17 Comments

1. Ron S on April 2, 2008 at 14:15

   From the perspective of a pre-teen, I remember walking out of the theater very confused. I quite enjoyed most of the movie, but then I liked anything about space back then. The first scene and especially the last scenes went right over my head. I only came to understand them better later on. The main impression I got at the time was ‘we could really go into outer space’, as opposed to the far-out fiction of the original Star Trek series that was fresh in my young mind.

2. Ted on April 2, 2008 at 15:46

   Saw 2001 (or major parts of it) for the first time when I was 5, on TV. It had a profound psychological impact on me, and as a result holds an almost (ironically) religious significance for me. Most incredible film of all time.

3. justcorbly on April 2, 2008 at 18:00

   Saw it at a nice theater on Connecticut Avenue. I sat about ten rows back from the screen, while three teenage guys sat in the first row. I remember hearing frequent “Ooooohs” coming from their direction,

   I agree the film was a bit on the minimalist side. Apparently, Kubrick at one point had intended to include some narration. A few sparse words might have helped.

   That said, the opening seen with the proto-humans is one of the most moving pieces of cinema I’ve ever viewed.

   All in all, one of the few films that embraces humanity’s potential.

4. Administrator on April 2, 2008 at 19:42

   justcorbly is right, as I recall. In fact, I believe there was an idea of having some scientific dialog at the beginning of the film about the issues involved, dialog that had to be dropped for various reasons. I attribute a good deal of the mystical (and what I call ‘minimalist’) nature of the film to Kubrick, but of course, the film also makes the point that great cinema is invariably synergistic. The outcome is more than either Clarke or Kubrick alone could have envisioned.

5. dad2059 on April 3, 2008 at 7:50

   I saw the movie on television during the mid-1970s when I was already a teenager, plus I had previously read the novel. The concepts were easy for me to grasp, no surprises.

   I was kind of disappointed in the movie when Discovery went to Jupiter instead of Saturn like the novel, but I enjoyed it nonetheless.

   ACC cleaned that up in his later Odyssey works, but the original will always stick in my mind first.

6. george scaglione on April 3, 2008 at 8:45

   ron i was i think 18 or so when i first saw 2001 reacted to it much as you descibe,only to understand it better several years later. respectfully your friend george

7. george scaglione on April 3, 2008 at 8:50

   paul,way back then i’ll bet it would have helped me quite a bit to have had some background filled in before the film began! almost sorry they cut that out.didn’t get a good idea about 2001 until i guess years later. thank you very much george

8. ljk on April 3, 2008 at 9:25

   Justcorbly said:

   “I agree the film was a bit on the minimalist side. Apparently,
   Kubrick at one point had intended to include some narration.
   A few sparse words might have helped.”

   Yes, he was going to have a group of scientists talk about
   alien life at the beginning of the film but dropped the idea.

   Though I am glad he did not start 2001 that way, I was
   wondering if those interviews still exist somewhere?

   Kubrick deliberately did not explain everything about 2001
   to the audience, unlike in most other SF films such as The
   Matrix where the main character literally sat down to explain
   everything about the film to the audience. Kubrick also said
   this:

   “How could we possibly appreciate the Mona Lisa if Leonardo had
   written at the bottom of the canvas: ‘The lady is smiling because
   she is hiding a secret from her lover.’ This would shackle the
   viewer to reality, and I don’t want this to happen to 2001.”

   That is what makes 2001 stand apart from most other SF films,
   including the sequel 2010, that he did not explain everything
   about the plot; that – My God, it’s full of enigmas – he left some
   things for the viewer to figure out/imagine for themselves.

   “They are the areas I prefer not to discuss, because they are
   highly subjective and will differ from viewer to viewer. In this
   sense, the film becomes anything the viewer sees in it. If the
   film stirs the emotions and penetrates the subconscious of the
   viewer, if it stimulates, however inchoately, his mythological
   and religious yearnings and impulses, then it has succeeded.”

   – Stanley Kubrick, when asked about the meaning of 2001

9. ljk on April 3, 2008 at 14:20

   David S. F. Portree has a few things to say about the 2001
   spaceship Discovery here:

   http://altairvi.blogspot.com/2008/04/discovery.html

10. forrest noble on April 4, 2008 at 0:02

    Saw that movie in 68 when I showed it in a theater as a projectionist. I thought it was pretty wild. Still think it had wonderful special effect for the time. The mysticism aspect of it I could have done without. Maybe I would’ve preferred a little different ending, but all in all I thought it was great. As a projectionist I probably saw it 50 times or so.

    your friend forrest

11. Adam on April 4, 2008 at 4:14

    Hi Larry

    David Hardy has some pictures online of what “Discovery” in the novel looked like… http://www.solarvoyager.com/dhardy.asp

    …I always wanted the movie “Discovery” to go to Saturn, but apparently the SFX guys couldn’t get it looking the way they wanted.

12. george scaglione on April 4, 2008 at 7:54

    forrest,yes it was a good movie,pretty much like it as is although i took a while to get the point!have my own copy on dvd today. thanks your friend george

13. ljk on April 4, 2008 at 8:13

    But Douglas Trumbull got Saturn right for Silent Running in 1971:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Running

14. Dave Weeden on April 4, 2008 at 11:03

    I first saw it when it came out. I’d have been six, I think. I don’t think I really understood why the astronauts were so different to ‘Star Trek’ and even now, I don’t really understand the plot. And, really, I still think the ending is pretty silly. But the music and the images are fantastic. I also learned a lot about Newtonian mechanics – when Frank just keeps on going and going when he’s knocked away from ‘Discovery’ for instance. Kubrick sticks doggedly to Newton’s Third Law.

    I can’t recommend enough Michael Berube’s two blog posts on 2001. Open the pod bay doors and Do you read me, HAL?.

15. philw1776 on April 4, 2008 at 17:02

    April 1968, I rganized a field trip to 2001 in Cinemascope in Boston for the engineers at Raytheon, my 1st outa college job. The next month I was in the waiting room for my daughter’s birth reading LIFE magazine’s Tutankammen issue with 2001 featured inside. Vivid memories.

16. ljk on April 14, 2008 at 12:23

    Cue the theme from 2001 for this:

    http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/14/new-earthrise-and-earthset-movies-from-kaguya/

    And did Kubrick copy scenes from 2001 from a 1957 Soviet film
    titled Road to the Stars:

    http://www.astronautix.com/articles/roastars.htm

17. Al Jackson on May 2, 2008 at 4:13

    We did get this issue out in April , tho late, it is a tribute to
    Sir Arthur C. Clarke and the 40th anniversary of the film 2001:

    http://www.aiaa-houston.org/