Things you have said.

The feedback I've had on this site has been extraordinary. Right from the time the first emails arrived, my aim has been to open the site up to accommodate them, and the results speak for themselves. I am sure this site must now contain as wide a range of information and opinions, based on a single subject, as any other site on the entire web (and there are a fair few more of them now, than there were when I first wrote that there were a fair few of them).

In this page, you will find thoughts on:

	the impressions people were left with after watching 2001		particular scenes that have stuck in people's minds
	those "missing" scenes, cut by Kubrick after the initial critical mauling of the film		Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, and their work
	published work on 2001 by other writers		whether 2001 will ever become real life
	what does it all mean?

VIEWPOINTS: YOUR WORDS

IMPRESSIONS The impact of 2001 on its audience

Never told me

I enjoyed very much reading your comments on "2001: A Space Odyssey". I was always fascinated by that movie because it was well done, produced in the same year as myself (...my Mom did not need a monolith for that or at least she never told me such things), and it leaves you open to any personal interpretations. I always asked people around for their own understanding of the movie (especially the last part) but everyone had a hard time giving anything "precise". (Dan)

All smashed together

I finally did get 2001 on Laserdisc last week. Had the family watch it (the kids had never seen it). My 14 year old stepdaughter got 'bored' and left. I have to say that, being so used to wild special effects, the movie does move VERY slowly. I was reminded of a quote from Lucas about 'The Return of the Jedi' where he says that he was trying to see how far they could push the 'speed' and 'impressions' without losing the audience. We have gotten so used to this speed (even in newscasts here in the USA... and now for the weather... will your commute be wet... details upcoming... now to the news... but first, this in from our network desk...) that at times 2001 was excruciatingly slow. I had to remind the kids that THIS is what travelling in space would REALLY be like.

Some of the effects were excellent (the upside down stewardess) and some of the ideas looking back are naive (look at all that SPACE on board that ship for one passenger... I guess this would be OK if this was Airforce 1, but not for a regular passenger ship... we are all smashed together with no space at all on planes today, which was NOT true in the 1950s!).

Having Dolby surround and a large TV, interestingly enough, gives the opening scenes tremendous impact even though you are not in the theater. However, I had forgotten the LONG prelude of music before the movie starts... kind of disconcerting but gets you in the mood for an 'event'.

One interesting thought that came to mind after listening to HAL after all of these years... his voice sounds A LOT like the actor in 'The Princess Bride' that plays the '6-fingered man'. (He plays a very nasty character and the chief torturer in the movie). Interesting that they would pick that actor with that voice to play a nasty, but smooth, character. (Bob Lee)

The tool of man (HAL)

Hi... I've been reading your page and naturally have been enjoying it... (I've) been a fan of sci-fi for many years (Star Wars started it, what can I say? :) and only in the last year or so have I also become increasingly interested in "classic" movies, which I've always regarded 2001 as being... would you believe I saw 2001 for the first time only 2 weeks ago!

I only got to watch it once, but I didn't find it slow at all... I did find it very very confusing and also very impressive at the same time (which is how I found your page :) It has inspired my own thoughts into the fray which I thought you might find interesting...

I get the feeling that HAL is another evolutionary step... What I mean is, that as man evolved from apes, the computer is a new step of intelligence that has "evolved" from man... and as we've seen in the Dawn of Man, evolution comes from the strong overwhelming the weak. HAL may not be conscious of this, maybe he is as he is the only one who knows about the existence of the monolith, but in effect he is replicating the actions of the apes 4 million years ago by killing off the "weak" so the "strong" can survive, HAL of course being the strong.

...This theory also gives a nice roundabout way of life... the tools in the dawn of man helped man evolve, but in the future its ultimately the tool of man (HAL) that destroys him... I've got a New Years party to organise in the morning :) (Andrew Miller)

Far beyond cinematography

I wasn't even born when 2001 got to the theatres. I saw it in 1984, when I was 14 years old. I was a Star Wars fan then. But all of the sudden I got myself trapped in some sort of magic beyond the image, the sound, the silence. Soon after I got my own copy. I always sit and enjoy parts of 2001 or in its entirety (specially when I invite friends to see it), listen to its music, read the novel, and explore other works by Kubrick. Whenever I see 2001, I have a different feeling at the end of it. That's not just filmmaking or science fiction. That's magic, art... 2001 is an "opera aperta"... links to everything, far beyond cinematography... It's some kind of ideology... Patricio Cuevas

Russlish

I first saw 2001 on Cinerama in Sydney in 1968. I was hooked from that magic moment. Thirty years later, the magic is still there, despite the glaring technical errors that should bother me, but don't, because they are overwhelmed by the scope of the story.

Isn't it interesting that no one has ever tried to repeat 2001? It was the greatest, and the last of the intellectual space science-fiction films. The original series of Star Trek tried to keep the faith, until they lost their way, but the genre these days is along the lines of that dreadful Independence Day.

God, that was an awful film! If I'd taken the $8.50 and just burned it, I'd have put it to better use than paying to see that rubbish.

2010 was not much better. I appreciate your positive comments on the film, but,to me, Hyams committed the unpardonable sin of contaminating an excellent storyline with Cold War politics. Clarke, the eternal optimist, had America and Russia co-operating in a prolonged space mission, with everyone managing to stay good mates, even to the point of developing a joint language - Russlish!

Hyams was having none of that positive nonsense!

In the film, the East-West tension was present from the moment that Floyd was woken up, and when the Americans were ordered by their superiors back on Earth to leave Russian "soil" and go aboard the American-owned Discovery, I nearly got up and walked out.

I also did not like Hyams' special effects: You aren't supposed to hear rockets roaring in a vacuum, but the funniest part to me was when Floyd was convincing the Russians that there was a way to leave Jupiter orbit, using Discovery as a booster stage. He strode on to the Leonov's flight deck, cleverly simulating an astronaut in one gravity, then demonstrated the coupling of the two space craft, cleverly using two pens floating in zero gravity.

I was glad I had decided not to walk out as that bit made the whole film bearable.

It was, nevertheless, a bad film and I did not, and will not, see it again. Hyams aimed this film at a low common denominator and, without sounding big-headed, he missed me by miles. Besides, I resent being treated as an idiot. Bruce Thompson

Art and entertainment

I just have a few comments on 2001 vs. 2010. I throughly enjoy and love both movies. I can do this because I see them as coming from two different thoughts on movie making.

The basic difference between the movies is the difference between art and entertainment. Art is done for its own sake, entertainment's sole purpose is to give other people something to enjoy. 2001 is art. 2010 is entertainment. 2001 was not designed to please everyone. I think it was done mostly to please Kubrick.

2010, on the other hand, was written and directed so that it could be appreciated by nearly anyone.

Most of the people that I know that have seen 2001 hate it. They feel that it is too slow, and is not exciting. These are the two qualities that 2010 had in abundance. In short, both are excellent films, but they were made for different reasons. 2001, to make it. 2010, to pick up where 2001 left off. It was just made to target a different audience. I feel that both movies accomplished their goals quite nicely. Even if Kubrick purists don't agree with me. (ajbobo - email id)

Smart people

2001 is a great movie. The only criticism I can make is the 10-minute (time it, you'll see) wait when Dave warps through space. As Arthur C. Clarke puts it, "it brings up more questions than it gives answers". The music is really the best you could have gotten.

I saw 2010 too. I liked the book better than the movie, because in 2010, unlike in 2001, they tried to make the movie exactly the same as the book. In 2001, sure, you didn't understand anything at first but it's a great movie anyway, with tension and suspense.

2010 is more a high- budget special- effects movie that is intended for normal people instead of smart people.

2061 is a rip-off. (paube - email id)

Never return

I have just spent about two and a half hours at your site and I plan to return tomorrow (I would read on, but, already it is 3:30am)... I could not quite understand my fascination for this movie. In an age when Science Fiction cannot survive without ridiculous explosions and senseless violence, I find that 2001 is as real to space as us "non- astronauts" will ever get. I cannot describe the feelings and emotions that I experience whenever I see this film... In some ways it gives me a sense of hope in a world that has grown accustomed to the sad state it is in. I sometimes imagine what it would be like to be on that spacecraft, headed for the unknown, never to look back. That is why I aspire to become a computer science major, anticipating that someday my experience will be useful in a long space voyage. I would gladly go, even if it meant I would never return. (I plan on renting the film "again"!) (f69spool - email id)

Dedicated to 2001

First time I saw "2001: Space Odyssey" I was 11 years old, and since then it has been impressed into my mind as the best movie I have ever seen. So I decided to create some pages dedicated to 2001.

For the moment everything is in Italian, but as soon as I am finished, I have the intention to translate the whole material in English, maybe with the help of some software.

The Introduction Page address is at http://www.look.it/2001, from where you can accesss both the frame and no-frame versions. (Mauro MELE)

My note

The link to Mauro's Italian 2001 page is in the Places page.

Boggled

...Sometime in the spring of (1968), I bought a reserved seat ticket and sat in wonder at, near the front and center of, you guessed it, the dear old Casino Cinerama [where I'd already seen every Cinerama movie from How the West Was Won on...]. From the moment that the first notes of Ligeti's Atmospheres came up behind those red curtains, until I wandered down Shaftesbury Ave, boggled and amazed 2 1/2 hours later, I was entranced by Kubrick's vision. A vision which literally changed my view of life, and also introduced me to the potential of filmmaking.

Ultimately I saw this film at least 8 times in Cinerama [all but one at the Casino, the other at the Hollywood Cinerama Dome], as well as in flat 70mm, anamorphic 35, even anamorphic 16 in a college venue, as well as every video format available. Today, although I know every scene by heart I still watch this at least once a year. Next month a revival of the film is taking place with a new pristine 70mm print in Atlanta, sure wish I could be there... (Tom Brown)

Peripheral vision

I saw 2001, the first of many times, in Denver, Colorado, in 1968. I stumbled onto it actually. Being a product of Saturday matinees and the prolific, if paranoid science fiction of the 1950s, a science fiction film by Stanley Kubrick intrigued me. The theater, as I recall, was a modern, round building in a Denver suburb. It hardly seems possible that it was designed for Cinerama, since there were so few films released in that format, but it was technically marvelous. Sitting anywhere in the first ten rows from the screen, you had image to the limits of your peripheral vision. I believe this was my first experience with multichannel sound, which was as well produced as the visual. In the early 70s, I saw it again in Cinerama in Chicago, but at a more conventional theater that was retrofitted for this format and it was a little disappointing after Denver. (Brian Wallen)

Surreal

Interesting point of view-seems to come from an artist-point of view-'techies' sat back and watched 'Space Odyssey' with the feeling of 'Of Course '!! That's how it would be in space, or on the moon, or riding the moonlander down to the surface with all those great computerized navigational instruments. I first saw '2001' at the Golden Gate in S.F.- on the way home, walking down Market St. seemed surreal-the close reality of streetcars, buses, old buildings and what seemed to be the 'FUTURE'... do enjoy your writing... creators, artisans, builders, space explorers, biologists, horticulturalists, writers weave the imaginations of us sleepyheads who are stuck in the day to day mud of life---can I cook!!!

What YOU wrote captured my imagination - (Scott Alan)

Spellbound

I've been reading several essays over the net and, just after reading part of yours, I am completely amazed and awed at the impact this movie has made upon so many people, including myself. Your writings are very thoughtful and well- worded, and I immensely enjoy going through each chapter in the contents. I watched the movie a couple days ago, and reading your essays makes me want to watch it over and over, just to savor it. Unfortunately, the only version of the movie I have been able to see is a pitifully unletterboxed version, but that will soon change ;). Even in this form I was spellbound when I first saw it (I cried when HAL met his end) but hearing you tell of the actual big- screen version makes me extremely envious. One of the things that I must do sometime in the rest of my life is see it where it was meant to be. Do you know of any other theaters that are playing 2001? I hope I can find one someday!

Your essays are brilliant! Thank you! (Sara Gray)

Sense of wonder

I remember thinking... "What do all these apes have to do with 'Space,'?" for this was the word in the title that had attracted me... I ended up watching about the first half of the film, and then forgot about it... but I never did forget that music. Also Sprach Zarathustra was always "that music from 2001."

For some reason, I did not want to (see 2010). I didn't even know it was the sequel to 2001!. But I went, and... The emotion in 2010 really appealed to me. I cared about all of those people... Especially... HAL... (The) world is just becoming so desensitized to feelings... other of Kubrick's films do not appeal to me all that much... A Clockwork Orange... literally made me ill.

...I got caught up in the entire "universe" which includes all of the books and both films... the book... did not contain the "pre-recorded briefing"... It just had Dave going out to check out the monolith... And I never did understand why it was Saturn... A pointless discrepancy, seeing that (the) 2001 book and film were written simultaneously.

It's that "sense of wonder" thing... Clarke... often (tends) to take a very spiritual slant on things. Who else would have a Hindu scientist create the most advanced thinking supercomputer in the world? I believe that Clarke has a great reverence for the spiritual possibilities of human creation.

I think the coolest thing I learned from the novel of 2001 was the square root of 10, which I still know... 3.162277660168379

...I do not think there is any other film more commented on or puzzled over than 2001... I'd love to hear what (Kubrick) has to say... 2010 was effectively my entry into 2001... I just watch it and like it because it is so weird and cool, and what it means... who knows... doesn't really concern me too much. I don't think people will ever stop talking about certain films and... 2001 is one of them. (Virginia)

Shocked

In 1968 I was a freshman in highschool in Osaka, Japan... had no stereo set at home. I used to listen to some music (very little classical music) at my cousin's house nearby.

One day my grandfather gets two free tickets to this "space movie" and here we go. Honestly, I don't remember getting excited about going. I must have been interested at least though, being a kid who tend to take everything apart, and loves airplanes, trains, etc.

The place was called "OS Theatre", one of the two authentic cinerama theatres in Japan (of course, the other one was in Tokyo.) Unfortunately, they closed it down several years ago following the closure of its sister in Tokyo. So no more cinerama in Japan. What I remember is the wonderful sensation of (the) camera going through in between the two wheels of the space station, and (the) somehow very scarey looking and sounding ending. I knew two pieces of music in the movie - The Blue Danube and Gayne's Adagio - quite a hit rate considering that those were two of the few classical pieces that I knew! Anyway, I was quite shocked by the total effect of the movie. For about a year or so after seeing 2001, I did not feel like seeing other movies since their scenes seemed to be too crowded with people! I soon found the sound track LP and started listening to classical music.

I wonder what your original "souvenir programme" looks like. I too have the program I bought back in 68 (sleeping in a box with other movie programs back in Japan), and it's in a fairly large format and has (a) silver cover... we probably have the same thing except that mine is in Japanese. (Eitaro Kawaguchi)

Frustration

I have been a 2001 fan for about 25 years and still regard the film as the best SF film ever made.

One thing I can agree with... is... frustration at dealing with people who, while intelligent, never quite "got" the meaning or the importance of the film. Without a doubt, it is my all- time favourite. (Andrew Richter)

"True" science fiction

I, like you, am deeply affected by 2001 for many reasons. Also, I wholeheartedly agree with you that it IS the best science fiction film ever made. Maybe calling 2001 a "science fiction" film considering today's genre of the same moniker is inaccurate. 2001 is a movie which gives you much the same feeling as reading a "true" science fiction novel which sometimes poses more questions than it answers. And, like you, I have seen the film many times. I was 14 when I saw it for the first time at a drive in, no less. But, it affected me so much that I saw it at our Houston Cinerama every time it came around. (Robert Bayes)

Masterpiece

Thank you for creating such a fascinating and provocative web site. I, too, am an ardent fan of Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey." Just as many others do, I consider it one of the true masterpieces in cinematic history. (Clay Waldrop, Jr)

Great effect

I enjoyed my visit to your site. 2001 had a great effect on me too. On my web page (see the Places page) I mentioned Kubrick's masterpiece and I was looking for a site to link to when I found yours. Wow! (Jook Leung)

Unique

I just can't seem to stay away from your page mate.. Every time I look at it I am intrigued... I must have seen 2001: A Space Odyssey for the 100th time this week and still I notice things in it that I have never noticed before... Kubrick wants everyone to see the film in their own views... I think of the storyline and what the film is 'actually about' in a completely unique individual way than anyone else who has seen it and think that is what makes the film so unique.. (Ian Fisher)

Testament

I remain in awe of the sophistication of the special effects that were accomplished in the film. It is a testament to the people who worked on it that these effects... remain so amazing "30 years on". Indeed, in comparison, the visual effects from movies like Star Wars and Alien (both of which I liked) seem mediocre. (Andrew Richter)

Awe

I too, watched 2001 in awe in the seventies, and still think it's the best Sci-Fi movie ever. Saw it once in Cinemascope in London, which was an experience. (Martin Macrae)

Dated

I was surprised to not find (or maybe I missed it) that you did not point out one little joke in 2001. The letters for HAL are one- before in the alphabet to IBM. I agree that, although Star Wars is fun and cute... it undid a lot that 2001 does. 2001 will look as current 30 years from now as it did when it opened. Star Wars already looks rather dated and silly. (Darrick)

A little comment

I have just watched your nice web page on 2001: A Space Odyssey. Very well done.

I have a little comment on HAL that I have not noticed in your text on HAL. Do you know that, by replacing each letter of the word HAL by the following, you obtain:

H + 1 = I
A + 1 = B
L + 1 = M

IBM? (Marc)

Real life

I felt very happy to read your work, and realize that... more people... appreciate this film. I watched 2001 so many times that I can`t remember. Unfortunately, I never had the chance to watch it in a cinema. I agree totally with you. 2001 becomes interesting as real life, when Kubrick just lets us see "what is happening". (Jo Lima)

SCENES Lasting memories

Tapir skulls

Phil, just found your 2001 site (followed the link from Microsoft's Cinemania page). 2001 is my favourite film of all time so I was glad to see it getting the treatment it deserves. My favourite scene from the film (also my favourite movie scene EVER) is where Moonwatcher begins waving that bone around before smashing the tapir skulls. I first saw the film in 1972 and that scene in particular left me stunned - no matter how many times I've seen it since I still get a shiver down my spine. Awesome stuff. (Gordon Davie)

Floored

When I first saw the film, I was floored. It's not a film, it's an experience.

15 minutes into the experience, just at the end of the fight at the water hole, one of the "monkeys" throws his weapon (a bone) up into the sky.

The camera follows it on its descent. You can hear the wind around it, blowing over the vast plains. Just as the bone is about level (horizontal) with the ground, we switch over to space. Space is a vacuum, there's no air, sound cannot travel, so the wind noise has gone, and there is no sound from the solitary spacecraft that is travelling downwards in a similar fashion to the way the bone was falling.

That split-second change-over is for me, one of the greatest moments in cinema, not to mention 2001. Don't ask me why, it just is. (Valentine Hayes)

Fetusphobia

I was six years old when my parents took me to a Texas drive-in theater to see 2001. Even as a child I was deeply affected by the film, and was TERRIFIED by the image of the Star Child at the end. In fact, I could not look directly at a record album, a movie poster, or any picture of the Star Child for years after that without freaking out and running to my parents... I guess it was "fetusphobia". Finally, I got the guts to see the movie again my first year of college, and it is now my favorite film and, I believe, the greatest film of all time. Still, I look up at the night skies every now and then and hope I won't see any wide- eyed green fetuses floating down to earth... (David Fox)

Broad canvas

...at the time of the BBC interview, DISCOVERY would have been about 78 million miles from Earth and hence one-way transmission time would have been around 7 minutes. I think some time after this we get a close-up of two asteroids zooming by with DISCOVERY framed in the distance. I took this to be (an) indication that the ship was then passing through the asteroid belt (between Mars and Jupiter). This I believe was the primary purpose of the shot, along with the malevolent red herring that the ship might be hit by a rock thrown in for dramatic effect. I think you refer to the latter somewhere in your web pages.

So, the 7 minutes delay was accurate at that stage of the journey.

...besides terrible error of pod not reacting to hatch blowing off and pod depressurization when Bowman re- enters DISCOVERY, the film seems remarkably accurate physics wise. Dated in use of NIXIE tubes (alpha numeric vacuum type tubes with heated wires arranged in planes and shape formed as "0 1 2 3" etc.) instead of LED or LCD displays, and attitude to women. Wouldn't blame anyone for unfortunate choice of PAN AM.

Nit picking here I think. Importance is the broad canvas and the vision it encompasses. (Lawrie Miller)

Diamonds in the sky

(Despite their coloration) the (weird-colored) landscapes look relatively "normal" compared to the other sights. Maybe our dissatisfaction comes from the fact that they look ordinary and comprehensible, in contrast to the mysteries of the flashing lights, diamonds in the sky, and the "cosmic hotel room?"... Thanks again for making the effort to produce such a fascinating Web site... I've added a link to your page on my own 2001 page, "2001 and Beyond the Infinite." (Modemac)

THE MISSING SCENES Where are they?

Marginal people

Kubrick... decided to tighten the film, cutting 19 minutes of film, explaining "it does take a few runnings to decide finally how long things should be, especially scenes which do not have narrative advancement as their guideline." In reference to the edited version, the director stated "I didn't believe that the trims made a critical difference. I think it just affected some marginal people. The people who like it, like it no matter what its length, and the same holds true for the people who hate it."

The material cut... includes certain scenes from the Dawn of Man... the final rendezvous of the Orion spaceliner and the spacestation... further scenes of Poole exercising in Discovery's centrifuge... possibly other technical details of life aboard Discovery... the preparation for Poole's EVA [extra- vehicular activity] which was an exact repeat of the detailed preparation for Bowman's EVA during the first half of the film.

Sadly, today, none of the trims are known to exist... other than general information, I have not been successful in getting a shot by shot description.

Whether this material will ever surface... is unknown. Today the official running time of 2001 is 139 minutes and, if presented in roadshow form, with overture, entr'acte and walk out music is about 10 minutes longer.

My current obsession is to get absolutely accurate information about the scenes cut from the film between April 5 and 9, 1968. I've only met one person who claims to have seen the film in its original version, and virtually every article, book, etc, I have read about this is either contradictory, or safely general. I have spoken to film restorationist Robert Harris, and 2001 expert Piers Bizony on this issue, but neither have more than general information. My article on the cut scenes is the best I can do, but I want a cut by cut, shot by shot description, preferably with stills. Oh hell, I actually want a complete 161 minute 70mm EK of the original version color- timed by SK himself, and the equipment to show it, no point in not thinking big...! Have you run across any absolutely accurate info on this issue? (Tom Brown - extracts from his articles reproduced with his kind permission - see also under "LITERARY CONNECTIONS" below)

Mucking around in the equipment lockers

I remember watching 2001 the first time in 1971 or so, and the ending titles were... um, different that time.

Instead of the screen going black, after the star- child bit, that is now followed by the credits being flashed for a few secs, per page,... I remember the star-child panning off completely to the left, followed by several seconds of silence, following by the finale of the "Blue Danube", and the credit slowly rising up from the screen bottom, in yellow- coloured characters. The music score was the bit of the "Blue Danube" that's on the original record and not the bit used now. Also I remember Frank Poole mucking around in the equipment lockers, not seen on any later release. Plus, when the space- station first appears, the camera pans right through between the spokes, as it does between the wheels at the end of the space- docking scene. Now the camera stops just short of the wheel in its very first appearance.

Has the movie been trimmed a bit after Kubrick's trimming, or have I seen the entire movie, but didn't realise it at the time?

I remember Hal playing another board game with Dave. Some other fumbling about in the pod- bay and equipment lockers. (Martin Macrae)

KUBRICK AND CLARKE Tributes and observations

Endlessly provocative

I'm delighted to see other folks are interested in the, well, brilliance of this movie - and take their responses solely from the movie, and not from the stories that preceded or books that followed... I don't much like movies, in general. But Kubrick's control and vision make 2001 endlessly provocative. (Alan Shapiro)

A tribute to 2001

Just thought I'd let you know in case you haven't heard already... I just saw the new "Star Trek" movie and there is a scene on the exterior of the Enterprise where a module is located... it is called an "AE-35" unit... Thanks to your web page I have confirmed that it must be a tribute to 2001. (Bill Hogue)

Speculation

There was an article in the BBC Television magazine 'Radio Times' by esteemed film critic Barry Norman about Kubrick. There has been a great deal of speculation about what he's been up to the past few years. As you probably know, he has a huge mansion here in the UK and hasn't been seen in public for years.

The most exciting part about the article was that Kubrick is coming out of 'retirement' to make a few more films. He has approached several writers already: "I don't want ideas, I want *stories*". The film that really caught my attention that should be going into production is 'AI' - wow! There was no more detail than that I'm afraid. (Mark Pugh)

Visual beauty

I was so impressed with Kubrick's visual design that I took 35mm color slides of many scenes. This was several years before I got my first Betamax (remember Beta?). I have the film on Laser and it is wonderful to see it in the original aspect ratio with correctly mixed multichannel sound, but nothing will equal that first viewing. I was stunned by Kubick's technical grasp of existence in space, the correct movement of bodies in motion, the silence, the music, the enigma. But most of all, I was stunned by the visual beauty of the film that was so all immersing in the Cinerama format.

I join you in thinking that 2001 is a masterpiece, a worthy successor to Dr Strangelove, which I think is the best example of black humor on film. Where 2001 is a visual stunner, Dr Stranglelove's editing shows Kubrick's sure- handedness in handling character development and narrative line. (Brian Wallen)

The most recent information

...Arthur C. Clarke has signed a contract with Ballantine Publishing Group for 3001: The Final Odyssey. Publication is scheduled for late 1997. Apparently, work on the book was delayed when NASA's Galileo mission to Jupiter was delayed by the Challenger disaster in 1986 (it was finally launched in 1989 on a much longer trajectory since the design changed to stop using nuclear fuel. Activists did not want radioactive dust raining down if another explosion occurred during a launch)... I am assuming that this... means that Mr. Clarke plans on including the most recent information from the mission within his book! (Bob Lee)

Fizzing at the bung

Originally, Galileo was to be launched from Shuttle Discovery, with a Centaur upper stage. Centaur is liquid fuelled (hydrogen and oxygen), but like all cryogenic-fuelled boosters, there is some boil-off. Discovery's payload bay was modified to vent the boil-off overboard.

Galileo was delivered to Cape Canaveral in early 1986 for a launch that spring. When Challenger was lost shortly afterwards the remaining shuttles were naturally grounded and Galileo went into storage.

By the time shuttle operations were resumed, NASA had decided that it was too dangerous to carry liquid-fuelled boosters aboard the orbiters.

That left, as the only alternative booster for launching Galileo, the solid-fuelled Inertial Upper Stage. However, the IUS has insuficient power to send Galileo directly to Jupiter, as Centaur could have done, so the only other way was to use the gravitational fields of Venus and Earth to accelerate Galileo to the right velocity. This meant a six-year flight time to Jupiter, rather that the original of around 21 months.

Regardless, the modified flight plan worked magnificently.

Activists did indeed breathe hard about "nuclear fuel" aboard Galileo, but it was the plutonium pellets carried in the space craft's power generators that got them fizzing at the bung. In any case, the pellets are in containers that could survive any impact likely to occur during a failed launch. Bruce Thompson

This one movie

I don't think Kubrick is God. He just made this one movie that I really love. (Virginia)

LITERARY CONNECTIONS Other writers on 2001

Dream and reality

Please link your wonderful 2001 web site to (David's page - see the Places page) which describes the forthcoming book "HAL's Legacy: 2001's computer as dream and reality" (MIT Press, October 1996). (David G Stork, editor and author)

Essays

I have written extensively about 2001 myself and a number of my essays are published on Geoffrey Alexander's Kubrick net page, including an essay on the original theatrical formats of 2001, 2001 on video vs. the big screen, an article on the scenes cut from the film, and contributions to an extended article on 'gaffes and glitches' [Alexander's title, not mine]... I had also written an extended 25th Anniversary article on the making of the film and what it meant to me, for the Perfect Vision magazine, but although this made it into galleys, TPV ceased publication [hopefully temporarily] before this saw print. (Tom Brown)

REALISATION Will 2001 ever happen?

Only robots

I still think that someday there will be a world not too unlike 2001; it will happen later, and the people will probably not speak English. To me, space travel is a human thing, and sending only robots is not enough. If you can send people (+ all the supporting equipment required) to the moon, mars, etc., just think how big a telescope you can send. (Tim Riffel)

An experience

Hi there, great to visit the 2001 site! Well what happened to the future? Computers are now used for trivia, artificial intelligence is a joke, NASA can't afford to build a space station and we're NEVER gonna get off this planet.

I too, watched 2001 in awe in the seventies, and still think it's the best Sci-Fi movie ever. Saw it once in Cinemascope in London, which was an experience.

Computers are being replaced with 'network' toys that distribute pornography, Science Fiction has been replaced by space opera (Star Trek, et al); this is just not working, HAL.

As I commented earlier, as a software engineer, I often sneak a bit of Hal's graphics styling into the odd computer window, just for fun. Surprisingly, nobody has ever commented on it. Most of the computer display text in 2001 was "microgamma extra- bold extended" font, available still, as a 'press- on' type of lettering. Looks good too.

It is really pathetic that the greatest triumph of man (Moon landings, 1969...) is a fading memory, yet idiot TV producers STILL make silly programs about 'how the pharaohs made the pyramids'... Dumb Egyptians only looked at the moon... the Americans WENT there. (Martin Macrae)

Moratorium

Although the Space Shuttle was primarily designed for handling military payloads, there is currently a moratorium on Shuttle launched military satellites.

I have been a 2001 fan for about 25 years and still regard the film as the best SF film ever made.

I think it is too bad that this country is not doing the kinds of things in space which were portrayed in 2001. Arthur C. Clarke wrote a book in the late 1970's ("A View from Serendip") where he lamented the fact that space program was really dented by the Vietnam War (he argues that the resources spent on the war could have easily built the space stations found in 2001). (Tim Riffel)

INTERPRETATIONS What does it all mean?

Buttoned down

Dr. Floyd's briefing in the conference room is amusing to me because the epochal nature of the discovery -- the first concrete evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence -- is relayed in the dispassionate manner not different from how a corporate executive would discuss the opening of a new overseas branch, or the discovery of a large oil reserve. A lesser writer- director would have done it as a melodramatic news conference (think of 1950s sci-fi). A different writer- director, specifically Steven Spielberg, would have filled the scene with awestruck believers ("Close Encounters"). But in Kubrick and Clarke's universe, the homo sapiens still lacks the perspective to truly appreciate the significance of the discovery, to see the far horizon of the event. Humans are ultimately tiny players in this universe.

Dr. Floyd's buttoned down attitude to the monolith discovery, and David Bowman's blinking, trembling seizure following his stargate journey, are both expressions of how humankind, in its present state, still cannot comprehend the immensity of the universe and all its veiled secrets. The Star Child symbolizes how each further encounter of a higher level of cosmic intelligence throws us back to relative infancy in comparison. (Steve Dhuey)

The way it was intended

I'm exhausted, and this letter will, no doubt, reflect that state. It took me three sittings over the course of two days to get through your material. Nevertheless, even though my thoughts are totally disorganized at the moment and it's way past my bedtime (Thank God for Labor Day!), I wanted to write to you immediately to express my appreciation. Your site is exceptional. You really gave me a lot to think about.

For instance, I had always subscribed to the theory that HAL killed the crew because of some kind of fault or "nervous breakdown" caused by his order to keep the true nature of the mission from Dave + Frank. Your explanation, however, makes much more sense and I haven't yet been able to come up with an indefensible argument against it.

2001 is one of the movies I've grown up with. I first saw it (on home video) when I was something like ten years old. At the time, I'd watch anything that had spaceships in it, and 2001's amazingly realistic depictions of space travel ignited my imagination more than any other movie, including Star Wars.

Then, I usually fast-forwarded through "The Dawn of Man." (Who cares about a bunch of monkeys, I thought.) "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite" was over my head too, but I did find the Star Child to be intriguing. (The stuff of nightmares, though).

Because of that movie, I became a huge fan of Arthur C. Clarke. Within a year and a half, I had read almost all of his older works of fiction (The new stuff lacks his old sense of wonder. I blame this partly on his collaboration with Gentry Lee. ["Rama II" contained graphic depictions of characters' deaths. Clarke never engaged in this sort of thing as far as I know. When one of his characters met their end, he usually left the gory details to our imaginations.] But I digress.)

Some fourteen years later (last weekend, in fact), I finally got my chance to see this great film the way it was intended - on a big screen (though probably not Cinerama) in one of Dallas's nicest theatres. Unfortunately, the print was horrible, but I didn't really care. The sound (and the silence, as you have noted), however, was amazing - knocked my socks off. It really was like watching the movie again for the first time...

One of the things that made 2001 great is that it is one of those rare films the viewer can have a personal relationship with. Your interpretation is very good, but this movie will always mean something different to each person who sees it, often in ways which we will find difficult to describe in words. In this respect, it reminds me of an obscure Japanese animated film called "Angel's Egg". The closest I can come to describing it is to say that it may be a religious allegory. There is almost no dialogue, and most of what there is seems to refer to the book of Genesis. When I watch this film, I feel that it is working on me at a level deeper than conscious thought, where words have no meaning. It achieves this almost exclusively through the use of sounds and images.

The ending of 2001 affects me in much the same way. Do you think we'll ever see another film like 2001 again? Or are those days gone forever? Is the movie- going public too lazy to wonder any more? It's a shame, but I believe that, if someone had the courage to make such a brilliant film even "better" than 2001, it would die at the box office. (Excuse my pessimism.) Maybe the world will prove me wrong someday. Hope so!

Well, I rambled on much, much longer than I planned. Thanks for all your hard work. I know it was a labor of love. Whatever other people say..., DO NOT condense the information on your site for the sake of lazy, casual "net- surfers". There are smaller sites for them to skim. Don't fold, spindle, or mutilate your site in any way! Augment it if you can, though.

****

...Would you agree that that's what great art does? On one level, it's a representation of the artist's vision. But what truly great art does is turn our own vision inward. Makes us look at parts of ourselves we weren't aware of before...

Speaking of monkeys (or proto-humans, if you will), I always thought those ape suits were incredibly realistic. The first few times I saw that sequence, I thought Kubrick used real primates. However, seeing them bigger than life in the theatre, I couldn't help but snicker. Still, they were way, WAY better than what we got in Planet of the Apes. "Tee-hee" (Wonder how Oliver Stone will do with the re-make)...

Another thing about the ending that just occurred to me: It doesn't feel like an ending. What I mean is, in a normal movie, you sit there for 90 minutes, something climactic happens, the credits roll, then you go home, maybe thinking about what you'll have for breakfast or whether you'll have time to take the dog to the vet before work. At the end of 2001, you get this bizarre psychedelic visual, then the multiple Daves, then the ancient Dave reaching out to the monolith. Then the piercing gaze of that fetus (which feels like it's peering into my very soul). Blackness... Then credits. The end feels more like a beginning. That's precisely what it is, isn't it? Oh my God! The more I think about it...

People these days want someone to give them the answers. This year, the Democrats have the answers, next year the Republicans are going to solve all our problems... Trying to work things out for ourselves is just too hard. Films like 2001 (Oops, there aren't any like 2001!!) ask us to look at ourselves. That's uncomfortable for most people. (Brian Cundieff)

Confusing

I missed out on the release of 2001 by an entire decade. I saw it for the first time the very day I wrote this e-mail. I had seen clips of it, and was intrigued by its use of sound and cinematography. It took me months to attain a copy of it (three movie rental shops had either missing or broken copies of it, and I failed to record it the two times it was on cable), but when I finally did, I found it to be the single most confusing movie I have ever seen... I have a feeling that once I understand what is actually happening in it, I'll appreciate it even more. (Jay Sitter)

Thus Spoke Zarathustra

It was the second time I watched the film that I feel I deciphered it. It normally bothers me when I can't quite make out what happened. As the opening scene erupts, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" plays. Nietchze's (N) masterwork "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" (TSZ) is 2001. In the book TSZ, N described man as walking a tightrope between the ape and the overman. Zarathustra proclaims that God is dead, and that the time for the overman has arrived. Man must walk the tightrope across the abyss to the overman, the embodiment of the will to power.

In the film 2001, we hear the composition TSZ when the apes first see the monolith and discover tools. Man's journey begins here. The space voyage is the tightrope walker's journey. Hal is God. Surely, it seems, the mission is impossible to complete without Hal. Dave embodies mankind. He must accept God as dead before he can become the overman. By destroying the all powerful humbling force which surrounds him he can complete his journey across space. Space is the abyss which the top stretches over, indeed it is the greatest abyss. Upon killing Hal (God) Dave reaches Jupiter. He rediscovers the monolith. "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" plays again and we see the Star Child appear. The ubermensch is born.

Just a notion I've devised. Ever heard of any other similar interpretations? For all I know this could be the way everyone interprets the film. (Thomas J. Bogdewic)

To those who would see

You also remark about "not getting past" Jupiter. Well, as far as I can tell, it would be "impossible" to say where Dave went at the end. Yes, he came back as the Starchild; reborn, like the Phoenix. The "gate" was the monolith; the means by which the entity/ force revealed, controlled and showed the path, to those who would see.(Richard)

Aura of mystery

I briefly glanced your essay on 2001... When I watched 2001 for the very first time I thought it was boring and slow- moving but I couldn't stop thinking about it... The more I watch it, the more I enjoy it. The fact that the plot is very "blurry" or generalized (... meaning that the movie is about man finding the true meaning of the universe without knowing it) adds an aura of mystery around it. .I think that the meaning of 2001 is probably something TOO DEEP and complicated for us to comprehend or something that is so simple that we oversee it. (Ghislain DeBlois)

Bogged down

2001 is a metaphor for where we've been, where we are, and where we're going. Don't get bogged down in the dramatic vehicle. See beyond. (John)

Conceptual platform

I think what is really amazing about the film is the conceptual platform. Alas, progress is always seen only in terms of technology, and never in terms of social (gender) relations. (Jessica Irish)

Answers to everything

Anyway, there has always been one thing troubling me about the film. After the scene where Dave Bowman deactivates HAL he is seen in the pod exploring "Jupiter: And Beyond the Infinite". I never understood why, when the mission was obviously scrubbed due to HAL's malfunction, did Dave strike out on his own.

I realize that one doesn't need the filmmaker to hit him over the head with answers to everything - in fact, that is the beauty of the film. It's just that Kubrick seemed to explain things that didn't contribute to his metaphorical approach to the film...

Anyway, you have a terrific Web site. I hope to spend a lot more time here.

Thanks for your hard work.

****

It seemed that throughout the movie Mr. Kubrick masterfully wove imagery, symbolism, and narrative together. When the plot required narrative explanation, such as Heywood Floyd's meeting with his staff to explain why the "cover story" had to be maintained, it's clear that a metaphorical approach might be difficult or overkill in this scene.

Consequently, it seems that Mr. Kubrick would be perfectly consistent and proper to explain Dave's actions, post mission abort, in this fashion.

But maybe, since Mr. Kubrick has provided us with such an excellent film which, through his use of symbolism and imagery, has allowed each of us to personalize the movie since it depends so much on our unique perspectives and interpretations of this classic film that, while the movie is Kubrick's, our understanding of 2001 is uniquely our own. (Robert Bayes)

The big picture

I just finished watching 2001, and I just have one question. Please, what does it all mean??? I was really loving it until the very end (probably a classic complaint among newcomers to the film)... I loved the music, special effects, and the feeling the film gave me... but I just am not sure I get the big picture. Is there one? Help! (Jennifer)

Minimalistic

I've been addicted to this film since I was 10, but I've always found it a bit confusing (mainly the end). What I've liked more were the scenes, the way Kubrick drops us hints (in homeopathic doses). I'm very fond of his minimalistic style. And the story, well the story is unique in the sci-fi world. Where do we come from? Where are you going? Where are we? are not questions normally handled by sci-fi movies (in fact by any movie). (Andrea Cassimiro Vieira)

Engineered to work

...Why does the monolith necessarily have to be an alien presence from another world, what if this is simply how the universe is engineered to work? Whoever is running the place might just put these monoliths everywhere. (Virginia)

The way of life

I have done a search to find what people have written about this film, and am pretty disappointed that everyone seems so busy gushing about it and throwing in random info, that all semiotic and historical readings are lost or lacking.

I really think that you should break this up; as is the page takes way too long to load... you would do well to section your text as well... it is scattered and rambling... and hard to find any substantial content.

My own opinion is that people surfing the net don't really want to read filler (as there is already so much)... so I think that you should get to the meat of things quickly (perhaps making another page that explains your reasons for creating it)

The real reason why I am emailing you; this IS the place to discuss gender... like where else are we supposed to address it if not in the future, in the past, in the present... so often progress is only seen in terms of technology... well, the world is half female, and we all need got here through a womans body, so it is hardly irrelevant... of course this makes things more complex than most would like... but such is the way of life.

Perhaps you could consult some reviews or articles from more art / film related sources.

I must admit that I was pretty cranky... so if I came off as rude, I'm sorry. I'm glad that you are going to be working on it... Good luck with your page... let me know of major progress. (Jessica Irish)

Projection

It (is) hard for me to think that (a) person like you hasn't read the Signet book "The Making of 2001", but here it is... As is mentioned in the book, many of "The Dawn of Man" scenes were shot using "Front Projection" in which sky and distant terrain are slide image projected on to the retro- reflective backdrop screen. The projection is done through the same optical axis as the camera using a half- mirror. Therefore, it is quite natural that leopard's eyes shine. I'm sure Mr. Kubrick used the fact intentionally. The projected image of sky, etc., hits most objects in the scene - rocks, Moon-watcher's body - but we don't see the cloud on Moon-watcher's body because it is much less reflective than the backdrop. That's why - this is my guess - the dark part of the scenes (around (the) Monolith etc.) look somewhat hazy. (Eitaro Kawaguchi)

Thank you!

Thanks to you all for taking the time to write. Don't go far away! Viewpoints continues on two further pages, and Viewpoints on Hal are on a fourth.

All text: Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998 by Underman and writers identified.

Start this page again.

Back to Home Page