All models, mattes and design. I saw this 2 years ago at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood, and yes, it totally holds up, which is amazing. 45 years later the effects are no better, just cheaper.
What made movies like this great is they made you say, "how did they do that". Now, the answer to everything is "computer generated".
To me, it's like having a real magician do things with slight of hand, versus an animated magician who can really just do anything. We have lost the wonder of SPFX.
I remember seeing this movie as a 10-year old in 1968. This scene was especially dazzling. It is really a piece of beautiful choreography, as when the spaceliner approches the station. You have to remember that this was 1968. 'Star Trek' (the original series) was on television, & didn't seem like a real vision of the future. Kubrick got it right, though. Odd what a different year 2001 turned out to be.........
CJC Re: taking liberties in space films: You're right. Maybe I'm just too much of a purist because silence was so integral to the scenes in 2001. No offense.
It would be quite some problems in a spinning space station, if it didn't have a very large diameter. Every time You moved Your head, You would risk to feel dizziness, for example. The Russians tested in a big, specially designed centrifuge many years ago. They even let a guy trow an arrow. It flew in a curve and nearly hit him.
If You ran along with the spinning direction in a corridor, You would be heavier. If You ran the other way, You would be lighter...
From 1:45 to 1:55, the great Stanley Kubrick (and his special effects wizard Douglas Trumbull) let a BIG mistake slip through. The shadows don't move over the rotating space station...
To get this effect, the sun must orbit the station in a synchronous orbit...
Ah, I remember the low contrast of movies of this time... which isn't really realistic to space... the shadows cast, are the most realistic I've seen in a movie, at least they're sharper, not as diffused... but they're still limited to what you can do in a studio...
I was just trying to picture the physics behind this space station. And it doesn't add up. There's no gravity in space, so things wouldn't "stick" to the outside perimeter of a spinning object, as depicted in this film. This wheel would work, but there would need to be several floors-- lined up like a circular sky scraper-- that run perpendicular to the outer perimeter. If you can imagine. Correct me if I'm wrong.
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y ...What force would pull the objects and people toward the outer perimeter? There is no force. If this space station was really in space, all the objects and people would float off the floor, and the space station would spin around them... until they were stopped by a wall, or anything else that is fixed to the spacestation. In other words, any verticle wall would really be a floor, if it was actually used in space. Do you get what I'm saying?
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y The centripetal force from the high rotation is what would hold you to the floor, so the levels in this space station would need to be stacked one inside the other... with the floors being outward from the center... to where your head if you were walking would be pointing straight towards the center of the space stations spinning axis.
@CJCA915 That force only exists if there is gravity. Think about it this way. You know those really rapidly spinning rides at amusement parks, where you stick to the outside wall, really intensely, when it starts spinning really fast?... Well, if there was no gravity, and you were in that ride, you would simply float around as the thing spun around you. Centripetal force only works if there is a point of gravity to spread out. You need a downward drag, a force that creates the intitial "stick".
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y The Gemini 11 mission attempted to produce artificial gravity by rotating the capsule around the Agena Target Vehicle which it was attached to by a 36-meter tether. They were able to generate a small amount of artificial gravity, about 0.00015 g, by firing their side thrusters to slowly rotate the combined craft like a slow-motion pair of bolas.
@CJCA915 Gravity can be simulated in several ways.
A rotating spacecraft will produce the feeling of gravity on its inside hull. The rotation drives any object inside the spacecraft toward the hull, thereby giving the appearance of a gravitational pull directed outward. Often referred to as a centrifugal force, the "pull" is actually a manifestation of the objects inside the spacecraft attempting to travel in a straight line due to inertia.
The spacecraft's hull provides the centripetal force required for the objects to travel in a circle (if they continued in a straight line, they would leave the spacecraft's confines). Thus, the gravity felt by the objects is simply the reaction force of the object on the hull reacting to the centripetal force of the hull on the object, in accordance with Newton's 3rd Law.
The rotation is what causes the gravity... every right the fair ride "Spaceship 2000?"
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y You don't need to be in a "gravitational field" to experience centrifugal force. Think it over again, and think a bit deeper... Check in a physics book.
My favorite part of this has always been the matching spin sequence. It's one thing to understand it intellectually, and quite another to have it visually represented so clearly and gracefully. Plus, you get "Blue Danube" to boot.
You must be joking!! Star Wars looks cheap and cheesy in comparisons to Kubrick's 2001, in which all elements were exposed in the exact same negative, together, held for months until another aspect could be added. Star Wars improved ONE thing, computer tracking of repeated motion. Kubrick didn't have anything like that to work with! And besides, anyone with a brain knows that space is a vacuum - there is NO SOUND in space! No wooshing engines flying by, no explosions! Major FAIL!!
@pacific707 Well, which is sad, since it was Lucas' own FX company, lmao. ILM did better visual effects in Star Trek, than Star Wars, of course, it all comes down to budget...
However, the point of sound in scifi movies is to add dramatic effect... not to be realistic, and heck even Apollo 13, a movie based on true events has sound effects outside the LEM, CSM, etc. as it's for dramatic effect...
the only things they know today are remakes, prequels, sequels, movies based on books/comics/tv series and the like, you seem to get me wrong, i like newer movies, and i also like cheesie 80s action flicks with stallone, arnie and the like, i love that stuff, but many action movies today take themselfes too serious, and yeah, you say the environment, take alien for example, it still looks perfect, and the chills it gives you, the atmosphere, THAT'SD what most young filmmakers can't do.
dude, robocop 1 and 2, great movies, good effects, and the brutality of them is classic, the kicked in eye of part 1 i think, yeow, that's pain, i love eastwood, both as a an actor and director.
sure, but back in the 50s and 60s the junk wasn't as hyped up as today, way before popcorn cinema the bad movies didn#t get as much airplay as they do today, star trek was more like star wars copy, nothing will ever beat the wrath of khan.
I dont like all the Comedys and Horror that come out these days. I like a movie were I can think about it, I would gladly watch 2001 or Bladerunner rather than a Ben Stiller comedy or a Michael Bay shaky cam fest
If only directors wouldn't be the money lovers who have robots fighting for hours. For once in the 21st century, can we have a Sci-fi flick that I won't have a heart attack every 3 seconds.
Kubrick was a 1000% perfectionist. That's why this movie looks so modern despite it being from the 60's. It's look so clean and crisp. If there's a remake of this made with cgi and other 21st s**t, I will set out to destroy whoever makes it.
@smoothymcgyver Kubrick definently could have taken the easy way out and used strings and made the cheesy as fuck....but he definently made the movie the best to his ability and look where all of his movies ended up being classics and they never needed a sequel because the man is orignal and i will join you in destroying the set of anyone remaking this film!!! :)
@Leadhead444 funny about that. Alex North was originally hired to score this film's soundtrack. Now if you find the original music, it's a more jazz sound that really would have made the film dated and look cheesier with it. But Kubrick edited the film while listening to classical music and he felt the classical music was more fitting so he left in the classical music, though without telling Mr. North until the film's release where Alex himself was shocked to find his music was not in the movie.
The real beauty of this sequence is that the construction of the 'wheel' is not yet complete...and the music of course. And the directing. And...everything!
@Linuxdirk Kubrick shot frames for a very long exposure with the iris closed down. Made for a sharper image. Most of the pan shots were actually a kind of animation, moving things forward a little and shooting a frame. The pods and the moon base opening were done like this.
I can’t help but to agree with @Jamzooo's comment here. Almost all movies from Hollywood for the past decades appear as nothing more to me than cooked up by kids on ritalin and steroid soup on a faked screen for the drugged wasted minds of America. I woulnd't waste my time on that crap. Unless I initiate is, when will we see the likes of Kubrick, Felini and Hitchcock again? We are in dire need of some real cinemagraphic art. Mark Seibold, Retired IT Tech, Artist-Astronomy Educator, Portland OR
@Jsanc2075 Its not for everyone, but execept for the ape's sequence, I find it fascinating. Try and watch 2010 and maybe you'll understand what happens when a director gives away all of the answers.
Oh yeah, John Williams, ET also, no effects whatsoever, classic puppets, John Williams simpy is the Beethoven of Film Music, the sound of adventure was never again captured as perfect as in the indiana jones theme, oh yeah star trek by goldsmith, what a theme.
magic in musikc would sound like hedwigs theme from harry potter.
And you have to keep reminding yourself how old it is. It doesn't look dated at all, except for the clothing and hairstyle (the only mistake Kubrick made, if you want to call it that). It is genius.
@OropherThranduil Hi, there. I used to work as a Model maker but I don't do it now. Most of them have been switched over to CGI because it's ceaper to deal with. Sad hey...
@OropherThranduil Comparing a film like this with today's film is completely useless.. This is not a move in the normal sense. It has very bad pacing and overbaring soundtracks for a traditional movie. It obviously was a breakthrough in it's time but I see glorifying it today as a mere pose. Yes the story is good, but the movie is very tedious to watch by normal standards. Much of the acting seems riddiculous compared with today.
@OropherThranduil The book is great though, although also a bit too concerned with explaining routines. It was logical back then, but it is clumsy today. Also the movie cannot be called "visually stunning" because by today's standard you can perfectly see the limitation of the older shooting techniques and of course detailing of the sets. Morover you cannot watch an old sci-fi movie without noticing the obsoleteness of the tech and design presented..
@OropherThranduil Well it is great in certain moments and it most certainly plays more on the "art sequence" side than on the "story-driven film" side.. What I meant was that in terms of realistic quality of the models and the sets it is pointless to try comparing it with modern techniques. The ape-suits for example are actually utterly riddiculous. Also the audio quality of the whole thing is sub-par.. Of course it was a great film back then and has significance even now, but it is well.. past.
@OropherThranduil But obviously differrent things resonate with different people and different people like different things. It's just that I know some people who I feel hold this "old movies are better than modern ones" as a pose to make them look interesting.. Yes, I do think movies like Transformers are quite demented and that currently sci-fi cinematography seems to be in a bit of a crisis, but that is not the fault of CGI. There simply are stories that you cannot do without CGI
@OropherThranduil True enough. But lets not glorify the old works too much, they have their shortcomings too, just like there are good things in modern movies. For example the acting often feels somewhat staged and forced.
Anyways there are and there will be movies which use CGI well as a tool, not as the centerpiece. Moon was a great one, Sunshine too. If they did Space Odyssey today the story would remain the same, only the visuals, acting and audio could be better.
@OropherThranduil True enough. But lets not glorify the old works too much, they have their shortcomings too, just like there are good things in modern movies. For example the acting often feels somewhat staged and forced.
Anyways there are and there will be movies which use CGI well as a tool, not as the centerpiece. Moon was a great one, Sunshine too. If they did Space Odyssey today the story would remain the same, only the visuals, acting and audio could be better.
i've seen the blu ray version of 2001, and it couldn't be anybetter, and the acting is perfect for it, and the music, you can't do it any better, especially the space stations look so great, just like the models from the old star wars films.
todays actors can't for the most, hold a candle to the classics i think.
i mean the best today are the old ones like hopkins, brando was a god.
@OropherThranduil I pitty you then, because you are doomed to be pissed about movies for the rest of your life - nobody is going to stop using CGI because you siply cannot achieve the same effects without it, and the old actors will not return.. I'd be happier if the producers started focusing more on new ideas and stopped remaking and doing so many comic book movies. But aside from that the technical quality of the entire industry has improved and nobody can deny that.
i like comic book movies, but again, nothing will ever beat superman 1 and 2 chris reeves as the greatest superhero of them all, and the new costume and movie looks like the biggest shit of all time, i mean snyder struck gold with watchmen, but damn it, that costume, i could puke from seeing it.
but hell yeah, remakes suck, especially horror remakes, like none of them, escept for chainsaw massacre was quite good and last house on the left was pretty good to.
@OropherThranduil I don't know you, so I apologize if this is a wrong asumption from me, but I think what you like about older movies is their classic atmosphere. Simply that they are from a time before the sci-fi genre wasn't so overused. But you simply can't bring that back.
About the audio I meant the quality of the voice recordings. They have nowhere near the quality of today's movies. Also I find it difficult to believingly watch a sci-fi set design that obviously looks antiquated.
@Iguana93 " without noticing the obsoleteness of the tech and design presented"
Guess you missed the iPads then. This movie is visually stunning on thousands of levels and it hold ups amazingly well even compared to the CGI used today. The most stunning aspect is how they were able to create near perfect representations of Earth, the Moon and Jupiter when we didn't have photos of either one yet. This was BEFORE we made it out of low earth orbit and Kubrick was able to work around that.
These baby/childhood scenes subvert the confident music (all in the same scene!), and consequently subvert the achievement of docking spaceships in orbit.
These baby/childhood elements subvert the confident music and consequently the achievement which is the ability to dock spaceships in orbit. Man may think he's a whole lotta something, but he still has a lot to learn. As, how coincidal, will become apparent later on.
@warblade It's the same with this scene from '2001'. It's not a standalone. Earlier *in the same scene* we see (as the graceful, utterly civilized and seemingly adult waltz music plays) inside the spaceship. We see babyfood, floating tools over which man has no more control (when in space), we see potty training, we see a woman struggling to walk as if she was a child. This is not in the extract of the scene you see in the video above, but the video above is part of that same scene.
@jpglaarh dude, put down the bong pipe. as someone once said, "This is crap floating in space and we don't need to watch it." you're still just putting whatever meaning you want into this movie and calling it good.
sigh....Whatever, I'm bored with this anyways, you're right, God himself could not have made a better scene were all that happens is a ship docks. Or someone goes from point A to point B. Or somebody delivers juicy-juice for 5 mins. It's all freaking genius. best movie ever.
(He's still roaming the streets a free man, because in the U.S., not everyone is equal, regardless of the national anthems and constitutional basis for equality)
@warblade A man is walking down the street, the Star Spangled Banner is playing as music. Now, you say, "everyone could have written that! It doesn't mean anything!" What you don't mention or fail to notice is what happened before that scene and what happened after. Context. You've seen him, a white Southern governor, publicly murder a black slave in the early years of U.S. History. When the scene actually arrives (man walks down street), the music has become ironic, the scene meaningful.
You’re so wrong on your interpretation of this scene, jpglaarh.
This scene is so obviously a representation of the physical act of conception between spiders. It so obvious, I mean, the station has 8 legs, just like a spider, and the female (space station) is much larger than the male (space ship) and the female “consumes” the male in the end. So the scene is really about spider sex….or plug in just about anything you want and write the movie for Kubrick.
@warblade ...a peak with HAL 9000 (a tool which directly evolved from the first tool, the bone in the prologue). Man's tools have now taken his own place, man has to evolve in a different manner: spiritually. The space child at the end is comfortable with space, instead of threatened by it (as is the case now). Now, anyone could have written a dance of space ships set to a waltz (which in itself is esthetically moving, I think), and Kubrick indeed wrote that, but he wrote it for a reason also.
@warblade All interpretation of art is subjective; it's the argumentation that counts. I say this scene is not meaningless, and is ingenious -- the music represents superficial fluidity and civilization: technological, external, mathematical. It's all very impressive, these spaceships, but at the same time it's not enough for mankind. This is completely in line with the rest of the film, which I strongly suspect is suggesting that mankind cease its technological innovation (which has reached....
@ warblade Sorry, only 1/5th of my comment made it. Anyway, your approach to things is awkward; you call my interpretation subjective, and state later on that the scene in itself is meaningless. You can say that of literally every scene and or aspect of every work of art ever made. That's fine, but if you want to single out this scene from '2001' and say it's more meaningless than things normally are -- I don't get that. You say it's not meaningful, what gives you more authority than me?
@jpglaarh In order for something to be meaningful something meaningful has to happen, right? If I shot a scene of a guy walking across the street in a busy city would that be meaningful? If you're going to give this scene credit for some deeper meaning, you have to give EVERY scene in every movie credit for having some deeper meaning. And if you don't think that a guy walking across the street doesn't have a deeper meaning you're just not thinking about it hard enough.
A "waltz" in orbit. From the comments many people seem to miss the point, but when I first saw this scene the metaphor was clear. I instantly fell in love with the classics of the past and the possibilities of the future all in one fell swoop. Brilliant in my opinion.
@ warblade118: the music and the visuals are not randomly chosen. The music represents, or is meant to summon, the pinnacle of human civilization: the Vienna waltz. Everything in a waltz is regulated, every move scripted. Everything fits together very neatly. As is the case with the rotating spaceship and the spaceliner docking it; man has totally mastered the Tool: he can leave his own atmosphere and make one spaceship neatly dock another. The music is used rather sarcastically by Kubrick; you
@ warblade118: the music and the visuals are not randomly chosen. The music represents, or is meant to summon, the pinnacle of human civilization: the Vienna waltz. Everything in a waltz is regulated, every move scripted. Everything fits together very neatly. As is the case with the rotating spaceship and the spaceliner docking it; man has totally mastered the Tool: he can leave his own atmosphere and make one spaceship neatly dock another. The music is used rather sarcastically by Kubrick; you
@jpglaarh I never said it was random, I just said what it actully IS.
Everything you just said to me is just a subjective interpretation and can change from person to person which I have no problem with. But what Kubrick actually wrote was this: ship docks with a space station set to the waltz for over 2 minutes. That's all that happened and anyone could have wrote that. It's not ingenious or meaningful or much of anything, Kubrick is just making you write for him.
I saw this in the theater in 1969 and the scene where the twin wheels sweep on either side totally blew me away. It is one of the most breathtaking scenes ever.
Some of the effects in 2001 are dated. It's obvious that some scenes are painted backdrops, that some spacecraft are flat models, and so on. But this is the movie that made Star Wars possible. After 2001, never again would a space film get away with the primitive special effects of earlier films.
About 2 minutes and 20 seconds of a ship docking? Kubrick you're a freakin genius.
Next lets see 3 minutes of every step of a guy getting on a bus and going down town to get a bite to eat or something cuz that's so interesting to watch.
@Artemetra Actually, i don't think i would even need 23 seconds to tell you that, in fact, its a stone statue of a guy, because that's what it actually is. You want to read something else into it that's fine, more power to you, but that doesn't change the fact that its still just a statue of a guy.
All this is is over 2 minutes of a ship docking set to classical music. I wanted to see a movie.
@Warblade118 The beauty of the scene is where the perfect (and scientifically accurate depiction of) synchronization of movement between the spaceship and the station are mirroring the dance moves in a ballroom. Hence the waltz music. Of course, if you prefer movies with 2 minutes of pointless explosions, boobage, lots of gunfire and wrestling robots, that's your choice ;)
@aliencubby I didn't say anything about what kind of movie I'd prefer. ;)
btw, that's a nice interpretation you have there. It may or may not be the one Kubrick intended and even if it is, it doesn't really mean anything or tell a story, but I agree it sure LOOKS great. I could be wrong but if that's all it takes to impress you, music that may or may not sync up with a pointless step by step mundane procedure let me know, I can do that for free man!
... how bout me taking a carburetor apart and fighting it putting it back together set to Beethoven's 5th? Way better than watching a space ship dock set to the waltz and you might learn something? Whaddya think, aliencubby?
@Warblade118 - fair enough. I (seriously) suggest an art appreciation class, but I will agree with you as you imply that it's all subjective. Picasso came out of the Lascaux caves and said "We've learned nothing..."
@Artemetra Saying, for example, that a statue is a statue is not subjective, it's objective, because that's what it is in fact. Saying (just an example) a statue is a symbol for man's struggles in life would be a subjective interpretation because the next guy may see it differently. I'm just telling you want it is, not what I think it means. Same applies to 2001.
And art appreciation class? What's that? Is that were a bunch of snooty hipsters tell you how to think about art? I'll pass, :)
@Warblade118 Your preconceptions are hindering your worldview, and life isn't enriched by being close-minded. A good teacher will put up a artwork that a majority has deemed "great." He'll go on to explain why. That process can be fascinating. You look at things in a new way, with greater appreciation. You start to separate good art from bad, and you begin to understand why people still talk about things that have stood the test of time. And not toss them off flippantly.
@Artemetra What preconceptions are you talking about? How am I wrong in saying a statue is a statue, a cloud is a cloud, a docking scene is a docking scene?
You know whats really close-minded? Having someone put up artwork that the majority has deemed good then just excepting it as good and talking about all the reasons its good because the teacher says it is.
And I never tossed anything off by not taking it seriously, in fact, saying something is what it is is about as serious as it gets.
@Warblade118 It's more than a docking scene. It transcends the subject, as well as the medium. It's a sublime work of art. It touched me on a new level, as did many parts of the film. You missed that, it seems. And PLEASE don't try to argue that you are open-minded, this whole discussion proves otherwise.
@Artemetra lol okay you're pulling my leg. This is over 2 minutes of a ship docking set to the waltz. There is nothing magical or deep about it. If you're serious, then you're just reading whatever meaning you want into the scene or worse yet, just going along with some meaning somebody else read into it. I'm telling you what Kubrick actually wrote, a ship docks set to the waltz.
btw Artemetra, I never actuality made the claim I was or was not open-minded, I just told you that what you were saying about the art teacher and going along with the majority thinking something is good is kinda close-minded.
Please stop putting words in my mouth and mischaracterizing my arguments.
@Warblade118 Again, fair enough. But when someone seems to stick to snap judgments, it's easy to equate them with those who are demonstrably close-minded. OKAY, this movie was controversial when it came out (1968!) - lots of poeple reacted like you. Today it's recognized by a huge majority of filmies as one of the greatest movies ever created. Please check out Wikipedia's take on it - especially the part titled "Reaction". There you will find Your viewpoint, as well as Mine!
@Artemetra I don't mean to beat this into the dirt but I'm not really interested in how other people reacted to this movie. Lots of people saying something is good does not make it good.
Subjectively, yeah, 2001 is as good or bad as the viewer makes it because so little actually happens and its all so vague you can just fill in about anything you like. The problem is that's not hard to do. It requires very little talent. Essentially Kubrick is making you write this film.
Maybe this will help you understand my take on this?
Compare this scene to the one in Jurassic Park were the mains are on the helicopter approaching the island. Both are scenes were people are going from one place to another with music but something actually happens in the JP scene. We get some hints as to these people's personality through some of the dialogue, in other words, something is actually happening. What do we get in the 2001 scene? A ship that docks with a station.
Maybe this will help you understand my take on this?
Compare this scene to the one in Jurassic Park were the mains are on the helicopter approaching the island. Both are scenes were people are going from one place to another with music but something actually happens in the JP scene. We get some hints as to these people's personality through some of the dialogue, in other words, something is actually happening. What do we get in the 2001 scene? A ship that docks with a station.
Still makes me gobsmacked after all these years. The brilliant artwork, the music and the space dance! I don't think this sequence has ever been equalled
I can tell you as an astronomer and award winning artist of technical sketching through telescopes for years, that there is no comparison to the fine artwork that Kubrick employed into this film. It has never been matched in the same way in other films. With all due respect to other science fictions such as george Lucas' work, 2001: A Space Odyssey will always remain my top favorite work of visual motion film art. The writing of Arthur C. Clarke is also not to forget. Mark Seibold Artist PDX
according to kubriks vision of the future only european alpha males make it into the future. And woman find their place back in the kitchen serving men.
Why is everyone skinny?
ShawnDriscollCG 3 weeks ago
This incredible film can't possibly ever be topped by a remake; it would be a travesty to even consider it!
RagShop1 3 weeks ago
Beautiful scene! Shame we'll never see it for real in our lifetimes.
den2003 1 month ago
If we didn't have to spend 30 trillion dollars on war we just might have the money to make this a reality.
bisbeejim1 1 month ago
funny space with no stars
guigatrojan023 1 month ago
What a beautiful fucking scene, wow.
TheHolyMongolEmpire 1 month ago
All models, mattes and design. I saw this 2 years ago at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood, and yes, it totally holds up, which is amazing. 45 years later the effects are no better, just cheaper.
What made movies like this great is they made you say, "how did they do that". Now, the answer to everything is "computer generated".
To me, it's like having a real magician do things with slight of hand, versus an animated magician who can really just do anything. We have lost the wonder of SPFX.
ToyKingWonder 1 month ago
Wow. I can't wait to see the wonders of life in that mysterious, far-future year 2001.
MrAdvancedAtheist 2 months ago
I remember seeing this movie as a 10-year old in 1968. This scene was especially dazzling. It is really a piece of beautiful choreography, as when the spaceliner approches the station. You have to remember that this was 1968. 'Star Trek' (the original series) was on television, & didn't seem like a real vision of the future. Kubrick got it right, though. Odd what a different year 2001 turned out to be.........
petrusprimusmaximus 2 months ago
@petrusprimusmaximus We will never reach space when we're busy fighting each other
LongieStudios 2 months ago
Stanley Kubrick the best
Belegurian 2 months ago
CJC Re: taking liberties in space films: You're right. Maybe I'm just too much of a purist because silence was so integral to the scenes in 2001. No offense.
pacific707 3 months ago
It would be quite some problems in a spinning space station, if it didn't have a very large diameter. Every time You moved Your head, You would risk to feel dizziness, for example. The Russians tested in a big, specially designed centrifuge many years ago. They even let a guy trow an arrow. It flew in a curve and nearly hit him.
If You ran along with the spinning direction in a corridor, You would be heavier. If You ran the other way, You would be lighter...
YDDES 3 months ago
@YDDES So? We'll just make it bigger... Simple.
misestrelka 3 months ago
From 1:45 to 1:55, the great Stanley Kubrick (and his special effects wizard Douglas Trumbull) let a BIG mistake slip through. The shadows don't move over the rotating space station...
To get this effect, the sun must orbit the station in a synchronous orbit...
YDDES 3 months ago
Ah, I remember the low contrast of movies of this time... which isn't really realistic to space... the shadows cast, are the most realistic I've seen in a movie, at least they're sharper, not as diffused... but they're still limited to what you can do in a studio...
CJCA915 3 months ago
I was just trying to picture the physics behind this space station. And it doesn't add up. There's no gravity in space, so things wouldn't "stick" to the outside perimeter of a spinning object, as depicted in this film. This wheel would work, but there would need to be several floors-- lined up like a circular sky scraper-- that run perpendicular to the outer perimeter. If you can imagine. Correct me if I'm wrong.
983215ljhlkadbspig6y 4 months ago
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y ...What force would pull the objects and people toward the outer perimeter? There is no force. If this space station was really in space, all the objects and people would float off the floor, and the space station would spin around them... until they were stopped by a wall, or anything else that is fixed to the spacestation. In other words, any verticle wall would really be a floor, if it was actually used in space. Do you get what I'm saying?
983215ljhlkadbspig6y 4 months ago
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y The centripetal force from the high rotation is what would hold you to the floor, so the levels in this space station would need to be stacked one inside the other... with the floors being outward from the center... to where your head if you were walking would be pointing straight towards the center of the space stations spinning axis.
CJCA915 3 months ago
@CJCA915 That force only exists if there is gravity. Think about it this way. You know those really rapidly spinning rides at amusement parks, where you stick to the outside wall, really intensely, when it starts spinning really fast?... Well, if there was no gravity, and you were in that ride, you would simply float around as the thing spun around you. Centripetal force only works if there is a point of gravity to spread out. You need a downward drag, a force that creates the intitial "stick".
983215ljhlkadbspig6y 3 months ago
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y The Gemini 11 mission attempted to produce artificial gravity by rotating the capsule around the Agena Target Vehicle which it was attached to by a 36-meter tether. They were able to generate a small amount of artificial gravity, about 0.00015 g, by firing their side thrusters to slowly rotate the combined craft like a slow-motion pair of bolas.
CJCA915 3 months ago
@CJCA915 Gravity can be simulated in several ways.
A rotating spacecraft will produce the feeling of gravity on its inside hull. The rotation drives any object inside the spacecraft toward the hull, thereby giving the appearance of a gravitational pull directed outward. Often referred to as a centrifugal force, the "pull" is actually a manifestation of the objects inside the spacecraft attempting to travel in a straight line due to inertia.
CJCA915 3 months ago
The spacecraft's hull provides the centripetal force required for the objects to travel in a circle (if they continued in a straight line, they would leave the spacecraft's confines). Thus, the gravity felt by the objects is simply the reaction force of the object on the hull reacting to the centripetal force of the hull on the object, in accordance with Newton's 3rd Law.
The rotation is what causes the gravity... every right the fair ride "Spaceship 2000?"
/watch?v=w7JdXAHex-E
Same concept.
CJCA915 3 months ago
Got a lot of that from Wikipedia, here is the article:
en.wikipedia . org/wiki/Artificial_gravity
CJCA915 3 months ago
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y You don't need to be in a "gravitational field" to experience centrifugal force. Think it over again, and think a bit deeper... Check in a physics book.
YDDES 3 months ago
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y
What you really need is a space station that looks like a gigantic maize of corn, each row a column of pods. Fair point.
Shoblast 1 month ago
For a movie over 40 years old, the special effects have held up and are as realistic as anything else out there.
stayjit1 4 months ago
the ending of the movie is nosense. yes you can read about what it means, but after you end the movie you are like "wtf"?
and the 10 minute color trip its like someone smoked drugs.
altough this, the movie is a MUST SEE.
the second part its ok, but its more like a crime like alien 3 or alien 4.
txeriff2k6 4 months ago
There is a magic in this film, I feel sorry for all those people who dont get it.
townfanjohn 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out Stanley Kubrick's new movie coming out Christmas 2011!
It's been kept very hush-hush, but someone leaked the trailer!
\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/
Click my username below to watch!
allouTV 4 months ago
Space music is beautiful!!
Leadhead444 4 months ago
My favorite part of this has always been the matching spin sequence. It's one thing to understand it intellectually, and quite another to have it visually represented so clearly and gracefully. Plus, you get "Blue Danube" to boot.
schmittelt 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i just saw the movie and the ending, and i say WTF??? i think i need to watch it for a second time, or ninth..
ar2014 5 months ago
There's nothing like 2001 on a big screen in a theater.
BobbyD167 5 months ago
Lots of people are making jokes about the IBM logo on the avionics... but somehow the humor of the Pan Am spaceplane escapes them.
archer49d 5 months ago
The world's longest screensaver! This ENTIRE film
RandomMindz 5 months ago
0:45 and further. starwars ripped of that scene
0onirvanao0 5 months ago
@0onirvanao0 no, it's pays tribute , well atleast that's what SW fan would say, thank GOD I am not the only one who say's that it's a rip off!
mindarinas 5 months ago
I'm paraphrasing here, but Kubrick once said, "Do NOT underestimate the power of "The Blue Danube."
pacific707 5 months ago
You must be joking!! Star Wars looks cheap and cheesy in comparisons to Kubrick's 2001, in which all elements were exposed in the exact same negative, together, held for months until another aspect could be added. Star Wars improved ONE thing, computer tracking of repeated motion. Kubrick didn't have anything like that to work with! And besides, anyone with a brain knows that space is a vacuum - there is NO SOUND in space! No wooshing engines flying by, no explosions! Major FAIL!!
pacific707 5 months ago
@pacific707 Well, which is sad, since it was Lucas' own FX company, lmao. ILM did better visual effects in Star Trek, than Star Wars, of course, it all comes down to budget...
However, the point of sound in scifi movies is to add dramatic effect... not to be realistic, and heck even Apollo 13, a movie based on true events has sound effects outside the LEM, CSM, etc. as it's for dramatic effect...
CJCA915 3 months ago
Comment removed
pacific707 3 months ago
@CJCA915 I suppose I just like realism and laws of physics a lot more.
pacific707 3 months ago
@pacific707 I do too, but if it's scifi they're allowed to stretch the truth a little.
CJCA915 3 months ago
Comment removed
pacific707 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE MOST PROBABLE MEANING OF THE INCREDIBLE MOVIE "EYES WIDE SHUT" THEN YOU SHOULD CHECK OUT MY CHANNEL !!!
"Observancy is a dying art" - Stanley Kubrick
DegenerateTimes 5 months ago
now why can't we have a iss like that , grumble
jmm1233 5 months ago
@jmm1233 Agreed! We should have it - it should have been on the boards many years ago - but alas, government funding dried up in the 70's. Sad....
pacific707 5 months ago
the only things they know today are remakes, prequels, sequels, movies based on books/comics/tv series and the like, you seem to get me wrong, i like newer movies, and i also like cheesie 80s action flicks with stallone, arnie and the like, i love that stuff, but many action movies today take themselfes too serious, and yeah, you say the environment, take alien for example, it still looks perfect, and the chills it gives you, the atmosphere, THAT'SD what most young filmmakers can't do.
OropherThranduil 5 months ago
@JensDensen
dude, robocop 1 and 2, great movies, good effects, and the brutality of them is classic, the kicked in eye of part 1 i think, yeow, that's pain, i love eastwood, both as a an actor and director.
sure, but back in the 50s and 60s the junk wasn't as hyped up as today, way before popcorn cinema the bad movies didn#t get as much airplay as they do today, star trek was more like star wars copy, nothing will ever beat the wrath of khan.
OropherThranduil 6 months ago
I dont like all the Comedys and Horror that come out these days. I like a movie were I can think about it, I would gladly watch 2001 or Bladerunner rather than a Ben Stiller comedy or a Michael Bay shaky cam fest
BerserkAndGoblins 6 months ago
If only directors wouldn't be the money lovers who have robots fighting for hours. For once in the 21st century, can we have a Sci-fi flick that I won't have a heart attack every 3 seconds.
yomamasapeach 6 months ago
How utterly fantastic!!!!!
coredor 6 months ago
I'd give my soul to watch this in a huge IMAX screen!!!
0981462 6 months ago
Definently unlike any 60's movie!!!!!
Leadhead444 6 months ago
this is 21:9 ;D
but good vid^^
DaEisi95 6 months ago
Kubrick was a 1000% perfectionist. That's why this movie looks so modern despite it being from the 60's. It's look so clean and crisp. If there's a remake of this made with cgi and other 21st s**t, I will set out to destroy whoever makes it.
smoothymcgyver 6 months ago 9
@smoothymcgyver Kubrick definently could have taken the easy way out and used strings and made the cheesy as fuck....but he definently made the movie the best to his ability and look where all of his movies ended up being classics and they never needed a sequel because the man is orignal and i will join you in destroying the set of anyone remaking this film!!! :)
Leadhead444 6 months ago 4
@Leadhead444 funny about that. Alex North was originally hired to score this film's soundtrack. Now if you find the original music, it's a more jazz sound that really would have made the film dated and look cheesier with it. But Kubrick edited the film while listening to classical music and he felt the classical music was more fitting so he left in the classical music, though without telling Mr. North until the film's release where Alex himself was shocked to find his music was not in the movie.
Volts48 3 days ago
The real beauty of this sequence is that the construction of the 'wheel' is not yet complete...and the music of course. And the directing. And...everything!
gbf15hdb12duke 7 months ago
This is art!
Linuxdirk 7 months ago 10
@Linuxdirk At it's best.
metalfreak4677 3 months ago
@Linuxdirk Kubrick shot frames for a very long exposure with the iris closed down. Made for a sharper image. Most of the pan shots were actually a kind of animation, moving things forward a little and shooting a frame. The pods and the moon base opening were done like this.
exador55 2 months ago
In assoluto il più grande film della storia del cinema.
paioco89 7 months ago
Check out my orchestra I just finished it yesterday its called Vast Universe i think you guys will like it heres the url tell me what you think!!!
watch?v=afCA261oIJ0
MEMBRA1N 7 months ago
Welcome to my page!
2001: A Space Odyssey (Original Trailer by Stanislav Kovalevskiy)
Smithsfun 7 months ago
por que la mayoria de la gente no entiende esta pelicula a mi me encanto desde que era niño!!
ssarmientoP 7 months ago
I can’t help but to agree with @Jamzooo's comment here. Almost all movies from Hollywood for the past decades appear as nothing more to me than cooked up by kids on ritalin and steroid soup on a faked screen for the drugged wasted minds of America. I woulnd't waste my time on that crap. Unless I initiate is, when will we see the likes of Kubrick, Felini and Hitchcock again? We are in dire need of some real cinemagraphic art. Mark Seibold, Retired IT Tech, Artist-Astronomy Educator, Portland OR
cosmiclight 8 months ago
What a piece of artwork, nobody else has ever inspired me more then Stanley Kubrick. Its a beautiful film RIP Stanley
MrTorchwood10 8 months ago 15
@MrTorchwood10 what about shining?
Misichen 2 months ago
I say we should realize how big the movie's impact is... I mean I bet George Lucas were inspired by this film a lot for example...
Daniel0889 8 months ago
I wish space animation for movies was still like this, where they have buttons and big gray spaceships. I don't know why... but i love it!
helloiamfreeloj 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this movie is fantastic to watch stoned
Wolfreys44 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The most overrated film in history
Jsanc2075 8 months ago
@Jsanc2075 Its not for everyone, but execept for the ape's sequence, I find it fascinating. Try and watch 2010 and maybe you'll understand what happens when a director gives away all of the answers.
jojopuppyfish 8 months ago
It's too bad you disabled embedding. Would have been cool to share on my blog.
cinemakid 8 months ago
@cinemakid Agreed.
artblender 8 months ago
A piece of trivia: H-i, A-b, L-m HAL was supposed to be "one step ahead of IBM."
blankchck 8 months ago
music is by Richard Strauss
vvvlcb 8 months ago
@vvvlcb the music is by JOHANN Strauss (the younger), Richard Strauss wrote the music that plays at the beginning and the end of the film.
StopTouchingMyFood 8 months ago
Every year, I watch the new year concert and sing along with my dad to the blue danube thanks to Kubrick!
HabaneroTck 9 months ago
@Keuleman007
Oh yeah, John Williams, ET also, no effects whatsoever, classic puppets, John Williams simpy is the Beethoven of Film Music, the sound of adventure was never again captured as perfect as in the indiana jones theme, oh yeah star trek by goldsmith, what a theme.
magic in musikc would sound like hedwigs theme from harry potter.
OropherThranduil 9 months ago
The music is fantastic, it's the best version of the Blue Danube who recorded it?
nbelle123 9 months ago
Is this tuned up or something?
MrBranchFreeman 9 months ago
Well, okay, the instrument panels inside the spaceships are obviously 60s/70s. I gracefully overlooked that :)
schoschie 9 months ago
And you have to keep reminding yourself how old it is. It doesn't look dated at all, except for the clothing and hairstyle (the only mistake Kubrick made, if you want to call it that). It is genius.
schoschie 9 months ago
There are no words to describe how great this movie is. I still can't get over it.
schoschie 9 months ago
@schoschie I fell asleep every time I watched this movie.
pat1981lux 9 months ago
@pat1981lux don't blame you. I showed this film to a friend and he fell asleep once it got to the star gate scene.
Volts48 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@schoschie I fell asleep every time I watched this movie.
I'm glad.
It's people like you who are needed to flip burgers for the rest of us. Where would be without you?
MrBbb3b 8 months ago
Comment removed
MrBbb3b 8 months ago
Kubrick was a genius . . . playing the Blue Danube illustrates the grace and beauty to which the technology had evolved . . .
laserpablo 9 months ago
We are not even close to this technology, and now we are going to be totally dependent on the Russians for manned spaceflight. We blew it.
calamagrostis88 9 months ago
0:43
heh, the monitor has IBM on it
MrLazy27 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This movie doesn't age.
granddad2002 10 months ago
Who needs CGI?
And look, IBM in space =D
Jamzooo 10 months ago
@Jamzooo
2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Wars, Sci-Fi looked so much better and more real than that polished CGI shit of today.
in star wars the ships actually look like they flew trough space, while in the new trilogy it's too perfect.
today we have CGI instead of good filmmaking, i guess that#s why Peter jackson worked with Miniatures during LotR with WÈTA.
OropherThranduil 10 months ago 34
@OropherThranduil
aww, nostalgia
thats cute
etstop1 9 months ago
@etstop1
actually i just turned 20.
and i hate that most people my age think the more CGI it has the better it is.
i mean the new Clash of the Titans sucks.
OropherThranduil 9 months ago
@OropherThranduil Hi, there. I used to work as a Model maker but I don't do it now. Most of them have been switched over to CGI because it's ceaper to deal with. Sad hey...
mactuna 8 months ago
@mactuna
great job.
i guess one of the few places to work anymore for model makers is new zealand.
OropherThranduil 8 months ago
@OropherThranduil And this also why Christopher Nolan tries to avoid CGI and 3D digital filming.
G. Lucas gave us the wonders of FX and then ruined everything with CGI.
PeterPalfrei 6 months ago
@OropherThranduil Comparing a film like this with today's film is completely useless.. This is not a move in the normal sense. It has very bad pacing and overbaring soundtracks for a traditional movie. It obviously was a breakthrough in it's time but I see glorifying it today as a mere pose. Yes the story is good, but the movie is very tedious to watch by normal standards. Much of the acting seems riddiculous compared with today.
Iguana93 6 months ago
@OropherThranduil The book is great though, although also a bit too concerned with explaining routines. It was logical back then, but it is clumsy today. Also the movie cannot be called "visually stunning" because by today's standard you can perfectly see the limitation of the older shooting techniques and of course detailing of the sets. Morover you cannot watch an old sci-fi movie without noticing the obsoleteness of the tech and design presented..
Iguana93 6 months ago
@Iguana93
if you think this movie isn't looking visually stunning, especially with the music accompaniying it, well, bad taste, like one of peters movies.
OropherThranduil 6 months ago
@OropherThranduil Well it is great in certain moments and it most certainly plays more on the "art sequence" side than on the "story-driven film" side.. What I meant was that in terms of realistic quality of the models and the sets it is pointless to try comparing it with modern techniques. The ape-suits for example are actually utterly riddiculous. Also the audio quality of the whole thing is sub-par.. Of course it was a great film back then and has significance even now, but it is well.. past.
Iguana93 6 months ago
Comment removed
Iguana93 6 months ago
@OropherThranduil But obviously differrent things resonate with different people and different people like different things. It's just that I know some people who I feel hold this "old movies are better than modern ones" as a pose to make them look interesting.. Yes, I do think movies like Transformers are quite demented and that currently sci-fi cinematography seems to be in a bit of a crisis, but that is not the fault of CGI. There simply are stories that you cannot do without CGI
Iguana93 6 months ago
@Iguana93
i know, but there are just so many that could, but do they ever try?
no, not easy enough.
modern techniques makes filmmaking so easy that every untalented schmock can make a movie that looks great from the outside without much talent.
CGI took a lot of Creativity out of Hollywood.
OropherThranduil 6 months ago
@OropherThranduil True enough. But lets not glorify the old works too much, they have their shortcomings too, just like there are good things in modern movies. For example the acting often feels somewhat staged and forced.
Anyways there are and there will be movies which use CGI well as a tool, not as the centerpiece. Moon was a great one, Sunshine too. If they did Space Odyssey today the story would remain the same, only the visuals, acting and audio could be better.
Iguana93 6 months ago
@OropherThranduil True enough. But lets not glorify the old works too much, they have their shortcomings too, just like there are good things in modern movies. For example the acting often feels somewhat staged and forced.
Anyways there are and there will be movies which use CGI well as a tool, not as the centerpiece. Moon was a great one, Sunshine too. If they did Space Odyssey today the story would remain the same, only the visuals, acting and audio could be better.
Iguana93 6 months ago
@Iguana93
i've seen the blu ray version of 2001, and it couldn't be anybetter, and the acting is perfect for it, and the music, you can't do it any better, especially the space stations look so great, just like the models from the old star wars films.
todays actors can't for the most, hold a candle to the classics i think.
i mean the best today are the old ones like hopkins, brando was a god.
there were so many great actors.
OropherThranduil 6 months ago
@OropherThranduil I pitty you then, because you are doomed to be pissed about movies for the rest of your life - nobody is going to stop using CGI because you siply cannot achieve the same effects without it, and the old actors will not return.. I'd be happier if the producers started focusing more on new ideas and stopped remaking and doing so many comic book movies. But aside from that the technical quality of the entire industry has improved and nobody can deny that.
Iguana93 6 months ago
@Iguana9
i like comic book movies, but again, nothing will ever beat superman 1 and 2 chris reeves as the greatest superhero of them all, and the new costume and movie looks like the biggest shit of all time, i mean snyder struck gold with watchmen, but damn it, that costume, i could puke from seeing it.
but hell yeah, remakes suck, especially horror remakes, like none of them, escept for chainsaw massacre was quite good and last house on the left was pretty good to.
hollywood needs new ideas.
OropherThranduil 5 months ago
@OropherThranduil I don't know you, so I apologize if this is a wrong asumption from me, but I think what you like about older movies is their classic atmosphere. Simply that they are from a time before the sci-fi genre wasn't so overused. But you simply can't bring that back.
About the audio I meant the quality of the voice recordings. They have nowhere near the quality of today's movies. Also I find it difficult to believingly watch a sci-fi set design that obviously looks antiquated.
Iguana93 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Iguana93
i know, but there are just so many that could, but do they ever try?
no, not easy enough.
modern techniques makes filmmaking so easy that every untalented schmock can make a movie that looks great from the outside without much talent.
CGI took a lot of Creativity out of Hollywood.
OropherThranduil 6 months ago
@Iguana93 " without noticing the obsoleteness of the tech and design presented"
Guess you missed the iPads then. This movie is visually stunning on thousands of levels and it hold ups amazingly well even compared to the CGI used today. The most stunning aspect is how they were able to create near perfect representations of Earth, the Moon and Jupiter when we didn't have photos of either one yet. This was BEFORE we made it out of low earth orbit and Kubrick was able to work around that.
archer49d 5 months ago
This is a terrible! Nobody had hair cuts like those Pan Am pilots did back in 2001!
Sockpuppet58 5 months ago
@Sockpuppet58
not funny.
OropherThranduil 5 months ago
Beautifull video 5******************
tiziana1965pg 10 months ago
haha... it has a sought of...." Meanwhile, in Space" feel to it....elegant and comic... good job Mr Kubrick!
DCdabest 10 months ago
These baby/childhood scenes subvert the confident music (all in the same scene!), and consequently subvert the achievement of docking spaceships in orbit.
jpglaarh 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
These baby/childhood elements subvert the confident music and consequently the achievement which is the ability to dock spaceships in orbit. Man may think he's a whole lotta something, but he still has a lot to learn. As, how coincidal, will become apparent later on.
jpglaarh 10 months ago
Comment removed
jpglaarh 10 months ago
@warblade It's the same with this scene from '2001'. It's not a standalone. Earlier *in the same scene* we see (as the graceful, utterly civilized and seemingly adult waltz music plays) inside the spaceship. We see babyfood, floating tools over which man has no more control (when in space), we see potty training, we see a woman struggling to walk as if she was a child. This is not in the extract of the scene you see in the video above, but the video above is part of that same scene.
jpglaarh 10 months ago
@jpglaarh dude, put down the bong pipe. as someone once said, "This is crap floating in space and we don't need to watch it." you're still just putting whatever meaning you want into this movie and calling it good.
sigh....Whatever, I'm bored with this anyways, you're right, God himself could not have made a better scene were all that happens is a ship docks. Or someone goes from point A to point B. Or somebody delivers juicy-juice for 5 mins. It's all freaking genius. best movie ever.
the end.
Warblade118 10 months ago
(He's still roaming the streets a free man, because in the U.S., not everyone is equal, regardless of the national anthems and constitutional basis for equality)
jpglaarh 10 months ago
@warblade A man is walking down the street, the Star Spangled Banner is playing as music. Now, you say, "everyone could have written that! It doesn't mean anything!" What you don't mention or fail to notice is what happened before that scene and what happened after. Context. You've seen him, a white Southern governor, publicly murder a black slave in the early years of U.S. History. When the scene actually arrives (man walks down street), the music has become ironic, the scene meaningful.
jpglaarh 10 months ago
You’re so wrong on your interpretation of this scene, jpglaarh.
This scene is so obviously a representation of the physical act of conception between spiders. It so obvious, I mean, the station has 8 legs, just like a spider, and the female (space station) is much larger than the male (space ship) and the female “consumes” the male in the end. So the scene is really about spider sex….or plug in just about anything you want and write the movie for Kubrick.
Warblade118 10 months ago
@warblade ...a peak with HAL 9000 (a tool which directly evolved from the first tool, the bone in the prologue). Man's tools have now taken his own place, man has to evolve in a different manner: spiritually. The space child at the end is comfortable with space, instead of threatened by it (as is the case now). Now, anyone could have written a dance of space ships set to a waltz (which in itself is esthetically moving, I think), and Kubrick indeed wrote that, but he wrote it for a reason also.
jpglaarh 10 months ago
@warblade All interpretation of art is subjective; it's the argumentation that counts. I say this scene is not meaningless, and is ingenious -- the music represents superficial fluidity and civilization: technological, external, mathematical. It's all very impressive, these spaceships, but at the same time it's not enough for mankind. This is completely in line with the rest of the film, which I strongly suspect is suggesting that mankind cease its technological innovation (which has reached....
jpglaarh 10 months ago
@ warblade Sorry, only 1/5th of my comment made it. Anyway, your approach to things is awkward; you call my interpretation subjective, and state later on that the scene in itself is meaningless. You can say that of literally every scene and or aspect of every work of art ever made. That's fine, but if you want to single out this scene from '2001' and say it's more meaningless than things normally are -- I don't get that. You say it's not meaningful, what gives you more authority than me?
jpglaarh 10 months ago
@jpglaarh In order for something to be meaningful something meaningful has to happen, right? If I shot a scene of a guy walking across the street in a busy city would that be meaningful? If you're going to give this scene credit for some deeper meaning, you have to give EVERY scene in every movie credit for having some deeper meaning. And if you don't think that a guy walking across the street doesn't have a deeper meaning you're just not thinking about it hard enough.
Warblade118 10 months ago
@jpglaarh I have to go to work now. (groan) I'll post the rest of my comment after. :)
Warblade118 10 months ago
A "waltz" in orbit. From the comments many people seem to miss the point, but when I first saw this scene the metaphor was clear. I instantly fell in love with the classics of the past and the possibilities of the future all in one fell swoop. Brilliant in my opinion.
DrewMerkle 10 months ago
Comment removed
DrewMerkle 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ warblade118: the music and the visuals are not randomly chosen. The music represents, or is meant to summon, the pinnacle of human civilization: the Vienna waltz. Everything in a waltz is regulated, every move scripted. Everything fits together very neatly. As is the case with the rotating spaceship and the spaceliner docking it; man has totally mastered the Tool: he can leave his own atmosphere and make one spaceship neatly dock another. The music is used rather sarcastically by Kubrick; you
jpglaarh 10 months ago
@ warblade118: the music and the visuals are not randomly chosen. The music represents, or is meant to summon, the pinnacle of human civilization: the Vienna waltz. Everything in a waltz is regulated, every move scripted. Everything fits together very neatly. As is the case with the rotating spaceship and the spaceliner docking it; man has totally mastered the Tool: he can leave his own atmosphere and make one spaceship neatly dock another. The music is used rather sarcastically by Kubrick; you
jpglaarh 10 months ago
@jpglaarh I never said it was random, I just said what it actully IS.
Everything you just said to me is just a subjective interpretation and can change from person to person which I have no problem with. But what Kubrick actually wrote was this: ship docks with a space station set to the waltz for over 2 minutes. That's all that happened and anyone could have wrote that. It's not ingenious or meaningful or much of anything, Kubrick is just making you write for him.
Warblade118 10 months ago
847 people walked out this film during its premiere...
Tracebones 11 months ago
I saw this in the theater in 1969 and the scene where the twin wheels sweep on either side totally blew me away. It is one of the most breathtaking scenes ever.
Some of the effects in 2001 are dated. It's obvious that some scenes are painted backdrops, that some spacecraft are flat models, and so on. But this is the movie that made Star Wars possible. After 2001, never again would a space film get away with the primitive special effects of earlier films.
geodude012 11 months ago
@Warblade118 You're an idiot!
medibm79 11 months ago
Looks more real than the fake moon landings...
jenleex 11 months ago
@jenleex I don't know that fake landings... can you show me a link or something?
conojosajenos 11 months ago
great scene
MuadPL 11 months ago
About 2 minutes and 20 seconds of a ship docking? Kubrick you're a freakin genius.
Next lets see 3 minutes of every step of a guy getting on a bus and going down town to get a bite to eat or something cuz that's so interesting to watch.
Warblade118 11 months ago
@Warblade118 let me guess - you went to the Accedemia to see the David sculpture, looked at it for 23 seconds and said huh, just a big stone guy.
Artemetra 11 months ago
@Artemetra Actually, i don't think i would even need 23 seconds to tell you that, in fact, its a stone statue of a guy, because that's what it actually is. You want to read something else into it that's fine, more power to you, but that doesn't change the fact that its still just a statue of a guy.
All this is is over 2 minutes of a ship docking set to classical music. I wanted to see a movie.
Warblade118 11 months ago
@Warblade118 The beauty of the scene is where the perfect (and scientifically accurate depiction of) synchronization of movement between the spaceship and the station are mirroring the dance moves in a ballroom. Hence the waltz music. Of course, if you prefer movies with 2 minutes of pointless explosions, boobage, lots of gunfire and wrestling robots, that's your choice ;)
aliencubby 11 months ago
@aliencubby I didn't say anything about what kind of movie I'd prefer. ;)
btw, that's a nice interpretation you have there. It may or may not be the one Kubrick intended and even if it is, it doesn't really mean anything or tell a story, but I agree it sure LOOKS great. I could be wrong but if that's all it takes to impress you, music that may or may not sync up with a pointless step by step mundane procedure let me know, I can do that for free man!
Warblade118 11 months ago
... how bout me taking a carburetor apart and fighting it putting it back together set to Beethoven's 5th? Way better than watching a space ship dock set to the waltz and you might learn something? Whaddya think, aliencubby?
Warblade118 11 months ago
@Warblade118 - fair enough. I (seriously) suggest an art appreciation class, but I will agree with you as you imply that it's all subjective. Picasso came out of the Lascaux caves and said "We've learned nothing..."
Artemetra 11 months ago
@Artemetra Saying, for example, that a statue is a statue is not subjective, it's objective, because that's what it is in fact. Saying (just an example) a statue is a symbol for man's struggles in life would be a subjective interpretation because the next guy may see it differently. I'm just telling you want it is, not what I think it means. Same applies to 2001.
And art appreciation class? What's that? Is that were a bunch of snooty hipsters tell you how to think about art? I'll pass, :)
Warblade118 11 months ago
@Warblade118 Your preconceptions are hindering your worldview, and life isn't enriched by being close-minded. A good teacher will put up a artwork that a majority has deemed "great." He'll go on to explain why. That process can be fascinating. You look at things in a new way, with greater appreciation. You start to separate good art from bad, and you begin to understand why people still talk about things that have stood the test of time. And not toss them off flippantly.
Artemetra 11 months ago
@Artemetra What preconceptions are you talking about? How am I wrong in saying a statue is a statue, a cloud is a cloud, a docking scene is a docking scene?
You know whats really close-minded? Having someone put up artwork that the majority has deemed good then just excepting it as good and talking about all the reasons its good because the teacher says it is.
And I never tossed anything off by not taking it seriously, in fact, saying something is what it is is about as serious as it gets.
Warblade118 11 months ago
@Warblade118 It's more than a docking scene. It transcends the subject, as well as the medium. It's a sublime work of art. It touched me on a new level, as did many parts of the film. You missed that, it seems. And PLEASE don't try to argue that you are open-minded, this whole discussion proves otherwise.
Artemetra 11 months ago 2
@Artemetra lol okay you're pulling my leg. This is over 2 minutes of a ship docking set to the waltz. There is nothing magical or deep about it. If you're serious, then you're just reading whatever meaning you want into the scene or worse yet, just going along with some meaning somebody else read into it. I'm telling you what Kubrick actually wrote, a ship docks set to the waltz.
I could have wrote that!
Warblade118 11 months ago
btw Artemetra, I never actuality made the claim I was or was not open-minded, I just told you that what you were saying about the art teacher and going along with the majority thinking something is good is kinda close-minded.
Please stop putting words in my mouth and mischaracterizing my arguments.
Warblade118 11 months ago
@Warblade118 Again, fair enough. But when someone seems to stick to snap judgments, it's easy to equate them with those who are demonstrably close-minded. OKAY, this movie was controversial when it came out (1968!) - lots of poeple reacted like you. Today it's recognized by a huge majority of filmies as one of the greatest movies ever created. Please check out Wikipedia's take on it - especially the part titled "Reaction". There you will find Your viewpoint, as well as Mine!
Artemetra 11 months ago
@Artemetra I don't mean to beat this into the dirt but I'm not really interested in how other people reacted to this movie. Lots of people saying something is good does not make it good.
Subjectively, yeah, 2001 is as good or bad as the viewer makes it because so little actually happens and its all so vague you can just fill in about anything you like. The problem is that's not hard to do. It requires very little talent. Essentially Kubrick is making you write this film.
Warblade118 11 months ago
Maybe this will help you understand my take on this?
Compare this scene to the one in Jurassic Park were the mains are on the helicopter approaching the island. Both are scenes were people are going from one place to another with music but something actually happens in the JP scene. We get some hints as to these people's personality through some of the dialogue, in other words, something is actually happening. What do we get in the 2001 scene? A ship that docks with a station.
aka nothing.
Warblade118 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Maybe this will help you understand my take on this?
Compare this scene to the one in Jurassic Park were the mains are on the helicopter approaching the island. Both are scenes were people are going from one place to another with music but something actually happens in the JP scene. We get some hints as to these people's personality through some of the dialogue, in other words, something is actually happening. What do we get in the 2001 scene? A ship that docks with a station.
aka nothing.
Warblade118 11 months ago
Still makes me gobsmacked after all these years. The brilliant artwork, the music and the space dance! I don't think this sequence has ever been equalled
rumblelines 11 months ago
I can tell you as an astronomer and award winning artist of technical sketching through telescopes for years, that there is no comparison to the fine artwork that Kubrick employed into this film. It has never been matched in the same way in other films. With all due respect to other science fictions such as george Lucas' work, 2001: A Space Odyssey will always remain my top favorite work of visual motion film art. The writing of Arthur C. Clarke is also not to forget. Mark Seibold Artist PDX
cosmiclight 1 year ago
according to kubriks vision of the future only european alpha males make it into the future. And woman find their place back in the kitchen serving men.
OrganicThumb420 1 year ago
Rest in peace, Stanley.