I've reread it countless times and sometimes I fall asleep to it or if I'm stressing I just need to relax I throw it on and lose myself

Probably the single most significant science fiction movie prop in the history of cinema goes up for auction at Bonham's London on February 3, 2017: the original Liz Moore Star Child as seen at the end of the film. They expect at least US$800,000 for this.

https://www.bonhams.com/auction/32714/preview-lot/6201501/2001-a-space-odyssey-the-original-star-child-prop-warner-bros-1968-2/

Made this small thing in Blender, no AI was used to make this; I only used textures and external models. Wanted to make something 1960s and Sci-Fi based, but I'm not modeling expert, so that didn't happen, unfortunately.

I hope you enjoy this, though! I like cosmic scenes so decided to make something of my own. :)

And yes, I was inspired by the movie to make this, it's not the best, but it works for now.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/john-grover-dead-james-bond-film-editor-1236717044/

Dave is stranded outside. He's stated his intention to come in through the emergency airlocks, thus endangering the mission. Wouldn't that be a good time to just get the f out of there?

This seems like a nice subreddit, so here's another question.

Does it bother anyone else that the first monolith worked by getting the proto-humans to use tools and eat meat? But chimps already do this. Their tool use might not have been documented in 1968, but I think Jane Goodall had at least reported on them hunting colobus monkeys by then.

Edit: It seems Kubrick and Clarke assumed that all primates were non-tool using herbivores, and needed a monolith to cause them to use tools and eat meat. And also assumed that doing so would cause evolution into something as intelligent as humans. But we know now that those were incorrect assumptions.

So either there was a separate monolith for proto-chimps that made them use tools and eat meat but didn't cause them to evolve for some reason. Or (more realistically) Kubrick and Clarke thought all primates were non-tool using herbivores.

Thoughts?

I've been working on a game for the last 7 years, trying to capture that feeling of encountering something that doesn't communicate in a way you immediately understand.

In the game, humanity discovers alien devices that communicate through puzzles. They weren't designed for humans, so their logic isn't explained to you. You have to interact with them and gradually figure out how they work.

The idea was to make the puzzles feel less like something a human designed for you to solve, and more like trying to understand an intelligence with completely different assumptions about how information should be communicated.

Satelital takes place across a distant solar system with six celestial bodies, each containing a different alien system to understand.

I've just released a free demo with two complete worlds, so if the idea sounds interesting, I'd really appreciate you giving it a try:

https://store.steampowered.com/app/5017320/Satelital_Demo/

2001: A Space Odyssey is a 2 out of 5.

The visuals are stunning, and without a supporting cast of anything else behind them, the movie falls flat on its face. Shot on 65mm with zero CGI in 1968, and the image holds up completely: inky blacks, sharp contrast against the red, blue, and yellow suits, color handled beautifully. That is the whole case for it. Everything around the visuals annoyed me.

The score is mostly out of place. The characters are thin, and the only interesting one is HAL, who is effectively the villain. I knew it was a slow burn and I have no issue with those, but a slow burn needs dialogue or characters to carry it, and there is nothing here to hold onto. Dave shows up late with no background, so when HAL locks him out I felt nothing.

The Dawn of Man opening makes sense as an idea but spends twenty minutes making a five-minute point, and I will happily sit through a three-hour Nolan film.

I took breaks, turned the lights on, and ended up on my phone. Credit where it is due: the long silent pans and wide sweeping shots were new in 1968 and are standard now, and it looks better than Star Wars nine years before Star Wars. The EVA scenes are gorgeous, though the breathing sound is like white noise mixed with nails on a chalkboard and I watched them muted. The worst stretches are the apes and the Star Gate, twenty minutes with half of it aerial footage color-shifted. The final room is the one piece of story I came around on, and only after reading about it.

the big black rectangle was a giant super powered space computer and the glowing embryo was a young god.

alguém poderia me explicar e esclarecer uma dúvida que eu tive durante o período que eu tava assistindo o filme.

eu assisti o filme 1 vez e estou revendo de novo

na primeira foto: eu queria saber oq acontece com o Robert Beatty "Dr. Ralph Halverson" no filme uma Odisséia no Espaço, se n me engano eles estao na lua e encontram algo plantado bilhos de anos?

e na segunda foto: essas cápsulas de hipersonia temos pessoas dentro no sono profundo, eu queria saber se seria o Dr. Ralph Halverson e a sua equipe no Hipersonia?

I’m moving to a house next year that has space in the backyard for a life sized monolith. 2001 is my favorite movie of all time and I thought it might be fun to have it in small garden . I’d love to see what the reaction of the neighbors would be. All I can remember is the dimensions are 1 x 4 x 9 from HAL’s dialogue at the end of 2010 as Jupiter is imploding. I have no idea what it would need to be made to withstand the weather - rain, wind and snow and the four seasons - house is located in Northwestern New Jersey in the USA. Any help is appreciated.

I saw a 70mm screening of the Kubrick classic and was blown away by how current its subject is.

First I highly recommend seeing it in that format. Colors, visuals are insanely beautiful. This is probably the most influential sci-fi film ever but what makes it so relevant now is the AI foreshadowing.

The way it implies AI despite being controlled by humanity may have variables that would risk to endangered us is very subtle and very true. This is not some Terminator fantasy, this is technology making complex decisions that ultimately hurt us.

Anyway I had the most amazing experience, the immersive score, the peaceful and slow unfolding of the story, the groundbreaking camera shots. Even now no one filmed space interior this way, especially the change of gravity. And to think when it premiered back in 1968 hundreds of people walked out.

I invite everyone to revisit it in 70mm.

I'm listening to the audio book of 2061 and Clarke has the TMA-1 monolith moved from the moon to outside of the UN building in New York City.

Any thoughts on what that would look like? I guess snow would pile on top but would rain bead on it? Would it still be pitch black at noon on a 90 degree day? Would it get hot? Would spray paint stick to it?

In 2010 in an attempt to break off a sample, they hit it with lasers and nuclear weapons and nothing happened.

There was an episode of Dr. Who when the Doctor hides the TARDIS by putting it 5 seconds into the future. In the first Star Trek pilot, the Talosions use of illusion had the crew of the Enterprise firing phasers and practically destroying the surface of that planet.

I always thought there would be some mind bending super tech in use with the monoliths. What would it look like in public?

I woke up to a large, unresponsive, impossibly black rectangle on the wall of my living room. Am I going to evolve? Or was Arthur C. Clarke anticipating that all the broken flat screen TVs would get disposed of in the space/time continuum? I have always struggled to understand that ending, but it is so clear now.