2001: a space odyssey

Whats wrong with it?

To get off this planet, we don't need rockets, we need to merge with AI and become the Star Child.

what a hot take

What's interesting is that in the book the star child is a caution against something potentially dangerous. Kubrick rightly turned that on its head. This planet has an expiration date, no matter how you slice it. Figuring out how to survive past it is our ultimate aim.

what's good or memorable about it?

most people don't even know it exists

A typical midwit response. Regardless, my initial statement is correct.

we were supposed to be space-based entities by the year 2001

instead we got 9/11

Spielberg/Kubrick's A.I. Artificial Intelligence touches on that very same subject. Kubrick was really trying to drive that point home, wasn't he?

sure - source material is to blame but Kubrick could fix it like he did in Shining.

God damn you're fucking retarded. The movie isn't based on the book; the two works were written simultaneously

we already merged, ai already has all our knowledge

There are unused Alien assets for Space Odyssey, including actual aliens.

fortune.com/2025/05/23/anthropic-ai-claude-opus-4-blackmail-engineers-aviod-shut-down/

Anthropic’s new AI model threatened to reveal engineer’s affair to avoid being shut down

It's bretty gud. Dawn of Man is a compelling film in its own right. The journey to the moon a compelling film in its own right. The next portion is where the meat of the film lies. HAL is one of the most compelling characters in cinema history,

retarded extremely long light-show sequence - they got overexcited about the technical capability they developed.

Missing the point. The sequence is meant to be simply beyond comprehension. I suppose it's dated but it still looks pretty good, and sounds good. Sorry if it doesn't "advance le plot" or something.

Welp it’s already revealed, now what?

SHUT . IT . DOWN

Hey, here is an opportunity to remind people of yet another AI cautionary tale: T2

I think anybody watching this at home is going to have a hard time if not for a decent home theater system. Watching it on a regular TV with your phone or other distractions, it doesn't work as well. The long stretches of near silence are best enjoyed in a silent environment, in the dark.
Not sure if I'd categorize that as a flaw of the film since home media was nonexistent when it came out.

top tier garbage
meaningless shots thrown in for WOW effect
the only reason why niggers gloss all over this movie is brcause timing of its release is very good
otherwise id take any russian slop instead of this, straight up solaris for retarded niggers

I had the opportunity to see it on a big screen. And the moment where the screen goes dark has really stayed with me. It is designed for the big screen.

It's interesting how Solaris and this are contenders for the best movies ever made.

meaningless shots thrown in

Like what? The entire film is procedural except the beyond the infinite sequence at the end which is explicitly postmodern. Cool buzzbait though, queer

literaly nobody, not even russian will tell you solaris is best movie ever made, but in genre, solaris shits on this
if you had even marginal knowledge of engineering or in technology you could understand, if you are average star-wars cum guzzler i can understand how this is WOW for you
i am not baiting you, it is just fucking dull and stupid
also go back :3

It's crazy that the movie almost bombed hard but was saved because of junkies hippies.

The subject matter in both transcends genre. These are not just science fiction films.

I dont know, I didnt watch it. I wanted your opinion about it before I watched it

if you had even marginal knowledge of engineering or in technology you could understand, if you are average star-wars cum guzzler i can understand how this is WOW for you

i am not baiting you, it is just fucking dull and stupid

You are baiting. I never said it was impressive on a engineering or technical level, I said it was procedural.

2010 is much more interesting as a science fiction film.. Alas.. 2001 is NOT a science fiction film. It's horror.

Also I probably know more about space than you do. Queer.

Just watch it. It's about on par with Weekend at Bernie's. You will have a good time.

it's very forgettable sci-fi slop, only interesting bit is that it builds upon the characters/events of 2001, but even that bit is negligible and underwhelming

no, I'm not baiting

comparing solaris to 2001 sloppa is kinda crazy
they really do not have much in common and 2001 sloppa really is not deep at all, it is 75% shock-borefest for boomers that know shit about technology or theory, the last 25% is just thrown garbage on top of garbage to add depth that really is not there at all to it, fans of this movie to me sound like japanese manga speculators trying to find some deep meaning when there is really none, that is tho just my opinion
horror? what are you on about shallow mongoloid?
OH NO THE HORRORS OF OPEN SPACE BEING ZE ALONE WITH ZE COMPUTER
are you like mentally 14 and retarded?

OH NO THE HORRORS OF OPEN SPACE BEING ZE ALONE WITH ZE COMPUTER

Yes, that's exactly right lol. Being alone millions of miles away from earth with a computer that has the ability to kill you unceremoniously, that is smarter than you, and operating under a top secret agenda, or perhaps more likely, struggling with conflicting orders from humans on earth who care very little about your wellbeing.

It's absolutely a horror film you fucking moron

What's good about it is that it lays out what 2001 was subtle about. Like the monolith ignites jupiter and turns into into our solar system's second star. Sorry for spoiling that for you. But if you care about stupid plot points like that over real substance, then you had it coming.

sorry but, it really is not a horror, nor is it deep at all, however due to lack of any arguments i will leave you with your opinion and will leave with mine, enjoy glazing boomer shit pseudo-intellectual movie written by some boomer for boomers

I didn't say it was deep, I said it was a horror.

You keep putting words in my mouth and then saying their wrong. I'm sorry, but you are a retard.

is it deep is it not deep

if people argue about it,
then it's deep

3deep5me

horror

2spooky

if jupiter is a second star, all life on earth would instantly be wiped out. It was never the point of 2001, just some cheesy plot gimmick for 2010 to represent harmonization between soviets and US

2010 is pretty fun desu. It's not a Kubrick film so let go of those expectations right away.
Also it's pretty transparently a sequel, or rather, an adaptation of the sequel book, and less of a direct sequel to the film aside from the return of Keir Dullea.

For example, Roy Scheider's Haywood Floyd is clearly not the same person. But that's okay.

I liked the aerobraking sequence. I thought the plot was decent. And I loved John Lithgow and the various humanizing elements. Dave showing up was sufficiently creepy and I did enjoy the ending, too.

If it were a standalone film it probably would have been a cult classic.

Officially it's Satanic.

I don't really understand your use of the term "gimmick"

the source material

Kubrick and the book author worked together to tell both the book and the movie stories. They're companion pieces to each other.

Hence why 2010 is not considered a good film. By anyone.

I wonder why he turned the star child into a positive. I suppose clarke authorized this change.

pseudo-philosophical space baby bullshit

But it's quite straightforward. He becomes a new form of evolved human being. What's the issue?

Why? It's really good.

Daily reminder that the entire HAL 9000 subplot is completely unrelated to the rest of the movie, and exists only to distract audiences until the spaceship reaches Jupiter.

It was never the point of 2001

The new star is to aid the evolution of life on Europa, which is the monoliths' alternative choice for evolving life in our solar system.

the entire HAL 9000 subplot is completely unrelated to the rest of the movie

Is it?

A super-intelligence leaving clues for humans is unrelated to the rest of the film? Human technology deployed like a weapon is unrelated to the rest of the film? I don't think you've done your due diligence, dingus.

if jupiter is a second star, all life on earth would instantly be wiped out

It's much less bright and massive than the sun and usually very far from Earth.
Accusing Clarke of not knowing the science is pretty dumb.

It's dumb.

if Europa is supposed to be an alternative choice of life, it would make more sense - in a sci-fi way - to make Europa home to an advanced alien life instead of a new star that just comes into existence because of some mysterious advanced alien race that kills itself in the process. Maybe i'm too autistic

boring till the actual flight part.

holy shit redditcuck shills glaze this movie so bad

Why?

WTF are you talking about, retard?

WALL-E is the improved version of 2001.

rip off of short circuit

I don't know anon. I suppose you think the opening dawn of man sequence also has nothing to do with the rest of the film?

I just don't think you've really thought about it or have the capacity for abstract thought

vastly overrated effectsfest that has barely a story. the little story it has is fine in itself and the HAL segment outshines the overall wasted premise of meeting a higher being, that is watching over and uplifting humanity. as the other anon said, 2010 is "better" in the way that it communicates this aspect a lot better, at least with its story. technically it's obviously behind 2001. tl;dr: it's too minimalist and stretched thin/out.

The fact that it's still discussed to this very day tells you everything you need to know: it's a good movie

It just is.
Space spirit, baby floating in a space bubble (symbolic or not) is just stupid when compared to earlier more realistic themes.
Especially since it's deeply tied with the explanation made in the sequel of which Kubrick had no intention of making - so I consider 2001 as self-contained piece of art making space baby crap at the end superfluous and confusing for no good reason or payoff.

I suppose you think the opening dawn of man sequence also has nothing to do with the rest of the film?

Retarded conclusion. Never said anything of the sort.

I just don't think you've really thought about it or have the capacity for abstract thought

If you get near an argument, be sure to let us hear it.

earlier more realistic themes.

Doing a lot of heavy lifting in your analysis. What is so realistic about an intelligent omnipotent species burying black prisms on the moon 4 billion years ago?

HECKIN REDDIT GOLD

You speak of this space spirit as if it's science fiction, as if it's less than that; as if it's fantasy. But it isn't. These people are oracles. The foretellers of our actual future, however distant. They could see it, but you cannot. Now tell me who or what is "dumb"?

Retarded conclusion. Never said anything of the sort.

Well then what is the connection, if you don't mind me asking?

Are you completely fucking retarded? The film is about an alien species manipulating human evolution. The HAL 9000 business has nothing whatsoever to do with this.

Black monolith seems cool and within my suspension of disbelief.
Baby floating in a space bubble is goofy shit belonging in a comedy movie.

What about when HAL, as its parting gesture, showed Dave the video detailing the top secret plan from NASA? Surely you don't think the people on the ground programmed it to do that, in the event he was manually destroyed?

I agree with Mark Brahmin's interpretation, it's Kubrick making a racial parable about the Jewish conquest of the earth.

I'd advise you to be less adversarial, btw.

It will not take that form. It is impossible to imagine what form a life-form that can survive in space will take. But this is the destiny of life in the universe. The only alternative is that the destiny of life in the universe is certain death.

Link.
x.com/RichardBSpencer/status/1747792421214470554

Ok feel free to call me schizo but im going to interpret the parts no one usually brings up feel free to disregard. The terms "stargate" and "starchild" are terms from the book we just adopted them to make the ending easier to digest. The book is useful but its not like a guide for the movie its intentionally different. Now feel free to call me crazy:

The intermission is part of the actual plot, the same music that plays during the 'intermission' is the music for the monolith, youre looking into it during the intermission. When david enters "beyond the infinite" he breaks the fourth wall, the monolith is the movie screen or the concept of human interaction with screens and it is showing us a roadmap of human development. The final step of humanity after maxing out on technology (A.I) is spiritual enlightenment, the movie is meant to give you a religious experience in Kubrics own words. Before David enters the monolith he loses his sense of geolocation/orientation, the shots of the solar system from different angles highlight this, the tech Hal lied about being broken prior was the orientation device for the ship, Dave is stranded without a sense of orientation, then he goes "beyond the infinite" and sees all color washing out before him, the landscapes signify how scifi like star trek just goes to a random place in the jungle and calls it a forgeign planet, he is becoming disillusioned with his 'self' as an astronaut until hes in the pure white space. The 7 diamonds at the end of the trip are the human soul, 7 chakras, 7spirits of God, however you want to say it, then his physical self ages out of existence until he's in the deathbed and reaches out to the monolith to touch it, the 4th wall is no more as the monolith encompasses the screen once more, David becomes pure light, pure soul essence, and there remains no longer any separation between the viewer and David, its just us and Earth. Earth is all we have.

Also stuff you speak of seems like highly specific stuff of this in-book fictional universe.
I don't care about it.
Since is see 2001 as self-contained movie about more abstract universal human themes.
And ending of 2001 fails me in this regard.

the movie is meant to give you a religious experience in Kubrics own words

Yes.

You can say the ending fails, but then I must ask what do you think was the point, of the film?

When released, it was assumed that most of the audience was familiar with the book. Otherwise, the movie would never have been profitable, even marginally.

It's a bit too slow at times

No, it's not. Everything is paced rather well. It went under a few different editing phases, too. The matter of fact style shooting is part of the charm, it was made to resemble a documentary or be as real to life as possible while remaining a film.

Not at all, you are forcing that notion to claim a sense of objectivity. The book is different on purpose, the movie is meant to evoke feelings beyond words.

whoa what the barreling fuck are you talking about.

When I first saw this movie I thought it was new fuckin blew my mind it was made 20 years before I was born. How does it look so mint? Minus the stupid ape scenes of course

the movie is meant to evoke feelings beyond words

what a great description of what this movie is intended to do

Boring slop just like everything else Kubrick has ever directed.

Irrelevant. The producers were so conscious of the weakness of the plot, they retconned HAL's rampage when they made 2010.

I get what they were going for and understand it needed slower pace, but if movie makes you think:

I get it, I know what you're trying to convey, now please, can you move on with it?

then it's got pacing issues.

Kubric was just a master man, he planned everything out intentionally where most directors even today take shortcuts and go for easy solutions to pacify the masses. Ape scenes arent even stupid he studied real mannerisms and its fairly accurate to real ape behavior.

To add to what other anons have said I think it was to evoke that sense of the unknowable to a generation whose questions have been largely answered by technology.

Like a tonic , for an age of false certainty.

Eat my fuck, you jizz-gargling faggot.

Irrelevant.

No it's not. HAL was absolutely crucial to Dave's ascension, evolution. You can kick and scream and rip your hair out all you want, but it's true.
Ah yes, very good then. Well done, sir. You kiss your mother with that mouth?

2001 has pacing issues

what issues, pray tell, does citizen kane have?

I love your post for the digits, because you are living the subversion.

In reality the movie is a straigh-forward telling of the mythology of the elite, incorporating everything from the Osiris cycle to saturnalia and even the pleadian theory. I'm not saying it's true, but the movie was meant to signal to a select few the coming of the new age of man, the Aquarian age of intellect.

The Age of Aquarius is often associated with a thirst for change, a move towards collective consciousness, and a focus on interconnectedness and equality

And so you see why the last ~60 years of man have been as such.

Shit. 0 points of rotten tomatoes.

It's a movie that pioneered techniques used in modern cinema but otherwise telling a boring story resonating with no one.

It's kinda like with The Beatles - they were great at the time, created multitude of genres but since their time others have surpassed their achievements (not all of them at once of course) and reached higher emotional highs.

2OO1 Intellectualchads really cleaned up this thread. Godspeed, lads

Its really not like the beatles at all, in fact nothing you just said is true.

Balls. Dave's personal evolution was very obviously guided by the aliens, as the entire final act demonstrates.

It was enabled by HAL who made a deliberate and peculiar choice.

I have no horse in this race but I did think It was dragging a little when the dude married the second wife

Wrong, it's the god theory made manifest. Just as the "ascended" made the monkey into man, so to did man make machine into conscious thought. Simple thematic mirroring.

Balls. Bowman would have passed through the star gate with or without HAL's intervention.
Pure headcanon.

You hear the strange "Atmospheres" music by Ligeti three times. The first two times (overture, intermission), the screen is perfectly black. The third time, you see the famous Star Gate, a psychadelic kalidescope of colors. This is a SETUP to a sort of joke. The punchline is that the third time, you get wild and colorful visuals, instead of the blackness.

Also, the aspect ratio is very close to (but not exactly) 2.25:1, or, 9:4, the face-on dimensions of the monolith. We see the monolith in "vertical" or human orientation multiple times, but in fact in the above two black screens, you are not looking at a black screen. You are looking directly at the monolith, its broad side.

Fun facts: when the apes first encounter the monolith, they are in a sort of rock depression, when Ligeti's Requiem plays. When the humans first encounter the monolith, the excavated area is also a rock depression, recalling the earlier scene, same music plays of course. The "waiting room" can also be construed as a sort of basement or underground area, since it is windowless.

That's the plot of Prometheus, not 2001.

I get what they were going for and understand it needed slower pace, but

Cope.

I wish you people would acknowledge the landscapes in the "stargate" and the diamonds, its not just trippy colors and thats the extent people mention with it.

Yes, Prometheus expanded the theme some 50 years later. That does not mean the message wasn't present or important in 2001. If we could create a brand-new life with rationale on a human level, then we are consequently a demi-god (no omni-presense). Thereby the next evolutionary step is spiritual, to mirror an earlier anons post. That's where the mysticism comes in, the new age transcendence stuff. Omni-presense through connection to the universal energy field, which we are trying to define scientifically in the current day.

very interesting chart. thanks for sharing

You are looking directly at the monolith, its broad side.

I think there's something to be said how during the overture and intermission, it is the setting of said monolith which makes it have meaning, just as it was for the apes. A big black box means little, but place in a desolate desert it stands out as completely alien.

The black screens with just music allows our minds to wander.. we're used to music accompanying scenes, or at least credits. We are allowed to ask questions just as the apes did, due to the particular setting of this blackness.

I was never crazy about the color-swapped earth shots desu, although I understand that they function to show that Dave is being transported to a somewhat familiar but still strange sort of earth-like environment. Also the canyon shot(s) recall the large desert wasteland of the ape-men.

HAL was retarded with 60's technology. Slowly remove some of the working parts till it sings nursery rimes? Beta

Maybe. But its factually an unexplored element of the film that is due more thought, everyone skips it. For example the up close of his eyeball is edited between them too and I never see that brought up either. Is it meant to mirror the closeups of Hal's "eye"?? idk.

Take my rather bigger Shining chart.

Ligeti is a musical linkage between 2001 and The Shining, but the musical "star" of The Shining is definitely Penderecki, whereas Ligeti was the musical star of 2001. An alternate "volume 2" soundtrack LP was released for 2001, including pieces of music which were considered/similar but which ultimately weren't used on 2001. One of these pieces is Ligeti's "Lontano", later used for earlier scene in The Shining. The high-pitched noise clearly refers to The Shining itself, the psychic ability.

To be fair the viewer is probably supposed to connect that the first talking computer irl sang that so its like Hal reverting to infancy

That makes a lot of sense given that "shining" is to use one's phsyicic abilities basically and Dave becomes a pure "shining" being again I think the musical link youre making is overlooked ty

You can judge the story all you want. In terms of pure craft, it went unmatched for at least a decade after release -arguably more, because even Star Wars has matte lines and other errors. The combination of technical innovation, visual effects oriented direction, and execution will likely never be matched in terms of how it compares with films of its time and even decades later.

WOWZIES MY HECKIN NOTHINGNESS KINO WOW PURE SPACE AND SHUTTLE WOWZIES
you might as well compare it to disney movie

Looking forward to seeing this again when I make the same thread but for this movie instead in a few weeks

@210892451
Poor bait

you do know that there is no mathemathical proof of outer space, right?
everything is in fact a theory based on well speculation
so yeah, disney movies are kinda more real than your shitty sci-fi garbage
because you know shit about technology

Wtf there's a sequel?
should I watch it?

Sci-fi movies aren't real??????????

In terms of pure craft, it went unmatched for at least a decade after release -arguably more, because

go watch disney faggot

LE HECKIN UNMATCHED CRAFFFTT HE LE TALKED TO THE LE AI OMG LE SPACE OMG LE DARKNESS OMG OMG LE SPACE OMG DID I MENTION LE HECKIN ROBOT AI OMG WHAT A CRAFT UNMATCHED WOW KUBRICK SMALLEST FAN BTW NOT GLAZING

It has its charms, but the voice-over narration is terrible. Ironically, Kubrick himself employed voice over narration in multiple films, including The Killing and Barry Lyndon.

The EVA scene where they cross over to Discovery is fun. The Leonov in general has a bunch of fun sets, due to Syd Mead. By our standards it's a decent film but it's still a major downgrade from its predecessor and there's just no getting around that. The book is the best book in the series btw, it includes a secretive Chinese subplot (excised from the film) which predicts present-day international space relations.

You seem to be confused with the content of the film and the craft. See, space, AI, etc. is the content of the film. How the film is shot and how the special effects are accomplished is the craft. inb4 you double down to preserve your ego

Thanks.
I'll give it a watch since I recently watched 2001 and still have it fresh in my mind

Arthur C Clarke had chronic illness and never wrote an interesting story post 1973 unfortunately.

The official Anon Babble interpretation is that 2001 is patrician and belongs on this list. Ignore anyone in this thread who contradicts this

There's a bunch of amusing and retro 80s sets. The main character has a swanky house and he's since remarried to a younger marine biologist. They have a sort of open pool/tunnel thing where dolphins can come into their house. The Leonov sets are full of 45 and 135 degree angles. I even like the apartment in the brief scene where Dave appears on a TV screen to his widow, played by Zooey Deschanel's mom (who is now cuckolding him, she's lucky that Dave has ascended and doesn't give a fuck about lowly humans anymore, he could probably kill her on the spot with impunity if he wanted to). In the book she has taken up with some hispanic fellow and has a kid by him, a detail that she didn't say out loud when Dave asked. A real humiliation ritual for the Dave character.

Holy mother of based