a thing until the mid-90s in UK cinemas when silk curtains were still used and filmmakers/studios were often very involved in what music was selected. I miss it, honestly!
Fun Fact, pertinent to the film: My local cinema was originally run by MGM and retained the practice when it was taken over by Virgin Cinemas. It was later bought out by a European company who became part of Cineworld/Picturehouse and they gradually phased it out over a period of 3-5 years.
In the jogging scene the entire room is on a rotating gimbal. So the actor is not running around it, the room is rotating around the actor, who is simply running in place. The trick is in the clever camera placement that fools you. Brilliant stuff.
The rotating set cost a LOT of money to build.
Douglas Rain's vocal performance as HAL 9000 is still one of the most chilling performances ever. That calm and calculating demeanour with emotionless intentions behind that soulless and unmoving red eye. Geez!
I learned recently that Anthony Hopkins modeled his Hannibal Lecter voice on HAL. A brilliant choice and impossible to unhear once you listen for it.
His conversation with Bob Balaban in 2010 brings me to tears just thinking about it.
17:11 - FUN FACT: The "VIBRATOR" light is for an actual device that would be mounted on aircraft instrument panels to make sure all mechanical gauges are reading correctly. (i.e. like constantly tapping on a gauge.)
Here's the definition from a parts manufacturer, "A mechanical device, electrically operated, designed to be mounted to the instrument panel of an aircraft to prevent instruments from intermittently sticking."
Incredible detail. You should have labeled this as a fun fact because unlike most fun facts I had fun with this fact.
@@fakecubed - DONE! Thanks for the suggestion.
I feel a missed opportunity to have called it Jiggler. Having a switch labeled Jiggler would be funnier.
And nothing to say about Reginald Perrin?
I was a 12 yr old sci-fi geek when I went to see this in the cinema here in the UK. To say that I and the rest of the audience were completely blown away is an understatement. It was all we talked about at school for days afterwards. To see it through your (fresh) eyes 55yrs later kinda brought back the wonder that we all felt back in the day...
I was also 12 when this movie came out, and my father took me to see it. I've been a Kubrick fan ever since.
I'm nearly the same exact age as the movie (I turn 55 on Saturday), discovered it first through the soundtrack LP (Dad's), then got the novel, and finally saw it on the big screen in 1977 or so, aged 9 or 10, by which time I was pretty damned prepared to see it. And of course it still blew me away. Then, as now, it will always be my favorite movie, perhaps my favorite work of the imagination in any medium (considered together with Clarke's novel). I know I've watched it hundreds of times, and I still notice new things on every viewing. I was 15 when the sequel hit theaters in 1984 and you'd better believe I was first in line. The only other franchise that's the work of substantially one creator that I hold in the same esteem is The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams, a different flavor of high satire in hard science fiction form.
Kubrick was a highbrow who made middle-brow movies once he left Hollywood. His achievements are all technical; he was a cold clinician whose English movies are devoid of profundity or humanity. Except for Clockwork Orange, which is a Malcolm McDowell film since he leaps off the screen in the sheer joy of being a criminal. True story: McDowell asked Kubrick how he wanted him to play a specific scene. Not wanting to appear ignorant of his own film, he shot off the words, "You're the actor! Act!" To which McDowell shouted, "You're the director, direct!"
Kubrick movies remind me of Hitchcock films and what he said about actors; actors are cattle...or should be treated like cattle. As both have said, once the movie has been completely story-boarded, the fun was gone and all that was left was the drudgery of actually having to film the damn thing.
Kubrick never tells his audience what to think or how to react; he presents the scenes, gives clues, steers the story toward the issues he wants to explore and expects the audience to respond using their own knowledge & experience, and possibly to continually debate the meaning of his films. I have found that watching 2001 at different points in my life, at different ages and in different circumstances brings fresh perspectives and understanding.
I also HIGHLY RECOMMEND that everyone watch this at least one time on the large screen as it was meant to be seen. Altho Cinerama no longer exists (it was a huge curved screen that used multiple cameras to project the image), in many cities there are film festivals featuring “70 mm” releases and 2001 is often shown. Seeing the film in such an immersive environment really makes the audience feel as if they are in space and deepens the impression the film and its music makes.
The National Media Museum in Bradford is home to Pictureville; one of the best equipped cinemas in the world. It is equipped for 35 mm, 70 mm, 4K resolution and Cinerama projection.
The cinema features Dolby Digital EX, DTS and 8 Channel SDDS digital sound systems. It has the only public Cinerama projection system outside the USA.
The museum is also home to what was the first IMAX system in England; & still to this day is one of only three true IMAX 1.44:1 screens with the 70mm/15perf projection system in the UK (the others being Manchester Print Works & The Science Museum, London)
@ Wow- spectacular! If I can ever visit there, it is on my bucket list!
To answer your questions regarding the "old classical" music. The first piece is "Also Sprach Zarathustra" by Richard Strauss. It was written before this movie, but this movie is what put that piece of music into the popular culture. The second piece is not from Nutcracker (though that was a good guess), it's the Blue Danube Waltz by Johann Strauss (no relation). That piece was already in the pop culture before this movie.
Yeah, I’ve played with BSO and have played them before. Zarathustra twice
Don't forget my man Gyorgy Ligeti!
The Blue Danube and other classical music was used in many early cartoons.
IIRC the plan was to have an original score written, and The Blue Danube was place-holder music. Kubrick decided to stick with it.
There was a composer hired to write a sandtrack for the movie. When Kubric would watch the dailies, he used classical music as filler. But he liked it more than newer music so he used it instead. No one told the hired composer.
This is what I've heard.
Clarke's novel version explains EVERYTHING, without ruining any sense of wonder, which was Clarke's strength.
And several follow on novels that explain everything else. :)
Every writer gives their own explanation, but not Kubrick's explanation, which he never revealed or wrote down. Lots of fake Kubrick conversations, supposedly of Kubrick explaining the movie, but even Clarke's book, explains what Kubrick was saying. Clarke wrote the novel, as the movie was being made, and followed the movie plot. It's not a movie made from the book.
I am *so hyped* for Rendezvous with Rama directed by Kubrick's successor Denis Villeneuve.
@@fakecubed He's directing that?. Wow!!!
Kubrick co-wrote the book.
This is the craziest Christmas movie ever made.
The monolith looks a little like Nakatomi Plaza, not gonna lie.
👏. Applause for Alan Canon, too. 😂 Y’all killed me dead.
Very true.
Clockwork Orange is a much weirder Christmas movie
At 24:50 Dave shuts his eyes tightly and exhales, which is what you should do if you know you're about to be exposed to a vacuum. It isn't guaranteed to save your life, but it will keep you alive the longest.
Simone: "Could you imagine watching this stoned?"
Ashleigh Burton: "Hi. Yes. Hello!"
I was shocked (pleasantly) when she gave it five stars, it was not what I was expecting.
Many of my friends did.
Ashley’s reaction was so…. Trippy
🤣
Smokin’ the devil’s lettuce
You need to watch 'Moon' (2009) now, Duncan Jones's directorial debut is a criminally underrated gem and completely stunning considering its meagre budget, it has several nods to 2001.
It's entirely a nod to Kubrick.
Moon was never underrated!
@@dolphinsrr not just underrated but almost unknown if your not into the Sci-Fi genre, I'm continually amazed at how many people I now who have never even heard of it!
In 1968 it was not ridiculous, it was awesome. At the end we, in the theater audience, just sat there and stared at each other without words.
It is not ridiculous now, it’s incredible.
Indeed. True, there had been a few half decent si-fi movies, but in terms of effects and space this was an exponential jump.
I had the same effect when I first saw it as a rerun in cinema as a teen in the 80s.
The ending baffled a lot of people and they didn't like it. I just assumed it was supposed to be baffling to show the vastness of the universe.
I wish I could have seen this in the theater back then. But as an 8 year-old, my parents were only taking me to Disney movies.
The opening theme is from Richard Strauss’ Also Sprach Zarathustra, a tone poem about Frederic Nietzche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra. And the “ballet” song is The Blue Danube Waltz by Johann Strauss.
2010 is an overlooked and worthy sequel. Some things do get explained especially with HAL. It's worth a watch even though it's steeped in the Cold War. Also, my dad saw this in theaters and said it was so amazing to see spaceships, but you could also see the people inside them walking around. No one had seen that before. Also...the ending no one got and at the time, it pissed a few people off. It's definitely an acid trip.
No longer just one sun in the sky
Spoilers!
☕ hello🚬
Who is the director of the sequel ?
Another sun, i better stock up on sun block 🥵@@csw3287
I saw 2010 in theatre when I was a kid and LOVED IT.
The centrifuge set was actually built as it looks: a complete rotating wheel - albeit in two halves that could separated very slightly to allow a camera to follow the actor (who was always at the bottom of the set as it rotated).
A similar filming technique was used for the scene of the flight attendant who was delivering food to the pilots. The set rotated with the camera locked into position so that she appeared to walk up the wall then upside-down.
I saw this while in junior high when it was released. Told my folks for my birthday I wanted them to drive us into Pittsburgh, about 30 miles, to see this movie in one of the giant curved screen theaters. It was a mind blowing experience. Trying to tell my class mates what this movie was about afterwards was beyond my brain's ability at the time. LOL.
The book explain more
Sight and Sound Magazine had a poll, and this was chosen by directors as the greatest film ever made...
And the music is a mix of very modern and late-Victorian sound (Richard and Johann Strauss; Penderecki; Ligeti; etc.)
Oh, and the little girl in the phone call is one of Kubrick’s daughters!
I can't wait for Simone to start a reaction with either "I can't do that Dave" or "I can't do that George"
Realizing that she didn’t use Hal as an inspiration kinda makes me appreciate Simone’s performance in “Android Night Punch!” all the more.
I only just now realized that the _real_ theme of this movie is the Evolution of Food. At first the apes were fighting off tapirs for the shrubbery, then they were "uplifted" to red meat. 4 million years later we had advanced to drinking peas and carrots through straws, then crustless sandwiches, TV dinners, and finally in Beyond the Infinite Dave was able to sit down for a proper dinner. Then he botched _that_ up, and the aliens went "we can't have nice things" and started feeding him umbilically.
Kubrik actually explains the ending quite well. At the end, Bowman enters the monolith and is placed into a kind of zoo exhibit to be studied by the builders of the monolith which are beings of energy. Because they exist inside the monolith beyond time and space, Bowman's life inside his exhibit happens instantaneously. Time has no meaning inside the monolith. And upon his death, he is reborn and retuned to Earth.
In the novel the book ends with the Star Child return to earth just as humanity is on the verge of nuclear war.... he just waves the nuclear missiles away and contemplates other things. It's a remarkably mundane and quick passage given the implications.
Kubrick didn’t explain any of that, Clarke did. All that stuff about the zoo is explicitly narrated in the book. Kubrick wasn’t an explaining kind of guy.
@@stuntmonkey00Yeah, the last line from the book always gave me agreeable chills. 😊
@@stuntmonkey00 I wasn't talking about the novel.
@@karlmortoniv2951 in a telephone interview, Kubrick explicitly says what I wrote. 🙄
As I understand it, the novel and the screen play were written in parallel with input going both ways. I too was very confused by the movie but the novel made things much clearer. Check it out, it's a great read!
If you want to know more, 2001: A Space Odyssey the novel was also released in '68. It was written by Arthur C Clark jointly with Kubrick.
2010: Odyssey Two was the 1984 sequel by Clark & the movie 2010: The Year We Make Contact came out in 84. It's definitely worth the watch!
to answer George, when released in '68, Apollo was headed for Moon for Christmas 68. NASA had already had LIVE Earth-link transmissions for Gemini & several Apollo missions.... I WAS A MOON-BABY BOOMER, drank Tang & my school followed all space flights since 4-5 astronauts from my state.
I saw this a couple
Of Years ago with a group of friends, in 70mm in Manhattan… it was really quite the experience on the big screen. (Yes, we were in an “altered state” at the time)
Existentially one of the towering achievements in Sci-Fi and just generally showing what can be made with film….
I like how you guys very quickly picked up on the monoliths enhancing humanity and serving as alien checkpoints. And you can trace that to the ending as well. Once the monkey touches the monolith he evolves. Once Dave touches the monolith he evolves too.
That was not my read. I thought that the first monolith triggered an evolutionary leap, the second monolith activated the signal from Jupiter, and the third monolith was a transportation device. Dave's evolution doesn't start until he reaches the classical bedroom.
Yep. The other thing is that they aren't reacting completely in the dark they mention various things that Patreon people have told them. There no shame of not getting all of it. Took me multiple rewatches and reading up on it to fully appreciate and understand, but that's why I like it, it takes effort on behave of the viewer to get the meaning and it's open to interpretation. That's what most art is about to provoke thought not spoon feed you one predetermined correct message.@@Nick-pu3of
It’s so interesting to watch this again 50+ years later. The technology that blew me away in the theater: video calls, computer screens, AI… you barely noticed now, forgetting they didn’t exist then. However, the styles, the “stewardesses”, the tiny shorts, the space food all seem absurd now. And of course an AI is going to be able to read your lips, duh. 🤣🤣🤣
The term "uplift" was pretty specific, and I'll take it as a reference to David Brin's "Uplift" series, which is worth a read if you haven't already read it.
The first monolith seeds intelligence. The second monothlith is the sentinel. I don't think I've seen a reaction channel pick up on it yet, but the monolith doesn't scream because it doesn't want to be in the picture when they are all grouped together (lol), it's sending a signal to Jupiter because it's seeing sunlight for the first time after being uncovered. It was buried by the aliens millions of years ago, waiting for the time when the apes would evolve to the point when space travel was possible and they had the technology to go to the moon and find the monolith.
My father and I bonded over his SF magazines and books, and going to see SF movies. In 1968 I was 15 and dad was 58, when we watched this in Cinerama .... we were astounded. It took SF to a new level. Sadly he had passed by the time Sat Wars came out....He would have loves it.
george, your first theory is pretty widely accepted as the thesis to the film; that the obelisk appears at moments of evolution and growth in the human race, and indeed within the individual self, seen in the end as the rebirth of a person (or another theory is that the last obelisk represents learning non-linear time)
Agreed.
I can't remember where I read this, maybe just the 2001 book.
Simply the existence of the monolith being non-natural would give the idea that tools could be made to the men who saw it. "This is clearly unnatural, something/someone made this, I could make something."
Which is a lot more subtle than the monolith actively modifying the brain of the person who touch it.
Douglas Rain, who played HAL was a Canadian actor and founding member of the Stratford Ontario Shakespearean Festival, His voice work was truly awesome.
Check him out on SCTV's _The Merv Griffin Show_ with guest stars Orson Welles and Phyllis Newman. I'm not kidding.
He died one day before Stan Lee, and two days before my grandma.
The ship is so long because the propulsion system was meant to be nuclear and had to be separated from the crew. The panning shots of huge spacecraft in other movies is more likely reference to Star Wars rather than this movie, though.
Simone's face in response to Hal's sing-a-long made me laugh hysterically for at least a full minute.
Georges embarrassment at being sung to can be easily countered by knowing when they finish you simply smile and clap in approval back to them. Focusing on this activity gives one something to focus on while they warble away.
The reason why Hal went crazy was explained in the book sequel, if you want to learn:
So Hal was programmed to process and relay information accurately and without concealment to the crew, but the government added orders that demanded Hal keeps confidential information from the crew about the mission they’re on.
It created a contradiction in Hal: how could he lie despite being literally incapable of lying? As the crew discovered more and more about the mission, Hal decided the best way to keep a secret from the crew is if the crew’s dead.
He didn't go crazy.....Thats the whole point. No 9000 series computer has ever made a mistake. Read the whole series.
Hal was forced to make a logic decision....and he did. It was similar to Ash the android from Alien. His primary mission was paramount, all other considerations were secondary, including the crews' lives.
@@tadcooper9733 No the point is that HAL was given contradictory orders and programming. He was made to lie but was incapable of lying. He was told the priority was the mission. The point was made that it has never made a mistake is a plot device to outline the conflict within HAL. That is why the HAL on earth did not make the same mistake. And I did read the whole series and did see 2010 where this is explained.
It was also explained in the sequel film 2010: The Year We Make Contact. George would totally grok the explanation they give for Hal’s homicidal behavior.
You have to keep in mind that all subsequent material is retconned. It’s a mistake to think that Clarke’s literary work holds precedence because it doesn’t. Clarke and Kubrick collaborated on the screenplay before Clarke wrote the novel. The novel is a novelization of the movie, rather than the movie being based on the novel. The subsequent novels cannot be canonical and don’t really explain any of the mysteries of the original work.
Kubrick took 5 years to make this film. He invented new cameras, a new front projection system for the apes in the beginning. (most films had rear projection systems, this system project the image OVER the apes. He hired the vanguard of special effects artists to work on the SLIT SCAN SECTION of the film. The most famous was Douglas Trumbull, a young special effects wizard who later directed his own movie called 'SILENT RUNNING", which featured three droids very similar to R2D2. I happened to go to the NY PREMIER and was wowed by the effects and story. I went on to watch this film 20 times in the theater. It was my favorite film for many years. Thanks for the reaction to this great film.
The "Spooky Chant" is The Requiem by the Hungarian composer György Ligeti is a large-scale choral and orchestral composition, composed between 1963 and 1965.
"Atmosphères".
There are at least three pieces by Ligeti here. A mix of "Atmosphères" during the "interdimensional trip"; the "Kyrie" movement of Ligeti's Requiem, as the "spooky chant" next to the monolith; and the beautiful "Lux Aeterna" when the elongate-shaped ship on the moon travels from the conference center to where the monolith is.
At least one thing we hungarians can be proud of
I saw this movie in a theatre in the original 2.20:1 format. It had a wrap around screen that was even better than Imax. The movie also had a special sound system installed just for 2001.
I was about 10 years old and it totally blew me away! There was nothing even close to this in a Sci Fi movie for realism and art. The only similar experience was seeing Star Wars for the first time. It was interesting that you didn't mention some details because they are now common, the I pad like flat screens they watched while they were eating on board Discovery and many of the digital displays. We didn't even have a colour TV back then! The voice of HAL lived in my home town at the time and my friend and I used to call his house, (the number was in the phone book), just to hear his voice!! We built models of all the spaceships and became huge science fiction fans. To top it all off, they were still sending manned missions to the moon at the time, it was total space immersion!!!
The floating pen is a real pen glued to a very clean piece of glass being slowly moved around by a couple of people off frame.
As I recall, it was a large round piece of glass whose edge was rolled along the floor. Or something like that.
I remember seeing this in the early 80s in IMAX at Ontaro Place. It was insane and almost overwhelming
The way they did the crew deck of the Discovery is both brilliant and simple- they built the set into a Ferris Wheel. In that one long shot of Poole jogging, the camera was fixed, the actor playing Bowman was strapped into his seat, and the actor playing Poole jogged in place while they rotated the entire set around him.
Yes, the sets on this were monumental. Unfortunately for us, Kubrick arranged for nearly all the sets, decorations, and props to be destroyed after filming. (He didn't want them appearing in other films, which was commonly done in those days.) Some things, though, like the Aries 1b spacecraft (the spheroid one) were later found and restored, as well as some spacesuits and a precious few other items. According to an eyewitness, several years after the movie, the station was dropped off at a dump near the MGM Studios site in England and kids soon smashed it.
I saw this on an elementary school trip. I thought this was the most beautiful and confusing movie I’ve ever seen. It has shaped me in so many ways.
2001 is both super scientifically accurate and also super trippy.
Highly recommend watching 2010: The Year we made contact it's Sequel made by another director but based on the sequel of the book this is based on since it answers some questions.
No it isn’t. It completely ignores gas law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If any specific velocities are mentioned in the books then it ignores rigid body rotation physics also. There is a huge difference between science and pseudoscience.
crappy film
Clarke had much more say in 2010. 2001 was written simultaneously with the film production and Kubrick negotiated rights to not be tied to Clarke’s concepts or stores at all.
In 2010 Clarke wanted to go back against Kubrick’s themes of man’s creation of machines and then loosing control. He wrote in redemption of HAL saying the program directives to keep the mission secret and continue without them at all costs made him calculate that human imperfections were a threat to the mission. He also wanted to shift the story to one of peaceful geopolitical messages. Kubrick had zero intention of these concepts in his story.
I saw this in the theater in '68. It was likely the biggest leap in effects ever (and great other ways of course). Before this spacecraft looked like toys on wires with sparklers out back as engines. Kubrick likely did the most research with incredible attention to detail. At one point he thought he might get arrested due to the interior detail of the bomber in "Dr. Strangelove." There is a documentary "Kubrick's Boxes" that is amazing and greatly enhances understanding who he was, if interested.
Except of course, Forbidden Planet from the mid-1950s.
5:00 that texture that George is noticing is actually the edges of torn up pieces of 3M Scotchlite, used in the front projection rig for the Dawn of Man sequence (and one other in as the golf-ball shaped spaceship is seen by the astronauts on the moon as it descends for landing). The background image is actually projected over the actors onto the Scotchlite screen behind them, which reflects the light back where it came from, like modern highway signs do. A beamsplitter in front of the camera lets the projector be off to the side (90 degrees to the camera) so that everything lines up perfectly. You can't see the background image on the actors because they added key lights to wash it out and light the actors against the incredibly bright reflection coming off the Scotchlite. The reason they tore the Scotchlite into random pieces was because if you just use strips of it straight off the roll, you can see the seams.
A much more sophisticated version of this rig was used to film many of the best looking flying scenes in Superman (1978), created by Zoran Perisic, who worked as an animation blob artist on this film.
The centrifuge set was indeed a giant hamster wheel. The place where George thinks there's a cut, there isn't. Gary Lockwood was strapped in upside down while Keir Dullea walked the bottom of the rotating set. Since the set is 40 feet in diameter, that's some real trust in rigging on the part of the actors.
I am pretty sure that most recent remaster is the only version where we can see those strips -- a case where it's actually too high def. Which goes to show that updates and remasters are not always better.
@@vermithaxNah, they're visible on the DVD.
@@Wizardofgosz Yes, as stated, it's visible on earlier home video transfers. But not everywhere, just a couple of shots. My guess is that either he was using a long lens, or the foreground subjects were particularly close to the screen. I have since seen online a "patented" hexagon-based stencil one can use to machine-cut Scotchlite into patches that reduce (it is claimed) the visibility of the seams, so far as possible, down to the smallest practical circle of confusion. You can still buy the exact same product in 48" wide rolls from 3M, in 2023: it's used all over the place in retroflective signage. It's just millions of tiny spherical glass beads, baked into a transparent vinyl substrate, and the whole thing has a peel-off adhesive backing. (They make it in colors too, not sure how that works).
@@Wizardofgosz Just because the information is there on the negative doesn't mean that it's going to stand out on the theatrical print. There is a whole that happens between the capture of the negative and exhibition, including pushing color and contrast this way and that, and there is also contemporary film grain to account for. All this adds up to the Scotchlite strips having been far less visible on film. Maybe apparent to those who were looking for it, but otherwise no, which is very much in keeping with Kubrick's perfectionism.
Now, where I am completely wrong is the 4K transfer, which by all accounts has LESS visible cross hatching than previous digital transfers. The theory is that this was an attempt to more accurately recreate the original audience experience.
@@AlanCanon2222 Yeah, I stand corrected. It's actually more visible on the DVD than it is on the 4K transfer.
I was born 13 years after this movie came out, but about 5 years ago one of the multiplexes here where I live showed a classic once a month, so I managed to finally watch it on the big screen. Amazing. This has been one of my favorite movies for over two decades, and to be able to finally see it in a movie theater made me so happy.
This is such an art piece that it is impossible to watch the last 50 years movies and don't see references, parodies, sequences, shots inspired by it. From Star Wars to Avengers, it is incredible.
Most people think that space sci-fi didn't exist before Star Wars... 🙄
"2001" was , and still is , unique for proving that Science-Fiction could make for impressive cinematic art.
Simone: "The Universe is run by seven d4's... [then they invert] or d8's rather"
George: "It's just going to be 42 at the end".
Arthur: "I always thought something was fundamentally wrong with the universe."
To say the movie was visionary in its day, and frankly still is, is an understatement to say the least. Great reaction guys.
6:28 - If you were wondering how they did the floating pen without CGI, If was glued to a very very polished glass panel that they were moving in front of the camera. The actress had to believably take it off to give the illusion she was grabbing a flying object.
9:57 - The funny hat design was because they thought long hair in micro-gravity would be a problem. Also, as a side note, I always found it funny that they are watching Judo, a sport based on falls, in micro-gravity.
10:01 - This liquid/pasty food was also an old concept from before the space age. It was assumed it'd be a much more efficient way to bring food to space missions in terms of volume and mass but in reality astronauts need the experience of consuming a real meal for their mental sanity in long missions so they now use dehydrated food and recipes from different cuisines (in earlier missions, like Apollo, they used food bars and they realized it wasn't psychologically nice to eat food bars for days). The seal-packed sandwiches at 12:34 would be more believable.
16:32 - Yes, they did.
24:52 - Research suggests you would be able to stay conscious for a time between 10 and 15 seconds. After that you pass out and soon later die from a variety of complications but nothing gruesome. It's actually not the worst way to die. So there's a chance he could pull that off, depending on the design of the entrance module.
Also, it would probably be very important to not hold your breath.
The ISS crews can eat proper food since they are frequently resupplied, but the Discovery mission has to store enough food to last several years. Paste might be the only way to do it.
“What year does this happen”? I spit out my coffee laughing.
I first saw this at the age of 7 with my father (who was born in 1915) when it came out the year before Apollo 11. At the time everyone assumed the level of space travel in 2001 would be more or less what they saw in the movie, if not better. My take on the final "Starchild" shot is merely a comment to audiences in 1968 that we on Earth are about to enter a new evolutionary phase by becoming a truly spacefaring civilization. I have a book on the filming of it called 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony with a forward by Arthur C. Clarke. Aurum Press Ltd. Copyright 1994
Now you have to watch the 2010 sequel. My dad took me to see this at a cinema in central London when it came out...yes I'm that old. FYI, It's called a Monolith and it's kind of like a Swiss Army Knife. Fun fact - The Daisy song is a real thing in the 60's.
That song was a thing in the 1890s. 🙂
I too saw this in a theater with a friend. Around the same time we also saw "Where Eagles Dare". Both came out in '68 and we were little 4th grade rebels. Guess that's why I like South Park. LOL!
"Daisy" was a real thing in 1892. That was the year the song was published, as sheet music, which was the pop music media at the time. No audio or video and I think mass manufacture and distribution of records was not happening yet.
All of us kids in the '60s knew the song. It must have appeared in pop media for years by then. It was a favorite nonsense tune to sing while swinging on swings. You could be silly with a girl on the swings singing it at 8 or 9 or 10, which at 10 years old would have been the precursor to romance.
Arthur C. Clarke was touring a computer lab in the early sixties and they gave him a demonstration of one of the first synthetic voices ever created. The computer was programmed to sing a little tune…Daisy.
The guy who did the effects was Douglas Trumbull and he also did the effects for Spielberg's dazzling sci-fi masterpiece "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind" from 1977, definitely worth watching. To have those two movies on your visual effects resume, no one can touch you! "name your price, sir" 😆 PS: Planet Of The Apes was released the SAME DAY as "2001"! You should see that one! Another great sci-fi classic, impeccably done. notjing can touch "2001", but Close Encounters and Planet Of The Apes (and also "Forbidden Planet!") are all special top shelf sci-fi, well-worth checking out.
Three things George and Simone need to do immediately: (1) Read the short story "The Sentinel" by Arthur C. Clarke, (2) Watch the sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact." Those two things will help you to fully understand and appreciate the story in "2001." Then, (3) Watch again the first hot dog fingers scene in EEAAO for the "2001" homage!
Having read the novel, should i go back and read the short story
Reading Clark's novelization would be good, too!
and reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra too!
Also read Clarke's "The Lost Worlds of 2001" which contains the Sentinel, original drafts for the novel and memoirs of the making of the film.
The Sentinel is good, but really you should just read the novelization of the movie, also by Clarke. It wasn't made after the movie, the script and the book were written concurrently, so every major detail in the book is accurate to the movie. The only difference is small visual things that didn't work well in the special effects.
None of the music was written for the movie. The oldest piece was the Blue Danube Waltz (1866). The famous intro piece was the opening bars of Also Sprach Zarathustra (So Spoke Zoroaster, 1896). There are several pieces composed by György Ligeti during the 1960s -- the more psychedelic ones.
When the first Star Wars movie was released, there were a lot of comparisons to this movie, and a documentary showing how much more advanced Star Wars was in terms of special effects. (I don't remember where I saw the documentary, or what it was called.)
One of Arthur C. Clarke's early novels was called Childhood's End, dealing with the theme of human advancement with alien help -- and whether humans can handle their new powers without the benevolent aliens watching to be sure there are no catastrophes. No one has made a movie of it as far as I know. Very interesting story.
Arthur C Clarke was writting the novel at the same time the movie was being filmed. Sometimes he was ahead of the script and sometimes the script was ahead of him. Theres a lot of behind the scenes in his book "The Lost Worlds of 2001." 2010 is very underrated as a followup. People didnt think it would hold up because of the US/Russia plot point; but its held up presciently well. Plus, 2010 has gorgeous visual effects in its own right, especially the space walk sequences.
As I read the stargate sequence in “Lost Worlds,” the middle part of “In A Gadda Da Vida” was playing on the radio. The drum and organ solos provided a great accompaniment for it. 😊
I get a lil chuckle out of imagining the exhausted stunt guy wrestling with the big cat and Kubrick saying: "Okay let's do 100 more takes"
"Did they build a thing that turns?" -Simone Yes that entire set turned.
Yep... when Simone mentioned a "Hamster wheel", I was like, "Bingo!". So yeah, the core of the Discovery was basically a giant hamster wheel. When Frank is jogging around, he's always at the bottom. Depending on the required shot, the camera is either locked in place so it appears in one spot while Frank runs around and past, or it's on rollers to "follow" Frank while the set rotates. George was also right as far as the camera being locked on the foreground tube, which rotated, while the actors were in a disconnected, fixed tube (including the stewardess scene earlier in the film).
The music at the beginning of the movie is called _Sonnenaufgang_ (German for "Sunrise"). It's the opening piece from _Also Sprach Zarathustra, Opus 30,_ composed by German composer Richard Strauss in 1896. I would suggest reading the _2001: A Space Odyssey_ novel by Arthur C. Clarke to get a more explicit understanding of some of the things that happened in the movie, especially in regard to what exactly the monoliths (the "dominoes") were doing. There are actually three sequels to the first novel, but the last two, _2061: Odyssey Three_ and _3001: The Final Odyssey,_ have yet to be adapted for the screen.
I was fortunate to catch this when it was remastered and shown in theaters. I was able to see it at the IMAX in NYC. Even though I’d seen it before a few times, seeing it on the big screen was breathtaking
Saw the 70mm print from Nolan with non remastered 6 track magnetic audio (just straight digitised on DTS CD) in Berlin, a few years ago.
It was a pleasure and an interesting experience, since audio is mixed far different today.
The few dialogues were directional and not fixed to the center speaker.
In the Apollo space program of the late 1960s, the astronauts ate paste food like that to not have crumbs and food debris floating around the capsule. It was not imagined that things would advance beyond that, just a wider selection of food.
@@platzhalter2581 I grew up in L.A. and went to see it at the Cinerama Dome every few years when they had revival showings. Having the correct sound equipment for this movie makes a huge difference. I remember it sounding very different from what I hear today.
The Hollywood Theater in Portland Oregon has their own 70mm print. I recently got to see it in the same room where I first saw it 55 years ago. It was a real treat.
My favorite since high school and it never gets old or dated. It’s not a movie, it’s a moving piece of art.
In 1984, a sequel was made to this film called "2010: The Year We Make Contact", in which many of the questions stirred up in this film are answered. It is not, however, the art film that this is. And while it is wholeheartedly a product of the 80s, I highly recommend checking it out. It's not a bad film.
The whole “Jupiter and beyond the infinite” scene eerily syncs up with the song “echoes” by Pink Floyd
I saw this in '68 in 70mm on a curved screen at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood. Mind blowing!
I also. Cinerama Theater in Seattle at age 11. The Cinerama theater / projection technology (70mm, ultra-wide curved screen, incredible sound system, etc.) was far beyond your typical theater experience of the day (and was still better than 90% of the typical multiplex theaters today). It's unfortunate that most people today experience this classic first on a small screen. The high quality projection and audio made the film even more impressive. On that day I became a huge Kubrick fan (and also a Johann Strauss II fan. I still equate the Blue Danube with space travel more than with Viennese waltzes).
I saw it in 70mm in 2018 for the 50th anniversary. The colors were a little off, but it was still a great experience. And they actually did have a 10-minute intermission.
Me too, saw in Chicago when it first came out while I was in high school,and many many times since, no longer on a curved screen but at least in 70 mm. It was only in recent years that I decided to relent from my determination to never watch it on a small screen, and allowed myself to view it on tv. But the impression built up over the years from seeing it on the big screen has never left me.
Many cities have at least one theatre which has the capacity to project 70 mm film, and a large screen, and they have “70 mm” Film Festivals- 2001 is usually one of the main draws.
At 7:15, those graphic displays the crew is using were absolute state of the art for 1968. We take them for granted today, but believe me, at the time they were spectacular.
So right. And I wonder how many young computer scientists and other such minds began to whir and wonder about how THEY could get their hands on such whiz-bang coolness or even make it themselves. Like, Steve Jobs MUST have been obsessed with this movie, right?
In the movie, the computer graphics were all hand-drawn cel animations, composited into the film shots. But they certainly influenced generations of future computer scientists and others. (Me being one of them.)
I was a 10-year-old kid in 1968. My parents took me to see this movie in a wide screen theater in Detroit. I wish I could remember if my two sisters were there, but I don't remember them.
That black screen opening with the ominous music was magical for me. The entire movie was. Remember the only parts I didn't like the time was all that yap yap yapping in the dialog bits, like with the Russians on the space station. All of the slowness of moving in space was really cool to me. And the complete silence in the Frank rescue sequence. We all knew watching the movie that the pod couldn't move instantaneously and so right from the start we knew Frank was a goner.
Even the early ape scenes were mesmerizing to me.
I soon found out watching the movie in school about 4 years later that middle school kids did not think the movie was all that cool. Nobody in the auditorium was paying attention to the movie.
"Daisy" was the song that the first singing computer sang at Bell Labs.
"I'm half cray-zee..."
I’d like to recommend the sequel, 2010. Compared to this movie, which has a much more detached perspective, 2010 has a much more human, feeling perspective, and features people trying to understand what took place in this Jupiter mission. It offers some decent explanation for a few big details, and also has a very satisfying ending to conclude on.
"Human feeling perspective"
Word salad sentence trying to convey intelligence.
@@aznthy
I would argue that 2001 offers a cinematic perspective that feels very set apart from any of the human characters (primitive or otherwise) in the film. Always felt like we were watching an alien’s nature documentary about these weird bipeds and their millions-of-years-long journey to reach this Jupiter goal post.
P.S. You might consider trying to understand what someone is actually saying before jumping to asinine condescension. Makes you look bad.
Although it’s not explicitly stated in the movie, when the bone is thrown in the Dawn of man section, the “ship” it transitions to is actually a nuclear weapon according to the script.
2010 Isn't everyone's jam but I love it. It also makes HAL's action less sinister and part of a larger plan. Incidentally HAL is one letter up per character from IBM
Looking it up, IBM rebranded _into_ IBM (International Business Machines Company) in 1972, from which it had been "Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company" since 1911. Given the date of rebranding, it makes you wonder if they picked IBM as a little geekout reference to 2001, haha.
@@Trepanation21it was renamed IBM in 1924 actually. They were a very big deal as IBM in 1968.
According to both Kubbrick and Clarke, this is absolutely FALSE!
A work of art, rather than just a movie. It is amazing when you consider all of the effects are practical - no CGI at all. eg: The pen floating in zero G - it was stuck on a sheet of glass which was rotated in front of the camera. The shots of the pod emerging from the Discovery 1 were shot stop frame - one frame at a time with long exposure - for maximum depth of field. The whole set for the centrifuge was built and mounted on motors and the astronaut jogged as the entire set and cameras rotated around him at the correct pace. I saw this at age 16 in 1968 - in full curved screen Cinerama. The memory stays with me vividly still, including that long black screen overture. What a ride! PS: The key to surviving vacuum for a short time well away from the sun - empty your lungs: you breathe out before decompression. Don't breathe in! That will blow up you up.
As others have said, the opening score is "Also Sprach Zarathustra". It's a huge clue as to the meaning of the film.
The opening black shot is a closeup of the monolith. Your TV or phone is the monolith
The background shots for the early man desert scenes were filmed at and around Spitzkoppe, Namibia. I had the privilege of visiting there on a family holiday a few years ago, it was stunning. Just a few miles away from where Mad Max Fury Road was filmed. An astonishing country.
I watched this a few years ago after hearing about it forever and loved it immediately. Just incredible. 🌌
Also, fun point: The shape of the Monolith is the same as a movie screen. Or your cell phone. Access to all human knowledge and the ability to share it.
The dimensions are 1x4x9, the squares of the first three prime numbers (1, 2, and 3).
One of my favourite theories and one which I’ve personally adopted is that the two and a half minutes of dark screen at the beginning is the audience actually looking directly into the monolith.
The theater where I saw it had curtains across the screen which were closed as the audience entered.
Yeah that's why I like this movie. The deeper you dig it it still holds up. @@jodonnell64
The music all comes from elsewhere. The opening theme is Also Sprach Zarathustra, by Richard Strauss. The vocal mass of noise when the monolith appears is from Ligeti's Requiem. The space docking scene uses the Blue Danube Waltz by Johann Strauss, Jr. The musical prelude, when the picture is dark, is also Ligeti, a challenging 20th century composer.
It's a shame that Simone and George didn't recognize at least some of the classical music in this movie.
@@willmartin7293 Ah well, I didn't know these pieces before I saw this movie, I just first watched the movie a very long time ago.
Only recently learned the name Ligeti.
'One ape slapped another and the next thing you know it's nuclear bombs' - Interesting observation, George. When the bone is thrown into the air and the film cuts to a space craft it's actually showing one of many nuclear missile platforms orbiting the earth as MAD deterrents, so you were kinda spot on.
Saw it in 1968 with my brother and sister. I was almost 11 years old. Yes, mind blowing is an understatement at the time.
Kubrick is one of my favorites. His eye, his vision, was spectacular. I love his movies for the visuals alone, but add everything else in and you get a true master. And this film is so visually stunning, even today, that I can only imagine what it would have been like to see in the theater on opening day.
The opening music is Also sprach Zarathustra composed in 1896. The music used during the docking sequence is The Blue Danube composed in 1866. That whole docking sequence became so iconic that it inspired similar docking sequences in many video games. In fact, if a space game has you docking with a rotating space station, it's probably based on this movie. Many versions of the game Elite would even play The Blue Danube when you switched on the docking computer. It's probably in the latest iteration, Elite: Dangerous, as well.
14:44 - "I don't want to keep calling it a domino piece, I don't know what the word to call it is, but..." - The word you're looking for is "monolith".
24:52 - "The lack of pressure and the vacuum would just pull the air out of your lungs." - Which is why Bowman exhales all the air from his lungs before the door blows. Experts have said that doing so can help a person survive being exposed to a vacuum, although it also severely limits how long that person can function before passing out from lack of oxygen.
Idk why I was laughing so hard at their quiet stares at the psychedelic imagery for a bit with the silence broken by Simone’s “huh” 😂
This is what you get when you put Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke in the same room. The premise is based on Clarke's story, "The Sentinel." From Wikipedia, here is the best definition of the function of the monoliths in this movie: "In the most literal narrative sense, as found in the concurrently written novel, the Monolith is a tool, an artifact of an alien civilization. It comes in many sizes and appears in many places, always in the purpose of advancing intelligent life."
This movie was mind blowing for audiences when it first came out. It still holds up pretty well after all this time, considering all of the practical effects and how good everything looked on screen. Many films have borrowed from or mocked this movie, but I think maybe the most interesting one, "Event Horizon," was the most fun. Hope you get around to seeing that one someday.
One of the reasons they eat food like that is because some solid foods, a bread for example, would create crumbs and in gravity zero environment you'd have tons of little things floating around and it might get into tinny little places and create malfunctions.
George would get this: "Homer, no! Don't open that bag of chips!"
I may be one of your oldest viewers as I was already in my mid twenties when this was released, so I remember it with great clarity. It was released in Cinerama and as there was a Cinerama cinema in the city where I was living, that was where I saw it. For anyone who doesn't know, Cinerama was on a massive curved screen. In its early days, Cinerama films were projected by three synchronised cameras for the left, central and right images. However, the lines between the images were still faintly visible with just a little jiggle at the intersections. By the time 2001 was made however, they'd developed a huge lens that could film, then project a seamless image. I feel sure that had this not been the case, Kubrick the perfectionist would not have opted for the old Cinerama process.
The experience of seeing it on this mighty screen with newly perfected sound systems, was therefore absolutely mind-blowing. We had seen nothing like it before. Cinema had undergone some changes prior to this movie, as the French film Last Year in Marienbad was enigmatic and ambiguous with a storyline that refused to explain itself, and the Italian film L'Avventura likewise dispensed with traditional plot points (a young woman's disappearance is never resolved), so that for me, at least the enigma of 2001 was not too taxing. In fact I would go as far as saying that viewing 2010, the sequel, I quickly erased from my mind as the explanation was just too pat.
Now, of course, so many people are aware of the cultural tropes associated with the film, which somewhat diminishes its impact, that they can't imagine what the original experience, freshly minted was like. Now, reviewing the film it's my original memories I'm really experiencing.
I guess you're both going to have to include '2010: The Year We Make Contact' to your future watchlist. Plus the sequel stars the actor who played the sheriff in Jaws. Regarding the Zero Gravity Toilets, it would have been fun if the company who makes the toilets had a Star Trek slogan 'To boldly go where no-one has gone before' or perhaps an 'Alien' 'one 'In space no-one can hear you poo'.
21:49 Fun fact, Gary Lockwood who plays Astronaut Frank Poole is a Star Trek alumni. He played the character Lt. Commander Gary Mitchell in the episode “ Where No Man Has Gone Before “.
Mitchell was Captain Kirk’s best friend prior to Spock. He underwent an accidental transformation that gave him superpowers and made him psychotic.
I saw this movie with a few fellow graduate students in California, when it was first released. We were very impressed, but it was also exactly what we were expecting. I’ve always liked the idea that the three ascending notes of Also Sprach Zarathustra at the beginning signal three stages: 1) Biological development of the human species, 2) Human civilization, technology, & the venture into space, 3) Cosmic consciousness or transcendence. The monolith marks and influences each stage. - - BTW, like George, we also appreciated the silence of space.
The three notes are also the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th harmonics of the overtone series. I think the "primal" character of these notes may have influenced Kubrick in choosing the piece.
The kinder egg reference was closer than you thought 😁.
You cannot imagine what watching this was like with its original camera set up in a big cinema in 1969. I was sitting in the balcony & when the opening shots with the organ pedal note arrived all the crisp packet rustling, sweet wrapper opening & background hubbub stopped dead in its tracks. I was suspended in space & time, looking down the line of the sun, moon & earth. Never experienced anything like it before or since.
This film is in a category of its own for me so I have no way to rate it. All I know is I'll never forget it.
Such a random choice for Xmas day but I'm here for it 👍
26:26 - "This movie is such an acid trip" was basically how the film was resold to a new audience after it had done the rounds of theatres but hadn't done well. The posters were shots from that last sequence with the words "It's a trip!" or something similar added. It worked! Many hippies on acid went to see the film! In one of the opening shots, a pen is seen floating and slowly revolving. This effect was achieved by sticking a pen to a sheet of glass and having it slowly revolved in shot but with the operators out of shot. Simple but very effective!
I saw 2001 just after it was released - the theaters were packed. It was taken quite seriously, an (as was mentioned previously) was quite mind blowing. There was plenty of discussion about what the movie was about, and what it meant.
I’m so glad to see younger people discover this film. I’m 62 and I remember my older brother seeing it when it first came out. He then bought what he thought was the soundtrack but was really just a full length performance of Strauss’s Also Sprach Zarathustra, which is actually 35 minutes long and refers back to the opening music several times in the course of the piece. Taking a deep dive into that work and its Nietzschean inspiration actually also takes you deeper into Kubrick and Clarke’s mindset about what they were saying with this film. While I wasn’t able to see this film until many years later, I fell in love with the Strauss, which inspired me to get into classical music and read the novel 2001 as well as Nietzsche.
It is amazing to compare this to other things that came out in 1968. It makes you realize that the reason Star Trek (the original series, the last season of which was airing at this time) looks so chintzy in comparison is because of their budget, not because the technology didn’t exist. And it’s infuriating to think that 2001 lost to Planet of the Apes for makeup because the apes in 2001 looked so real they thought they were just trained apes! (The idiocy of that conclusion makes the fact that this movie came out at that time even more of a miracle…)
Anyway thank you for this. This remains one of my three favorite films along with City Lights and L’enfants du Paradis, both of which I would highly recommend for your perusal.
The score was largely entirely classic pieces. I believe Kubrick originally had them in as temp pieces & inspiration for the original score until that could be written & recorded, but then he liked it so much he kept that in & didn't use the original score. The composer - who had scored a coupe of earlier Kubrick films - did not know of the switch until he saw the movie at the premiere.
Great reaction as always! A local theatre where I live had a Kubrick month last month and I was privileged with getting to see this in theatres. It was such an insane experience and made certain scenes that much more ominous.
This movie is one that's worthy of multiple viewings. I had a hard time following what was going on the first time I saw it, but gained much more realization of what was happening on my 2nd viewing.
Kubrick did fake the Moon landing. But, he's such a perfectionist, that he filmed it on-site. 😂
The opening music is a piece called Also Sprake Zarathustra written by Richard Strauss in 1896. It's use in this movie has inspired a number of parody scenes like in Zoolander.
*Also sprach
For the outer space sequences, the actors were strapped on wires and the camera was positioned on the ground under them. And in some instances, to get the fluid and slow motion of a person in the vacuum of space, the camera captured the actors at a frame rate of 96 fps and in the edit, it was played back at the standard 24fps.