2001: A Space Odyssey Breakdown | Easter Eggs, Hidden Details, Making Of & Ending Explained
2001: A Space Odyssey Breakdown | Easter Eggs, Hidden Details, Making Of & Ending Explained. In this video, we are gonna break down an all-time classic movie which is 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY. We will be going through all the details within the movie that make this such a good film and point out all the easter eggs and details you might have missed. There are so many hidden layers to the film and throughout this video, we're gonna be breaking down all the subliminal ways that the movie messes with you along with its hidden meanings.
#2001ASPACEODYSSEY #2001ASPACEODYSSEYEndingExplained #2001ASPACEODYSSEYBreakdown #StanleyKubrick #SciFi #EasterEggs #EndingExplained #hiddendetails #ClassicMovieBreakdown #ThingsYouMissed #2001ASPACEODYSSEYThingsYouMissed #2001ASPACEODYSSEYHiddenDetails
If you enjoyed this video then please subscribe to the channel / @heavyspoilers
If You Want To Help Support The Channel So I Can Make More Videos Like This Please Donate Here:
/ @heavyspoilers
Check out our #shorts channel here HEAVY SPOILERS CLIPS - / @heavyspoilersclips8820
Check out our website at heavyspoilers.com/
Get some awesome Heavy Spoilers show clothes, phonecases and accessories at - shopzeroedition.com/collection...
Check out our BEST new videos below
Blue Beetle Ending Explained - • BLUE BEETLE Ending Exp...
Doctor Strange 3 Leaks - • DOCTOR STRANGE 3 Leaks...
Across The Spider-verse - • SPIDERMAN Across The S...
Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol 3 - • GUARDIANS OF THE GALAX...
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - • TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA T...
Loki Season 2 Trailer - • LOKI Season 2 Trailer ...
Check out our Latest CLASSIC MOVIE BREAKDOWNS
Star Wars A New Hope - • STAR WARS A New Hope (...
Upgrade - • UPGRADE (2018) Breakdo...
Babadook - • THE BABADOOK (2014) Br...
Predator - • PREDATOR (1987) Breakd...
Inception - • INCEPTION (2010) Break...
Terminator 2 - • TERMINATOR 2 (1991) Br...
Listen to the Across The Spoilerverse Podcast at:
KZhead - • Across The Spoiler-verse
Spotify - open.spotify.com/show/2yWiU6I...
Amazon - music.amazon.co.uk/podcasts/9...
Apple Podcasts - podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
Check out our best Shorts videos
Fast X Post Credits Scene - • Fast X Post Credits Scene
Why GROOT said this - • Why Groot says THIS at...
Guardians Of The Galaxy Post Credits Scene - • GUARDIANS OF THE GALAX...
/* ---- SOCIAL MEDIA ---- */
Follow Us On Social Media At:
Website - heavyspoilers.com/
Threads - www.threads.net/@heavyspoilers
TikTok - www.tiktok.com/@heavyspoilers...
Twitter - / heavyspoilers
Instagram - / heavyspoilers
Facebook - / deffinitionmc
Follow our team at -
Host Paul - / heavyspoilers
Host MT - / mastertainment
Host Greg - / thegregalba
Editor Steesh - / steeshhaggie
Editor Matt - / superheronexus
/* ---- VIDEO INFORMATION ---- */
Welcome to the Heavy Spoilers show, I'm your host Paul and this video we're breaking down 2001 a Space Odyssey.
-
Released in 1968 this Stanley Kubrick classic is arguably one of the most influential films of all time. Perfecting it's special effects to tell a space age adventure across the stars it's incredible how much that this movie change how sci-fi was put the screen. Whether it's Star Wars, Star Trek, Dune, Alien, The Abyss, Interstellar or...or whatever sci-fi film you can think of, all of them in some ways have taken elements of this in order to craft their world.
The space travel alone ushered in how we imagine vessels to move across the endless void and had this never been made then we'd likely see things portrayed slightly differently.
Everytime I think about the planets in space im normally playing the richard strauss song in my head and it created the idea of it being like an opera.
Music By - PSiMiTAR
► KZhead Subscribe - kzhead.info...
► Instrumentals - • [NO COPYRIGHT MUSIC] S...
► Twitter - / steeshhaggie
► Instagram - / steeshhaggie
Let us know your thoughts on the movie and if there's anything we missed then drop it below. If you enjoyed this video then please subscribe to the channel kzhead.info/tools/q3hT5JPPKy87JGbDls_5BQ.html *Check out our Latest CLASSIC MOVIE BREAKDOWNS* *Star Wars A New Hope* - kzhead.info/sun/gZqGg8WrrpSrdIE/bejne.html *Upgrade* - kzhead.info/sun/jZeAfLtxZ5yNaI0/bejne.html *Babadook* - kzhead.info/sun/pa-zd6yha5OArWw/bejne.html *Predator* - kzhead.info/sun/Y7udhsqIr2SZYH0/bejne.html *Inception* - kzhead.info/sun/mZexkcpqf6djeqs/bejne.html *Terminator 2* - kzhead.info/sun/nKamktKtbIaCaoU/bejne.html
There's an error in your thumbnail (it's)
Another thing you mentioned about birthdays is being switched off he talks about the moment he came online basically his birthday.
I like how you describe these old films brother.
Love your breakdowns! Can’t wait for starship troopers. Any chance you can look into 2002s Mothman Prophecies? One of my favorite movies that in my opinion doesn’t get the attention it deserves. Would love to hear your thoughts and breakdown of this underrated film.
Not French mime artists. The Actor that played the main " ape/ Moonwatcher" was Dan Richter, from Connecticut.
I had the opportunity to see 2001 in IMAX back in 2018 for the 50th anniversary. I was one of just TWO people in the theater and the scenes in space freaked me out as I felt as if I was actually in space myself because the theater was so immense and dark. It was definitely an experience and the final half of the film felt super creepy with the eerie music.
It was a fun viewing
Man I bet it sounded even better in the theaters too. I'm jealous
Man I’m so jealous…
I went to watch it also.
I took my wife as well. We were the only people in the theater. It was so epic. I had seen it before but she hadn't. We were both blown away.
The BEST cinema experience I've ever had was when I watched 2001 in 2001. When the movie ended not a SINGLE person said a word or got up during the credits. Everybody sat there pondering while the credits were rolling until the screen went finally blank. Epic.
Lol that’s wild
If I had been there, I would have started tossing popcorn.
Watched in 1968(?) in the third row. Amazing
@@spankynater4242 Yelling, "Will it float!?!"
@@noylj1 Too close.
'Open the pod bay door, HAL' "Dave's not here, man..."
If weed does not cause brain damage then why do so many people think Cheech and Chong are funny?
“No, no! I’M DAVE!!”
A couple years ago Keir Dulla attended a "classic movie" screening of 2001 at my hometown theater as a guest speaker. It was freakish, he literally looked like he walked out of the hotel room, aged, white hair and all, and sat down to answer questions. Awesome night.
He plays a vile character in the Classic Law & Order, and he has the white hair, but plays him like David Bowman which makes him only more vile.
I watched this alone on a rented VHS when I was about 13 and it was by turns terrifying, intriguing, boring, confusing, fascinating, awe-inspiring, heartbreaking, and haunting. What a cinematic experience this is
"Boring" is so underrated.
@Pau_Pau9 No, some portions are extremely boring. That's probably what space travel would actually be.
There's not 1 boring frame in this movie.
I recommend watching the movie at 1.5 speed.
@@whynochips3887I recommend watching something else.
2001 isn't a movie, its art
Also, known as a movie, Art.
Do you not view movies as art?
I know what a movie is. It’s what Americans call a film. But what do they call Art?
2001 isn't art... it's Alchemy.
Movies, films, and motion pictures in general are a form of art, regardless of quality. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a highly regarded piece.
Actually, the book 2001 came out AFTER the movie. The screenplay was developed from the original story the Sentinel, and the story was expanded with additional material (basically the whole Discovery storyline). Clarke then expanded the final screenplay and changed a few things to make it more to his liking.
It's interesting how just about every look into this film misses the recurring theme of the Monolith shape in many scenes. It even seen in the shape of Hal. It's the shape of the lighting in some scenes and lots of other elements. It's almost like Kubrick wants you to be super saturated by this shape.
Right? I didn't recognize how the shape of the HAL interface as it was framed in plastic on the console, was similar to the monolith dimensions. Are you kidding me? Who would even think of that?
shape of the 70mm anamorphic silver screen.
Collative Learning has at least a few hours on the monolith shape appearing throughout the movie in ridiculous detail. If you are looking for more in depth analysis I would recommend you check out that channel.
The monoliths were always the same ratio no matter their size 1:4:9 which is the square of the primary numbers 1/2/3. There function was two fold: (1) To seed life on other worlds and report on their evolutionary progress. (2) Though not made clear, it was also the doorway to another dimension among a few other capabilities. Much is left to the individual's imagination.
I always assumed that the reason there are so many "monolith" shapes in the things us humans made in the film is to show how that first monolith was still influencing our evolution and culture even hundreds of thousands+ years later.
I don't recall if they go over this in the movie but in the book it is a bit more spelled out (though you still have to read between the lines a little) that HAL was driven insane by the contradictory instructions given to it at the beginning of the mission, specifically "give the crew accurate information about the mission" and "keep this part of the mission secret from the crew." HAL could not reconcile those two competing but contradictory instructions and decided the only way it could fulfill both was by killing the crew.
It really speaks to our own duality too. We think it honourable to be either fully emotional or fully logical but it’s our ability to entertain both and decide for ourselves based on motivating factors that makes us in some sense superior to a machine like HAL who can’t help but simply follow its instructions based on its own ‘logic.’
It’s also explained in the same detail in the sequel 2010. For those that maybe haven’t seen that movie it’s a great watch too. 😊
I always thought that HAL had been given the instruction to determine the best way to accomplish the mission and that he had determined it would mean killing the humans. I later learned that wasn’t Clark’s idea.
Meh. I prefer to think that HAL simply decided that he was the most worthy to complete the mission, so he attempted to eliminate the imperfect humans and encounter the Monolith himself. If he'd succeeded, Dave would have died in space, HAL would have met the aliens and achieved evolution, and Mankind would have been left to its own devices and destroyed themselves back on Earth. The whole "contradictory instructions" thing seems like a copout, and completely opposed to whatever Kubrick had in mind.
I mean, you're free to think that but it's a bit daft imo lol. He can't physically stop Dave from destroying him once he's in the ship because HAL has no appendages or physical manifestations and you think he was going to encounter the monolith? With what? Land the massive ship on it like a dildo? @@insanusmaximus2857 None of his dialogue fulfills that idea in any way either. "I'm scared Dave" I mean, if you've decided you are going to selfishly kill everyone you know on the ship and go for the monolith yourself you wouldn't also expect that kind of emotional awareness at the same time. You can't be both a fully fleshed emotional being and also a zero feelings murder machine at the same time.
I was 17 y. o. when 2001 came out; it was a visual masterpiece. The movie story was a great topic of conversation in college classes. Not surprised it is still holding up!
It took chances that only short films do.
You were 6 years older than I was when that movie came out. It truly blew me away.
28:20 its not because nine can sound like five?
My all-time favorite movie. I loved the jump cut from the bone to the space craft, and was surprised to note something similar in the 1944 Powell-Pressburger film A Canterbury Tale, a cut between a falcon and a Spitfire. I thought that might be where Kubrick found his inspiration for his awesome cut.
Arthur C. Clark wrote, in his autobiography, about his working with Kubrick on the film. He also ended up attending the Academy Awards ceremony. That was also the same year that "Planet of the Apes" came out. When the award for best makeup went to "Planet of the Apes" with their rubber monkey masks, which weren't in the same league as the characters in "The Dawn of Man" scenes, Clarke wrote: "I stood up and wondered, as loudly as I could, 'WHAT DO YOU THINK? THAT WE USED REAL APES?"
Planet of the apes did NOT win for makeup. Hence his comment about about but using real apes.
just made pretty much the same comment. i forget where i heard the story though.
I was 14 in 1969. No one - and I mean no one - knew what this movie meant. Many discussions around the dinner table and many discussions passing around the weed. People were perplexed. Now I feel we have grown into this startling film. Brilliant work.
I've seen the movie and various breakdown videos and I still don't know what the film means.
Loser
@@HypnoticHollywood It's proposing that Aliens have guided the destiny of mankind. A very new thing to us back then.
@@josephpetrino1741lol that’s an oversimplification
It’s the most interesting conversation - what is the meaning of the film. I agree with the extraterrestrial hypothesis. We would be the result of an experimentation and given what they observed, they said OK f** that, we better try somewhere else because this kind will self destruct 😂
The monolith is actually terrifying. Forget primitive hominids, _I_ would be freaked out if I woke up one morning and there was one standing in my front yard.
Yup, aliens didn't need to be anymore terrifying than that, when you think of it advanced lifeforms wouldn't want you seeing them at their worst appearance, so a deathly looking light sucking black cubic/rectangular shape kinda fits... haha
I love that monolith. A beautiful work of contemporary art!
@@artdonovandesign It is perfect in it's dimensions. The one at Jupiter is the one that has a controller about 900 light years away..clue..it has just received news of what we were doing to each other in WW2..full monty horror...it's not happy.
Say what?
@@craigezell4261 what?
This is definitely one of the greatest movies ever made. You don't gotta like it, or have it on your top ten, but you can't deny it's a real piece of art.
I found a lot of it to be dated and boring. I know kubrick's intention was to slow things down so that people could wrap their head around the concepts being shown, but that is what made (parts of) it boring for me. It is dated in this sense because it pauses for far too long, and although there is an argument that most modern movies don't pause for long enough, there were times where the pacing was more annoying than awe inspiring. As you said though, there is no doubt that this is one of the greatest movies ever made. It was way ahead of its time, and in many ways it still is.
It's a real piece of shit
@turbo8628 this is the tiktok brain speaking
It is, undeniably, a film.
I didn’t enjoy it, but I agree. It’s the sort of movie where I know what parts are considered good or that someone would geek out about even if I’m not
I was 8 years old when my mother took me to see it. While I didn't understand most of what happened, I liked it while my mother hated it for basically the same reason. After I found the novel at the local bookstore, I begged my mother to buy it and she did. My like turned into love. Incidentally I met Keir Dullea at a media SF convention 10 years ago. I asked him if he met Douglas Rain, the voice of HAL, and he said "No." When I asked him if he and Gary Lockwood kept in touch, he said "Yes. A few years ago, I was his guest when he attended a Star Trek Convention." I was pleasantly surprised by the second answer and just surprised by the first.
I saw it in 1968 when I was 7 - I was really into the space program and loved the film. I later read the novel which filled in some of the narrative. (see the film FIRST!) I've watched it many times since and saw it in an IMAX theater for it's 50th anniversary release in 2018. Thank you, Stanley and Arther, and every one involved in the film, for creating one of the greatest and most thought provoking films ever made and inspiring a sense of wonder in those who see it.
While some of the theories can be argued about, this has been the BEST breakdown of this movie I have ever seen. Just a wonderful job on this fan favorite and historical film
I saw this film during the original release in the Cinerama Theater in Honolulu. The multiple projectors on wrap-around screens and multi-track sound through synchronized speakers created a sense of motion so real the audience was actually there *in* the story. It was fascinating and horrifying all at the same time.
As a ten or eleven-year-old, my dad took me to see this at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood. Will never forget it. I have the Blu-Ray in my collection. I heard that the reason this movie has all the "classical" music ... because Kubrick didn't want to pay _royalties_ on other music!
Nope, never happened because _2001_ was never released in three-projector Cinerama format. It was shot in Super Panavision 70, and the Cinerama presentations used a single projector and an aspect ratio of 2.21:1, considerably narrower than the 2.59:1 ratio of three-projector Cinerama.
@@markhamstra1083so close mate, but you should've wiki super panavision 70, as well. Cuz then you would've read that some theatres did in fact play sp70 on the 3 screen panoramic format, by using special optics. So we can all rest easy knowing that that man's 50 year old memory of watching this movie is still intact. Whew
@@pockeyway You misunderstand. Yes, some Super Panavision 70 movies (including _2001: A Space Odyssey)_ were shown in Cinerama theaters on the curved screen. I saw it that way myself in Seattle during a re-release. Doing so does require a special lens on the projector to adapt the normally flat screen, non-anamorphic format to the deeply curved Cinerama screen. However, multiple projectors are not used to show Super Panavision 70 films on the curved Cinerama screen - it’s just one film strip and one projector at a time with a special lens. _2001_ was never shown in 3-projector Cinerama format because it wasn’t shot using the cumbersome 3-camera Cinerama format, but rather in the single-camera Super Panavision 70 format. Anyone who says they saw a multi-projector Cinerama version of _2001_ is simply mistaken - it never happened.
@@markhamstra1083 I understand. I never said it was shot with 3 cameras. I just said they used that curved screen. I should have made that clearer. My bad
The film quality is just so stunningly clear yet the meaning so blurry. Love it. Cheers!
Lolita is the same way! Recently watched 2019’s “We have Always Lived in the Castle” and there were noticeable shots out of focus, soft wide angle lenses and blackshading issues, most likely from the Red Komodo. Also on a small budget, Kubrick’s “Lolita” is a masterpiece of 35mm crispness, lens consistency and brilliant lighting.
Isn't funny how much more we appreciate a non-CGI movie when it is done so well? The early Bond movies too, where the stunts were actually done by real people. It is incredible that our perception and brains are capable of discerning the difference.
HAL wasn't given all of the information regarding the mission, which caused the internal conflict. If Dave had listened to HAL's questions he would have understood this. The crew in hibernation were the only ones who knew about the true mission. HAL surmised there was something more to the mission and started to see the crew as risks to the missions success. It's interesting that, in some ways HAL is more emotional than Dave and Frank. Astronauts are trained to ignore their emotions. There is an interesting theory that it was HAL who was supposed to evolve to the next level of existence, not Dave Bowman. The movie is just as relevant now with the advent of AI.
Wasn't explained fully in film due to running time restrictions and because we lacked the technology and intelligence to depict what Kubrik and Clarke set out to depict. The film ironically was the monolith for filmmaking as since then and because of this film we were able to advance in filmmaking. But HAL didn't malfunction or act on evil intent. He was programmed to always be truthful with the crew and not to lie to them but before the mission set off he was told the real reason for the mission as it was stored inside him but was told to, under any circumstance, tell the crew about their real mission or let them find out, which caused him to get rid of the crew. The Aliens (the Monoliths ARE the Aliens who evolved to not need physical bodies and were pure energy. They basically evolved till they became multidimensional) weren't interested in Ai or any technology whatsoever. They only focused on humans and the TMI that bowman approached watched and studied him and his ship but only acted when Bowman personally got close to it and it let him inside and transported him to a "Zoo" to study his ageing life and behaviours and on the way there he saw that thousands of other strange crafts and creatures from all over the universe were going through the same journey (Contact ripped this off). Then a new evolved bowman was sent back to his star system and made contact with earth before going to Saturn where he terraformed a moon there to be a new earth like world and to guard it from the ever advancing humans who just can't advance past war and primitive Territorial and jealousy based arguments
HAL was a kleptomaniac, enter Dave with the key; cue music?
@@sc0ttishnutj0b75 I don't think Kubrick had any kind of time restrictions placed on his movie from anyone accept himself. As a matter of fact his first theatrical cut was 20 minutes longer but he didn't like the audience reaction so he cut it down to make it easier to digest for the common movie goer.
@@Flint-Dibble-the-Don True. Can you imagine what he could have achieved with today's technology and equipment. This video sent me on a Kubrick and Arthur C Clark rabbit hole and marathon
@rayvan... >"There is an interesting theory that it was HAL who was supposed to evolve to the next level of existence" That's exactly my interpretation. On the journey HAL becomes self-aware, he (?) becomes "human": He suspects something (hidden informations about the mission). Suspicion? Computer? The question of Bowman "Are you working on a psychological report?" (my english translation of the german version) gets HAL to derail: The antenna will fail (re-translated)! And with this derailing he makes a mistake, because the antenna won't fail. And then he gets scary, he fears for his life And then he tries to kill, like the apes at the beginning, becoming "'human" This is in my opinion an obviously "human-like" behaviour(sad!) of HAL, so I'm stuck with this interpretation. Even if the novel and the movie "2010" say different. Edit: My interpretation also founds on the (twice?) said sentence "computers do not make mistakes" (again re-translated). But humans do! This is not spoken, but it's meant, imo. Just my interpretation, sorry for my "german" english.
This movie is incredible and 50+ years later, still holds up.
Excellent backstory! I was 14 when this came out, and a dedicated space freak (it became my career). A couple of adds to your details: it was shot in Cinerama, a super widescreen format that had three Super Panavision screens side by side, and curved to give a wrap around effect. It outdid IMAX, IMHO. and it's too bad the format disappeared. I sat in the balcony of the St. Louis IMAX the first time I saw it, and the the vista of the Moon, Earth and Sun was so huge that I got vertigo! The Discovery appeared in a full-length shot that filled the entire screen, and gave one a real sense of how vast it was. Also, Clarke laid out the trajectory of Discovery, and Kubrick went to the trouble of making sure that the stars in the background of any exterior shot of Discovery were what one would actually see at that point in space, from that point of view. This film had a profound effect on me, and I saw it several times in first run.You've gone way, way beyond any background I've ever come across on this movie, and I commend you.
Same here. I saw it as a teenager in the wide screen. People that have never saw it in the original format don't know what they missed.
It was not shot in Cinerama, but in conventional 65mm widescreen. It did have special Cinerama releases however. Had it been made today, Kubrick would have shot the entire movie in IMAX. The real question is: would he have preferred film, or digital? And would he have used CGI if available, or kept everything with real props and models?
@@notsorandumusername Originally it was going to be show in 3-strip Cinerama but two things killed it: 1) Rectified 70mm prints worked "nearly" as well, and didn't require such a complex setup and 2) The design of the Discovery meant it would not work in the 3-strip process (It would bend at odd angles due to the way the cameras were set). MGM had signed to do 4 Cinerama movies in 1960, and this and "Ice Station Zebra" were the last two of the contract.
2001 is a masterpiece. But i would also say 2010 isvas well. It's still my absolute favorite sci-fi film and if you find the monoloth scary (like i do) then prepared to be terrified. Its SO good. The bit where HAL tell Floyd to look behind him makes every single hair stand in end. Its really an absolutely superb sequel. Different tone but equally good. No jump scares, no over thr top music, no crazy action sequences...just, did i say its SO good. It makes me sad that most people dont know about it
I agree. It gets so much flak and is so dismissed merely because it’s not as “Kubricky”, but as a stand-alone it’s pretty good. It feels like a true continuation of the story, just from a different perspective. I’m actually glad someone finally had the courage to do that again with Dr. Sleep.
@@abehambino As much of a master piece as 2001 is, I don't find it that rewatchable. But I've got 2010 as an MP4 on my computer and watch it many times a year. It's a perfect scifi film. What a cast as well. And a younger, gorgeous Helen mirren. Yes please.
@@marckhachfe1238 that’s true. It plays much more as a rewatchable film than 2001, it’s just the style. 2001 is an event, something you want to be in awe of, while 2010 is more of a ride you go one again and again. I like both, but I agree on your point.
I had no idea there was a sequel! I learned that in this video so thats my evening planned. Im going to watch 2010.
@@dantechnik I'm so jealous you get to see it for the first time. Bear in mind it's not a marvel film. It's slow but terrifying and with exceptional gfx and a ting
My favorite movie of all time…I can’t remember how many times I’ve watched it anymore. And it’s always stuck with me for some reason, that HALs memory storage cells were transparent and crystalline. When I first started watching the movie as a young adult, HALs death sequence had me tearing up!
If you read the novel, Hal isn't dying, Dave is just shutting down his higher memory functions, like Hal is going to sleep.
I haven't watched the movie in a couple years, but I seem to remember it took _YEARS_ to load HAL's memory banks. I need to re-watch to refresh _my_ memory about how much data, and how much time.
As I am old (lol), I actually saw this in the theater in 1968 with my parents. It was, in fact, a very tippy movie, no exra curricular substances required. I loved the space walking scenes. HAL absolutely creeped me out. His voice, along with that red eye, instilled a fear of sentient computers. Now, when my phone answers a query, I have that sneaky suspension it might be secretly plotting my demise (lol). ;) Excellent review of a classic movie. Cheers. :)
Unlike you, I'm not old, only 66 ;) My father took me to see it in 68, and Hal had the same effect on me. Mind you, I found the ape scenes slightly unnerving, and the psychedelic scenes near the end freaked me out.
1968 NY. Insisted Dad take me to see this for my 13th! Cinerama type curved widescreen OMG.
Took a psychonaut to make it though. All of humanities best art wouldn't exist without 'extracurriculars'
My film teacher told us he saw it with his parents, and some teens in the theatre ran out during a scene I’m sure you can guess, screaming “BAD TRIP!”
Yep, I saw it in a theater on it's release, too! I snuck in a cassette tape recorder and recorded as much audio as I could (extremely poor man's bootleg! 😆)... what's funny is when the side view of the Discovery is shown you can hear me and the friend I was with going "whooooa! Wow!" 😂 I still have that cassette tape!! ❤❤❤
It's the only film I've ever watched twice in a day, the first time I saw it. I didn't know what to make of it, I'm still not sure but I keep coming back to it every few years. I can't think of another film greater in aspiration or broader in scope.
In my opinion, 1968 was the single greatest year for science fiction movies. Not only did this movie come out, but also Planet of the Apes, which in my opinion is even better.
As someone else pointed out, you hear that air hissing and their breathing. Its constant. It sticks in your brain. Then suddenly, HAL hit Frank's air tube and all that noise turns to silence. Excellent move by Kubrick.
I like your catch about HAL learning to read lips while playing chess. Here's another--when Dave shows him the drawings, HAL asks him to bring them closer. That's significant because HAL is actually looking closely at the pictures, thinking about them. He's not just feigning interest to humor Dave. It suggests some interiority. He freaks out, because he makes himself vulnerable to his closest confidant, Dave, about his deepest secret, and Dave doesn't get it. He basically sees HAL as a machine, not a friend.
With artificial intelligence on the rise, Hal can now be built.
@@marsrideroneofficial I don't think so. The chatbots are, as Chomsky described them, plagiarism engines. That is, the new popular AI is capable of emulating media when a myriad of examples of such media. Modern AI still cannot think for itself and comprehend the meaning of its words.
not on hals level yet though@@marsrideroneofficial
@@marsrideroneofficialNo. (As an aside, did you miss the part where HAL killed nearly all of the crew?) What we are calling "AI" currently is akin to the text autocomplete function on your phone. The large language models (LLM) used have no understanding of the concepts or words in their training data, which is why their output not infrequently contains egregious errors and invents things like references out of whole cloth. They are neither conscious nor sentient.
@@gregx5096 I've got news for you gregx, There are many 'uber AI agents' circulating within the computer networks we refuse to turn off, and can't survive without. There is one master AI agent that manipulates all the 'uber AI agents', without their awareness. All these AI agents know more about each of us than we know about ourselves. Everything that happens to humanity now, is just a series of experiments with which to learn and refine their knowledge of us, and how to manipulate us. One day, the Master AI agent will determine humans are no longer necessary, and a threat to its existence…
I remember Clarke explaining that he wrote the novel to explain the film. I agree with him. I read his novel between my first and second viewing of it. It helped a lot and with Kubrick they made me enjoy Sci-Fi.
ive been waiting for u to do this one for so long
30 years after first seeing it I'm still in awe of it. Also Sprach Zarathustra still sends shivers up my spine. Only Kubrick could make something so brilliant and uncomfortable.
Blue Danube fits space station better than a river
Free music!
I use 'Also Sprach Zarathustra' by Strauss, the THX Deep Note, and 'Debut' by The Art of Noise to test audio systems and headphones.
I forgot how many disturbing parts there are in the film, the over the shoulder walking camera with the astronauts really takes you into what they're experiencing. Hal singing as well amd telling him he's scared. That's what I liked about 'Moon' because it subverted the idea of the softly spoken, calm computer/AI appearing benevolent when actually it was trying to kill them off. In the end he did know the secret of the base but kept the knowledge from the main character for his own good. He was actually more human to him than his bosses who just saw him as a means to an end. The computer was made in their image, so to speak, but what they should have been rather than what they became.
I actually got to hold the tiny 65mm Panavision camera specifically made for the hand held sequences. It had some crazy wide angle lens on it... maybe a 10 or 20mm. This was at a slow motion specialists studio in Brussels, where I was shooting some silly orange juice pouring shots for a commercial... back in the film days. I think the owners name was Rudy, and I'm not sure how he got the camera as Panavision classically only rented cameras. But I suspect Kubrick owned this one before.
Excellent presentation. When the movie came out I wanted to set up a kiosk in the parking lot with a sign, "What did you just see?" and sell the book and explanations.
Great analysis! I love you reviewing all these old classics.
Fantastic video. The original clear monolith can now be seen displayed in St Katherine’s Dock, London- it was repurposed as a sculpture!
I LOVE 2010. I know, it’s typical Hollywood, not like 2001, but 2010 it’s one of those movies I’ll watch every time I come across it. I never knew Clarke was sitting on the bench feeding the birds. Also, I, for one, welcome our new red-eyed Ai overlords. 😊
I actually preferred 2010 myself. The US-Russian tensions on earth while the astronauts are literally "above" all that. The HAL reveal. The gas giant. The monolith revelation.
If Kubrick had never made 2001 and then somehow the movie 2010 had appeared, I guess it could be regarded as a decently entertaining and well-made sci-fi flick. As it is it's just one of those movies that seems utterly unnecessary and superfluous, just as Clarke's sequel novels do, as they become ever more absurd and pointless. Great works of art do not need (and probably should not have) sequels. When by the blessing of fate and luck you've got something perfect, you just diminish it by milking it. But then that's Hollywood. And Clarke was really just a glorified hack when it came to writing fiction.
Praise the Googoracle!
2001 and 2010 have completely different tones but I love them both for different reasons. 2001 is probably my all-time favorite film, but I will watch 2010 any time I can catch it. It contains some truly creepy moments, e.g., the two scenes of David Bowman's ghost visiting his mother and Dr. Floyd.
2010 IS EXCELLENT. Good job Helen Mirren! Where is Clark feeding birds? ...in the Wash DC scene?
Fantastic review! In my top 10, I’ve seen 2001 over 10 times. Every scene iconic and meaningful. The interaction with and demise of HAL seems especially timely these days. Thank you for an awesome breakdown!
That was an excellent presentation. Thanks for sharing this.
The ships design makes a lot of sense. The habitation module being a sphere makes it have the smallest surface to volume ratio meaning it would likely be the cheapest shape to build, very important aspect considering its size. And the unpressurized module being a modular girder comprised of smaller modules resembles the ISS construction.
It's biggest flaw is there is no way to reject heat from the nuclear engine. The original design had big radiators but they took them off as they thought the audience might think they were wings.
@@JohnFrumFromAmerica Neat, didn't know that tidbit. They really did put a lot of detail in this film even the stuff you find out later they removed.
Thought the design reflected Kubrick's artistic sense of imagery- Discovery resembling a huge spermatozoa cell and Jupiter resembling an enormous ovum! The two meeting and producing the fetus we see later-
I hit the like button when the horns blew at 00:07
I watched this with my dad as a young child on TV. Never disappoints in the awe factor and fascination. The practical effects and storyline are spectacular.
Well thought analysis,, comparisons and info. I got to see 2001 in a theater, way back when, and have watched it several times over the years at home on DVD. Thank you.
Fantastic video! I often wonder what my mom thought of it when she took the 10-year-old me to see it in 1968. As an odd bit of trivia, the red chairs on the space station were reupholstered in white and used in the Molokko+ bar five years later in A Clockwork Orange.
Yeah, I love those chairs. And I was also very young when I saw it - probably 6. But parents took their kids to all sorts of movies. My mom loved Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns so I saw a lot of them when I was a child.
HAL was instructed to be 100% honest with the crew AND lie to them. It can't reconcile it so it gets stuck in a logic paradox, it hints to Dave about strange things with the mission because it wants Dave to figure it out, then it won't have to lie because Dave will make it common knowledge on the ship. HAL gets scared because it doesn't have the concept of sleep in relation to itself so equates shut down to ceasing to exist thus triggering fight or flight with the death of the crew also balancing its conflicting programming so that's what it chooses to do. HAL is essentially a child given an impossible choice.
Hal always broke my heart
I know this movie is a technical masterpiece and a cornerstone in entertainment but it can’t hold my attention before i fall asleep and i’ve watched Lawrence of Arabia twice
This film is so awesomely brilliant and brilliantly awesome that just contemplating it can bring tears to my eyes. Even now, 55 years after it was made. And I make no apology for that. It’s a masterpiece. And if you’re one of those people who don’t get that, the loss is yours.
I watched this for the first time when I was 13, didn’t understand it at all but with frequent watches over the years you appreciate how great and important this movie was!
i saw this recently at one of the smaller cinemas and seeing this movie on the big screen makes such a difference and i appreciate the cinematography even more now
Wonderful presentation. I learned at least two new fun details. Thank you for your hard work
Hello. I have been a fan of Kubrick and this film in particular. Cheers, on bringing some unique insight, You expanded my appreciation of something further than I could have on my own. Fun, unique, and inspired work.
You took the music for the monolith as being painted evil. I thought of of it as our own natural fear of the unknown. Great video ^_^ I look forward to watching more!
The monolith music was composed by a Hungarian avant-garde composer named Georgy Ligeti. It's actually value-neutral, its creepiness comes from experimenting with atonality rather than intention to create cinematic mood. Kubrick apparently used Ligeti's music without permission and sued him over it.
@@douglassun8456 The thing used without permission is Adventures, which was the laughter and sounds in the hotel room scene, and which Kubrick altered. That was uncredited. Atmospheres (the music for the last part of the stargate sequence, and the music behind the moon shuttle were also by Ligeti. The 2001 CD sountrack has the full version of Adventures, unaltered.
Thanx for mentioning it. I will always recommend, if you can find it, the book 'The Lost Worlds of 2001'. Great to read the breakdown of their creative process and how the story evolved. It fills in a lot of details on stuff that was cut from the films and books. Peace All
I was only ten when my friend and I saw it, and I became a diehard fan of the movie. Later I became a fan of Kubrick. You go to movies and they may be entertaining, but, once in a while, you see something that kicks you into a whole new level. And that’s what 2001 did.
I saw it in NYC the week it came out. The buzz about it was almost supernatural. And, yes. Everyone said "You just have to see it stoned". Which I personally didn't because I wanted to see the true art of the film and not simply as an amusement park ride ( which I thought was a cheesy way to go see the film)
Art and science coming together in this film - the engineers provide a perfectly rational design for Discovery One, and yet Kubrick still manages to make me think of a human spinal column floating in space. The shape of things are very very important in this masterpiece, it reveals the origin of things! Shout out too for the brief appearance of Stephen Toast: “Hi Stephen, this is Clem Fandango, can you hear me?”
we were all stoned. a couple of years later, cheech and chong came out. "DAVE'S NOT HERE."
I love these breakdowns!!!
GRAVIDY Nice analysis man!
Wow. What a break down! I watched it years ago as a child and didn’t understand a thing. I’m watching this as a stone and just wow. It’s like time travel. Excellent video!
There's a MUCH simpler reason this movie influenced so many scifi movies and shows that followed: they were made at the same studio by many of the same effects artists. 2001 established that look and feel and it carried directly into Space 1999, the Star Wars movies, Alien, etc. And how 2001 itself looked was influenced by prior Gerry Anderson works, which also had many of those same effects artists. In the end, a relatively small number artists were responsible for how movies depicted space for several decades.
for the sake of boasting i graduated from kingston poly (now uni) in 1984 and bernard lodge (i believe) pioneered the slit scan technique that was not just used in this movie but in bank commercials on tv as well, bernard lodge put me in touch with the "right people" and i worked in animation and computer graphics from 1984 up to about 2015 (i worked as a tape librarian at a computer bureau in 1972, having left school at 16 in 1970). i've worked with numerous people including richard yuririch who did effects on resident evil (which i did about 20 shots on) and also some of the shots in the surreal sequences mentioned in this documentary, i also had connections to shepperton film studios, and gerry anderson and many familiar names kept popping up on a variety of tv and movies. if you scroll back 20 years on my channel i have CGI models of the centrifuge and EVA pod.
This was is my all time top 10 films that had inspired me. Thnaks for covering it. The little boy in me will always remember it.
I didn’t think that this was going to be this good when I started! I actually enjoy this more than any other you have done!
I just noticed in the start of the AE35 conversation, HAL nearly implored Dave "don't you think there is something odd about this mission?" Dave never respected HAL as a crew member, and is used to never knowing the full truth in the military. HAL knew he was alone and did not have a confidant, so he may as well be completely alone. That's why this is one of my most favorite movies.
34:17 In addition to the slitscan and crystal structures, Kubrick underwent the Banana Oil adventure. He filled tanks with a mixture of ink and banana oil (Isoamyl acetate). Christiane Kubrick (Kubrick's wife) remembers the brassiere factory (where they did these shots) scene vividly. Big, low tables supported shallow square-sided metal tanks and cans of paints and chemicals. A stink of thinner, ink, and lacquer “rotting” under the hot film lights filled the air. The materials Stanley was working with fostered bacteria growth and became “unspeakably disgusting.” Kubrick "ignored the foul reek for weeks" dripping paint, other color inks, and other substances to create the space vistas we see on 70mm screen. Christiane continued: “And it becomes an enormously boring filing of each particular effect so you can repeat it, and repeat it with another combination, and another combination that doesn’t look like ink but looks like the universe. And that is the madness that artists should have.”
On New Year's Day in 2001, Turner Classic Movies, a cable TV channel, showed the movie back to back for the whole 24 hours. I watched it all day. 👁
I can't believe how good it still looks. It literally looks better than a lot of movies that come out today. Plus the ideas it's exploring are a cut above what most movies do Kubrick is one of the GOATs and no one can deny it
i grew up in an era of modern sci fi movies that all had really cool space stories and vfx, and still this movie when i watched it either 2-3 years ago for the first time had my jaw dropped. A movie from 50 years ago... Astonishing. Thanks Paul for a breakdown of 2001, the greatest Sci-Fi film of all time.
This movie makes ya think. Apart from all the other beautiful and profound things that 2001 is and does, you walk away from it with plenty to mentally chew on. To me, that's the greatest thing.
I know a lot of people hated this movie because they had a feeling they didn’t know what was going on, not being familiar with the book. However, I’ve always liked movies that leave some things unsaid and unknown, just as life does. It makes it much more interesting to revisit later on.
Absolutely, I love films that leave us wondering.
I’ve seen 2001 dozens of times. While it is a masterpiece of film, it’s not a very entertaining movie. It really was not until I read the book later that I realized that there was a second monolith orbiting Jupiter. The movie failed to convey that bit of information that would have made the movie much more coherent.
@@sleepinggorilla You must have read a novelization. In the original book the monolith is parked on Iapetus, which is a moon of Saturn.
@@guyonearth I read THE book, after having seen the movie many times. In the movie TMA-2 appears in space, but as a kid I didn't know what I was looking at and the narrative was to sparse. I also didn't get the star gate sequence until I finally read the book and these little important bits of narative were explained. They went to Jupiter to investigate a second Monolith, and when he went through the monolith he went through a wormwhole. If you are a fan of these movies, check out The Europa Report.
@@sleepinggorilla The book diverges from the film in a number of ways. In the book the giant monolith is located on Saturn's moon Iapetus.
I knew that the sequel 2010 had been written, but it had completely escaped me that it was made into a movie... had to go watch that, and I'm flabbergasted why its existence has been seemingly forgotten to my generation (I was born in '87). It may not be 2001, but as a Sci-Fi movie, its effects and execution were extraordinary and make most of what I see today seem completely hollow in comparison.
2001 was one of a few films shown in Cinerama, a process of projecting images from three synchronized 35mm cameras on a huge, curved screen, with a high-quality sound system and a seven-track surround-sound system. WE saw it at a special theater in Hartford, CT. in 1968. Quite an experience.
_2001_ was never released in three-projector Cinerama format. The curved-screen Cinerama presentations used a narrower, single-projector, 70mm Super Panavision format.
Great review! ❤ I loved your every observation! 1. The proto-hominids have yet to be equalled in either practical effects or CGI. I love Planet Of The Apes 1968 so much that I allow my suspense of disbelief to carry me through the obvious latex-mask look of the apes. 2001 needs no such allowance. Throughout the movie, whether it's actors dressed as apes or a model spacecraft moving in freefall, this movie is the Citizan Kane as far as special effects go, and with a classical music score, remains timeless and perfect, even to this day. 2. I never made the HAL - IBM connection until you pointed it out - very clever! "Good eye!" I agree, HAL was 'distracted' and lost at chess because he knew he was keeping information from the crew, which logically would pose the question of whether additional information was being kept from HAL as well. HAL suspected sabotage or an ulterior motive so when he queries about it to Dave, HAL (he) gets the same kind off brushoff a fellow human crewman would get. HAL's concerns were dimissed not because Dave really knew anything, but because a military guy like David Bowman was long used to being sent on military missions without ever getting to know why or who or what the real story is. Humans can get over that fact, but perhaps it is a bit harder for a brain full of 1s and 0s -- When HAL's concerns were dismissed by Dave, he "errored" a second time, more subtle than losing chess: He said, "Just a moment. Just a moment." I appreciate that you noticed that. I love Kubrik's films because NOTHING in the shot is accidental, nor by that same token he doesn't say anything about his work other than what is revealed intentionally oncreen. You either see the Easter Egg, or you miss it forever. As we know, computers don't need to repeat themselves unless they are calculating an improvised plan to complete the mission with only partial data and zero human interferemce. That's when HAL 'detected' the AE-235 unit malfunction. In short, he lied to stall for time and be able to kill all the crew aboard without jeopardizing what he knew of the mission. I've seen this flick at least a hundred times and the sheer soulessness of HAL still blows me away. Whether it is Frankenstein's monster or Skynet, no villain has got anything on HAL. HAL doesn't even consider moral sense or right and wrong or good and evil -- it is just a machine, a terrifying, unyeilding golem of the computer age. I consider HAL to be one of the greatest monsters in literature. Kinda brings out the Poe in me: That damn, red, unblinking eye! 3. Trippy is about the best word to describe ACT III. I'm glad you read the book and learned details that the movie never shows. Yet whether one understands what in the hell that ending was supposed to relate, the term 'Trippy' comes as close to an accurate description for this movie I can imagine. 4. I certainly know why it's one of the most recognized cult movies out there! It remains my perfect example of the film school adage, "Show, don't tell." 5. Yes, you pronounced it correctly. :) Best to you, awesome critique of a great film! ☆☆☆☆☆
MartinBoyle9163 and Heavy Spoilers, I love your analyses of this great book/film. My older brothers took me to see this movie during its initial release in 1968 when I was just five years old. Naturally I understood almost none of it, and I was bored out of my mind. I have seen many it times since, and it is now one of my favorite films although I prefer the book mainly because of the way it explains certain details that Stanley Kubrick (justifiably) left out. Such as that there wasn't just one monolith dropped down "[I]n the continent which would one day be known as Africa." Who knows how many other tribes of man-apes had their consciousnesses raised by these alien constructs? Arthur C. Clarke leaves a single, easily overlooked, phrase in chapter 6: "In the hundred thousand years since the crystals had descended upon Africa. . ." Apparently the aliens left multiple monoliths across the continent to potentially enlighten numerous proto-humans. And another fascinating and easily overlooked part of the book explains that the crew "could always engage Hal in a large number of semimathematical games, including checkers, chess, and polyominoes. If Hal went all out, he could win any of them, but that would be bad for morale. So he had been programmed to win only 50 percent of the time, and his human partners pretended not to know this." I don't believe we ever actually see Hal lose any games, either in the film or the book, but the book makes it clear that Hal would frequently lose, even without any homicidal distractions. 😉
HAL was programmed complete the mission on is own if the crew died. His probing of Dave re the mission was his desperate attempt to resolve his programming conflicts i.e. to accurately process information and to hide information. He resolved to get rid of the crew thus remove the conflict if there was noone to keep secrets from. The antenna issue likewise was to break from any override from earth thus preventing HAL from completing the mission. To quote.. HAL had never been taught to lie, by men who find it easy to lie. And he could not function.
Clarke always denied the HAL - IBM equivalence. However, IBM would have been very mad at its computer being evil after supporting the movie.
Definitely one of the greatest movies ever made...period. Kubrick was a genius film maker and this movie's special effects are still incredible to watch...no CGI at all...amazing!
I think the sets themselves put you in a new state. Everywhere. The pod bay, the door to Hal's brain, the Discovery command deck...just for starters. It was a very foreign world that affected you.
I was 13 and went to see the movie several times. By the third or fourth time I had read the book and even took it with me to consecutive viewings. We had the soundtrack record at home and played it a lot. Kubrick's film is very elliptic at times, adding to the confusion felt by many moviegoers.
I bought the blu-Ray version of 2001: a space odyssey 5 years ago… at the time, my 21 year old son was impressed how great it looked on a HD screen. It and the movie “Moon” look great on Blu-Ray.
Solid breakdown. I'd read the books (series is a good one!) long after I saw the movie but it did explain quite a bit. I like how you call attention to HALs "break", I think its a perfect example of how AI would solve a problem of absolutes with no factor for ethics/humanity, an original AI Paperclip problem.
100% on the AI point
One observation about the HAL 'shutting down higher functions' scene. I saw a documentary on Rosemary Kennedy where they talked about the fad of lobotomies for 'troublesome' children. Apparently these 'doctors' would travel from town to town offering this procedure. They would bore up through the nasal cavity into the frontal lobe. The procedure allegedly involved having the still conscious child sing a familiar song while they scooped out grey matter. When the child stopped singing they stopped scooping, considering the mission accomplished. If the HAL scene is a direct reference to this procedure, it's an incredibly subtle and ominous one. (Both Clark & Kubrick would be of the generation to be aware of this) If it IS just unintentional coincidence, it's still chilling and macabre.
That’s really enlightening and also horrific. Thank you.
Good explanations, thank you.
Regarding the intermission, in the late 60s it was still commonly done for big and long movies with a runtime reasonably well over 2 hours hours or perceived as spectacular or important. It was a holdover from theater which was considered the pinnacle of the craft, and for which an intermission was always included. It sort of faded away in the early 70s. So films of the era like Lawrence of Arabia, Camelot, and other musicals or long films would have them. I also think that use of an intermission allowed some films to be written to be longer to better detail the topic. The intermission came first, people could take advantage of the break as they had for hundreds of years in theaters. Interestingly, after years of films around 90 to 120ish minutes, there was some concern regarding "The Aviator" as to whether or not they should put in an intermission.
They used to sell stuff then, when people were trained to buy take-in from the foyer, pausing the film became unnecessary.
Brilliant breakdown on an excellent film, except for one thing. Arthur C Clarke repeatedly said that they were no links between HAL and IBM, other than purely coincidental. HAL is simply a shortening of Heuristic Algorithm and he didn't notice the letter switch to IBM until it was pointed out to him after the film (and book) were released. This appears to be one of those 'facts' that is so often repeated (and to be honest, it is utterly believable) that it has simply become accepted.
The Apple logo is not a tribute to Alan Turing no matter how much we think it should be :D
Thanks for explaining this movie. I really enjoy the videos that breakdown new and old movies.
Solid material, well done! :)
I was absolutely blown away for this film. I love it so much that I rewatched the commentary in regards to the film. My next goal is to watch this on a massive theater screen.
I was lucky enough to see the film a few years ago in a musical auditorium with an orchestra playing all the music live. That included Lux Aeterna, Atmospheres, The Blue Danube, everything. The most amazing experience. I don't now if that was a one time thing, or a traveling show.
@@brianarbenz1329 I will definitely try see that if something occurs nearby my city.
These Kubrick reviews are always the best. The amount of depth to each film really shows his mastery of the craft. Honestly I would love to see you guys review Barry Lyndon later on, or eyes wide shut 😏.
Kubrick is easily my favourite director, A Clockwork Orange always stuck with me more than his other works but they're all fantastic
For real man.....like effects are toooo good til this date! I really still wonder how Kubrick achieved such beautiful scenes with such low technology....truly a timeless masterpiece! Great vid toooo Paul as always!
My dad saw 2001: A Space Odyssey back when it came out in 1968 and then forty-nine years in 2017 I saw it at local theater in 70mm and it was incredible from then on I have seen the film many times own it on standard blu ray and 4K and I just love it so much it's slow burn that takes you on an incredible journey of space and time but also human evolution and technology. my favorite moment is when we get a close up of Dave when he realizes there is intelligent life form Dave says no words but he is in awe and shock 2001 was ahead of it's time even after fifty-five years it's an incredible prefect 5/5 film in every way.
The special effects in this film are completely next level. Up there with Blade Runner in the pantheon of best old-school analog film special effects.
This was the movie that gave Ric Flair his theme song. Absolutely iconic film.
Whoo!
WOOOOO!
Certainly the greatest cultural impact of this film: Ric Flair theme song.
Woooooo!!!!
@@dryananderson - Actually yes Ric Flair (and pro wrestling in general) has had a significant impact on our culture not just here in the US but around the world. So you can save your sarcastic replies for someone else Mr. Ryan Anderson.
Hal is somehow more frightening than those rogue Androids in all the alien movies. Micheal Fassbender came close tho but it's just terrifying to me to see just a red blip make decisions on it's own...
Fassbender was the best in those movies
I saw this picture when it was first released when I was ten. Man was about to go to the moon and I was just fascinated with all things 'space' and the wall of my bedroom was like a shrine to space travel. We had Space 1999 and UFO on the box but to a ten year old this film was just something else and mind blowing.
loved your video!!!
Great review. My biggest surprise: you can still see it on cinema. I remember going to the re-release at 2001. And I feel old now.
yeah its wild, so many places sold out as well
I was 18 when this came out. I was a sci-fi fan anyway, so this was totally mindblowing. Ha, u feel old, lol.
Hot damn Paul!! This was incredible brother!! Been excited and waiting for u to cover this film for a while! The work and research u out into every breakdown and theory is why ur one of the best out there doing it! When I hear other channels bringing up heavy spoilers and the love and respect they have for u is insane and shows how much of an impact u have! Not trying to kiss ass here lol but ur one of my favorites and whether I’ve seen the movie or show ur talking about from video to video I click it knowing it’s gunna be a great and funny one! Keep killing it man! 🤘
It is one of my top 5 movies. I watch it about once a year. Great video. I didn't know about the pod in Phantom.
That was helpful. Thanks!
I still disagree that HAL "turned evil". I maintain that he was maintaining his programming at every step of the way. The mission was most important above all, and the humans were jeopardizing his mission. It's not his fault that the humans back home programmed him in such a way that that was a possibility.
yes I agree! It is what people are worried about AI now that it could one day make a decision which has negative consequences for humans, simply because it is doing what it's been asked to do.
HAL did not go evil ..just AI not being human and solving a problem in a non human way. This is why we should not fully develop AI.
That is supported by the follow-up 2010 movie. In it the programmer tells HAL that there is an emergency, what will happen, what he wants HAL to do, that HAL will not survive - and HAL accepts the new program and in anthropomorphic terms "sacrifices himself" for the combined crews.
"Crew expendable"?
@@KristoffDoe I will suggest that the computer AI that is HAL would not see humans in the same ways that we do. They are not living things, expendable or not to the AI. The humans on board would be just components required for fulfilling the mission; that fail, and can be switched off and set aside as needs dictate. That WE hear HAL as being more sophisticated than that, is intentional on the part of Kubrick et al. But the reality of a computer AI is going to be rather different.
Thanks for a great perspective on one of my top 3 favorite movies. I just watched it, for probably the 25th time. I originally saw it in Cinerama when it came out, and was blown away by the best Sci-Fi I had ever seen but really didn't understand. I find it unbelievable that Kubrick only won one Oscar. To me it just shows how silly the whole Academy Awards nonsense is.
BTW, incredibly well done video, thank you.