• BURN MEDIA
    • Motorburn
      Because cars are gadgets
    • Gearburn
      Incisive reviews for the gadget obsessed
    • Ventureburn
      Startup news for emerging markets
    • Jobsburn
      Digital industry jobs for the anti 9 to 5!

10 Reasons why 2001: A Space Odyssey stands as the best Sci-Fi movie ever made

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968, MGM) was filmed before man stepped on the moon (1969, Neil Armstrong), before the use of Computer-Generated Imagery (1973, Westworld), and before most Star Wars fans were even born (1977, Episode IV).

Despite intervening decades of scientific discovery, film-making advancements, and computer technology, it remains the best science fiction movie in terms of realism, prediction of future technology, mystery, and thought provocation.

A good movie extends reality for the purpose of entertainment, but a great movie also suspends the viewer’s disbelief in order to be convincing. If something is depicted on film that makes one think “Hmm…that could never happen!” it spoils the experience. When Sci-Fi movies are viewed by scientists, an even higher standard of realism is required.

x ray black hole
Artist’s conception of an X-ray emitting black hole as predicted by Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Image from the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Caltech via Wikimedia Commons.

1. Albert Einstein was the third collaborator

2001 was the product of the vivid imagination of Arthur C Clarke and the directorial genius of Stanley Kubrick. However, the unseen third contributor was Albert Einstein, the greatest theoretical physicist of all time. Although Einstein died in 1955, his theories of Special Relativity (which limits space travel below the speed of light) and General Relativity (which explains gravity and predicts wormholes) were strictly adhered to in the movie. This year marks the 100th anniversary of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, which was never awarded the Nobel Prize despite the concept forever changing our perception of the Universe. Einstein’s theories were conveyed to Kubrick by NASA astrophysicists and engineers, who advised on the film.

primate ancestor

A primate ancestor of man invents the first weapon. Movie still, MGM.

2. Evolution of Humans

Kubrick’s intention was to make a movie that would showcase Homo sapiens place in the Universe, which is why he began the movie with the Dawn of Man, focusing on the advent of tools and technology. The opposable thumb and primate brain evolved synergistically which allowed early humans to manipulate and adapt to harsh environments and to survive a tenuous existence. Kubrick’s segue from a triumphantly hurled tibia bone weapon to a cylindrical Earth-orbiting satellite brilliantly encapsulated 4 million years of technology into 10 seconds of film. In keeping with the NASA influences on the film, each member of the Jupiter mission crew had a doctorate degree, as opposed to other space movies which typically have ragtag renegade flight crews (sorry Han and Chewbacca).

3. Realistic depiction of microgravity

The lunar travel scenes realistically demonstrated microgravity with the passenger’s floating pen and suspended arm, and flight attendant’s Velcro shoes. In the space station and Jupiter mission scenes, gravity is simulated with rotating centrifugal force. The film’s movie magic was accomplished by strapping actor Gary Lockwood in his seat upside down, rotating sets synchronized to actor movement, and suspension wires hidden by the actors’ bodies. In the documentary film Apollo 13, microgravity was filmed inside a free falling aircraft (nicknamed the Vomit Comet), but this zero-force effect is largely ignored in modern Sci-Fi movies. One exception is the movie Gravity, which is ironically about surviving a zero-gravity disaster.

Discovery One

Discovery One and an EVA Pod travel at parallel high speed on their way to Jupiter. Movie still, MGM.

4. Highly specialised spacecraft

Each leg of the space journey was accomplished with vehicles built for their specific function. There was no all-purpose Millennium Falcon with the speed to deliver characters from star system to star system while also possessing the agility to fly inside other spacecraft. The focus of 2001 was interplanetary travel within our own solar system which is realistic in terms of current and future technology.

Once a spacecraft is accelerated up to speed, the vast majority of the journey is at constant velocity (conserving energy and momentum), allowing an untethered pod to travel parallel to a mothership as both move together at high velocity. Our furthest traveled (unmanned) spacecraft, Voyager 1, took 30 years to recently escape our solar system (August 2015).

In Clarke’s 2001 book the mission was to Saturn, but Kubrick could not replicate the rings of Saturn with the film technology available at the time, so in the movie version the mission was to Jupiter. Indeed, the Voyager 1 flyby of Saturn in 1980 revealed that the rings of Saturn were much more complex than expected and thus a simpler film depiction would have anachronized the movie.

The large scale model of the Discovery One (in the photo above) was so well-filmed with a motion-controlled camera and stationary model, that this scene was mirrored by George Lucas in the opening moment of the first Star Wars movie, Episode IV. The half-constructed circular space station in 2001 was no doubt the inspiration for the unfinished Death Star II in Star Wars Episode VI. Clever camera work earned 2001 an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects. Director and producer Stanley Kubrick started his career as a photographer.

Dr Frank Poole

Character Dr. Frank Poole jogs past hibernating crew members in simulated gravity. Movie still, MGM.

5. Astronaut exercise requirements

The first scene of the Jupiter mission showed an astronaut exercising in a rotating gyroscope. Exercise in space is not done out of boredom; it’s a necessity. NASA studies have shown that lack of gravity causes muscle atrophy and mitochondrial power loss, and therefore daily exercise is imperative on the International Space Station. Fighting gravity on Earth tones our muscles and triggers mitochondrial biogenesis when we exercise, giving us more energy. Lack of exercise with a sedentary couch-potato lifestyle has many negative health repercussions. This is a theme of my book with Greg LeMond, The Science of Fitness: Power, Performance, and Endurance.

6. Limitations and hazards of space travel

While it is true that there are inherent speed limits to low tech means of transportation (such as three-masted sailing ships), Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity says that there is an ultimate speed limit to how fast matter can travel, regardless of technology (current or future). If we were to travel at speeds approaching the speed of light (requiring ginormous amounts energy by the way) it would still take far too long to explore our own galaxy. Our Milky Way Galaxy is between 120 000 to 180 000 light years in diameter. Although we are “only” 27 000 light years from Galactic Center (sounds like a good meeting place doesn’t it) a black hole located there emits major x-rays and has gravity 4.5-million times that of the Sun (we would be zapped and crushed to death).

This points out the frailty of the human body. We don’t live very long, we need food oxygen and water, and we can only tolerate about 3gs of acceleration for long periods. Therefore we cannot “jump to light speed” as in other movies, since we would be squashed like bugs in our seats. After taking a long time to accelerate to high speed, we would then be vulnerable to tiny specks of space dust that would disastrously perforate our spacecraft.

To land at our destination, we would have to decelerate which would also require enormous braking energy. Thus, the interstellar planet hopping of Star Wars and Star Trek is a myth perpetuated by science fiction that is not feasible currently, nor will it be in the future. In 2001 there are no monsters or laser weapons. There are numerous inherent hazards in the harsh unforgiving environment of outer space to make space travel challenging and dangerous enough already.

Frank Poole Space

Frank Poole is hurled into the silence of deep space. Movie still, MGM.

7. No sound in space

When the deputy commander Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood) has his lifeline severed and is hurled into the void of space, we cannot hear him screaming. Similarly, when mission commander Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) is forced to transfer from his pod to the mothership via an emergency hatch, the exploding bolts are silent. That is because sound waves require air to propagate.

It is not until the hatch is closed and re-pressurized that sound returns. The eerie whines emitted from the monolith are meant to portray its strong magnetic field and alarm signal (perhaps transmitted via solar wind), but this is not true sound. In other Sci-Fi movies the roaring of spacecraft, zapping of space laser weapons, and deep space explosions provide a satisfying auditory theatrical experience, but are not realistic in the void of space.

Crew Members

Crew members eat while watching video on tablet computers, submitted as evidence that Kubrick invented the iPad in a patent lawsuit between the Apple and Samsung corporations. Movie still, MGM.

8. Predicted technologies and self-aware artificial intelligence (AI)

With computer technology in its infancy in the 1960’s, it is amazing how accurately 2001 predicted advanced technologies: teleconferencing (Skype), computer guidance systems, flat panel televisions, tablet computers, computer gaming (chess), cryogenic suspension, zero gravity toilets, delayed speed-of-light radio transmissions, fiber-optic memory banks, and of course the HAL 9000 sentient computer (if you increase each initial by one letter it spells IBM).

When Albert Einstein was alive, he feared that technology had already exceeded our morality. Stephen Hawking’s greatest fear is that self-aware AI could threaten human existence. In 2001, the HAL onboard computer suffered a homicidal psychotic episode when its inherent logic conflicted with its (human programmed) mission priorities.

HAL was able to manipulate the human crew with chess-like moves and deception. In the present day we respond to digital instructions and data, so this is very conceivable. It was only after HAL confronted human ingenuity that “he” resorted to robotic and computer-controlled murder. Many Sci-Fi fans are disappointed that the current state of space travel lags behind the Kubrick/Clarke vision of the future. However, we have the technology. Our progress is hampered by economics and diverted by human strife.

9. Non-verbal story telling

In other Sci-Fi movies the plot is spelled out for the lowest common denominator audience. The 2001 movie was largely non-verbal and slow-paced, which is a complaint of modern viewers who want a literal explanation of the plot and demand constant action to drive the story. Kubrick deliberately deleted narration in the final film’s cuts which gives the movie an extra-terrestrial observed quality. The movie’s view point is that of the omniscient intelligence that placed the mysterious monoliths.

Even Clarke’s book does not explain everything. Film critic Roger Ebert suggested that “MGM should require an IQ test before allowing people into the theater.” Kubrick’s movie relies more on its visual clues, classical music score, imagination, and mystery. Realistically, manned interplanetary space travel would involve long periods of waiting and anticipation, interrupted by brief flurries of intense activity.

Monolith

Monolith from the 1968 film bears uncanny resemblance to a modern smart phone. Movie still, MGM.

10. Beyond the Infinite

The Jupiter monolith scene depicted fictional travel through a star-gate/wormhole. Such a distortion of the space-time continuum was predicted by the Einstein-Rosen Bridge hypothesis in 1935 as a means of intergalactic travel. Although wormholes are difficult to create, very unstable, and not survivable, they are theoretically possible. The final enigmatic “hotel room” scenes can be confusing, but brilliantly depicted Einstein’s Twin Paradox.

If one twin travels near the speed of light, his non-traveling twin will age faster due to relativistic time distortion. Although Clarke and Kubrick were intentionally vague about the meaning of the Star Child, the implication is that in order to travel beyond our galaxy, we will have to transcend beyond the limitations of our frail and time-dependent human bodies. This mind-blowing concept, realistic cinematic depictions, and accurately predicted technologies elevate the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey to the top of its genre.

Movie stills are credited to 2001: A Space Odyssey, 1968, Metro Goldwyn Mayer (MGM Studios). The author did not profit from this online article.

Author | Dr Mark Hom

Dr Mark Hom
Dr. Mark Hom is a Johns Hopkins University trained biologist, an award-winning medical illustrator, an interventional radiologist applying high technology to the diagnosis and treatment of his patients, an educator of young doctors, and an avid fitness cyclist. Dr. Hom's work explains how the human body, various organ systems,... More
  • Mark Hom

    The title photo with the suspended scale model of Discovery One is from the Stanley Kubrick exhibit at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art by Matthew Gallant via Wikimedia Commons.

  • Mark Hom

    When I was in grade school in the 1970’s, this movie had a profound effect on public education and I remember a 5th grade lesson about Einstein’s Twin Paradox hypothesis (near speed of light travel slows relativistic time). The highest intellectual career back then was being a “rocket scientist” (an astrophysicist or aerospace engineer). Current science fiction films such as the upcoming Star Wars: The Force Awakens betray the laws of physics to such a degree, that for scientists they are as unbelievable as Harry Potter flying on his broomstick.

  • Pingback: How '2001: A Space Odyssey' inspired Apple's mobile device line-up - Memeburn()

  • Pingback: Can a real fighting lightsaber be built with current technology? - Memeburn()

  • Pingback: Learning Real Science from Sci-Fi Movies | SciTech Connect()

  • Pingback: Learning Real Science from Sci-Fi Movies | SCI-TECH()

  • Pingback: Radiology: Combining Quantum Theory, Medicine, and Artistic Vision | SciTech Connect()

  • Pingback: Radiology: Combining Quantum Theory, Medicine, and Artistic Vision | SCI-TECH()

  • Scalz311

    Why does this article keep comparing 2001 to Star Wars? Star Wars never claimed to be a realistic look at space travel, or anything for that matter. It’s a action/adventure series which was created with Buck Rogers in mind.

  • Star Wars is seen as one of, if not the most popular piece of science fiction film media. The author is not comparing the two, per say, but rather looking at their differences and similarities in their own mythos. Of course, Star Wars isn’t realistic.

  • Mark Hom

    I started writing about “Star Wars” because of the pop culture explanation of mitochondria (the focus of my book with cyclist Greg LeMond). George Lucas borrowed mitochondrial biology to explain the Force via Midichlorians. Star Wars episode 7 was about to be released so there was a demand for SciFi/Star Wars articles on the Internet. I also write for my publisher’s web site Elsevier SciTech Connect. The intro for this article on the SciTech site explains why I think good SciFi should have at least some realism.

    We must face the fact that children get their first exposure to science from science fiction movies. Unfortunately, many Sci-Fi films such as the upcoming Star Wars: The Force Awakens defy the laws of physics to such a degree, that for scientists they are as unbelievable as Harry Potter flying on his broomstick. However, if viewed with a critical eye, there can be a lot to learn from studying the film depiction of science. Here we will analyze the Sci-Fi classic 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968, MGM). When I was in grade school in the 1970’s, this movie had a profound effect on public education and I still remember a 5th grade lesson about Einstein’s Twin Paradox hypothesis (near speed of light travel slows relativistic time). I was too young then to understand the deeper meanings of this movie, but looking back it must have impressed the teachers who designed this lesson. This was also near the crest of NASA budgeting and our deepest involvement in the space program. The highest intellectual career back then was being a “rocket scientist” (an astrophysicist or aerospace engineer). This year marks the 100th anniversary of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. The question is should our childrens’ heroes be Han Solo or Albert Einstein?…A good movie extends reality for the purpose of entertainment, but a great movie also suspends the viewer’s disbelief in order to be convincing. If something is depicted on film that makes one think “Hmm…that could never happen!” it spoils the experience. When Sci-Fi movies are viewed by scientists, an even higher standard of realism is required.

    If you are curious as to why I write about certain subjects, I invite you to read my other Memeburn articles: http://memeburn.com/author/markhom/
    and SciTech articles: http://scitechconnect.elsevier.com/?s=%22Mark+Hom%22
    The articles about Midichlorians, Einstein’s Brain, and mitochondria are my most popular articles. The Apple Lineup article shows how the movie “2001” has had a lasting technological impact on modern society.
    I also wrote this article at the invitation of the United Nations International Year of Light:
    https://light2015blog.org/2015/08/27/radiology-combining-quantum-theory-medicine-and-artistic-vision/ which is closer to my profession of radiology

  • Scalz311

    I can see why people think of Star Wars as a Sci-Fi movie, but i never have. The only Sci-Fi thing in it really is because it’s set in space. It is a amalgamation of many genres. The Tatooine stuff feels more like a Western, right down to the bar in Mos Eisley. C3PO and R2 are like a buddy comedy team, with C3PO the straight man and R2 the sarcastic one. Han is almost a Western gunslinger smuggler. Lukes the farmboy with big dreams. Star Wars isn’t a classic because it’s considered Sci-Fi. It’s a classic because of the characters, story, action, and many other reasons.

    Even the way the Sci-Fi setting is depicted is completely different. 2001 and other films of the genre before Star Wars had the “clean” look. Everything was kinda white and looked brand new. Star Wars depicted a dirty “lived in” setting. It was almost like a Sci-Fi of the past. The Falcon was constantly breaking down, the clothes were old looking and used. They had laser guns because why not? They’re in space, it looks cool. No scientific reason needed.

    Guess I’m just trying to say a Sci-Fi genre movie doesn’t have to be realistic to be good. There are a boatload of reasons Star Wars is a classic, least of which is its genre.

    By the way, I really did enjoy the article, just talking to talk here.

  • Pingback: // Elemental // Studio Session 001 – Sunken Forest Audio()

  • Pingback: fake moon landing | Paranormal Global()

More in Innovation

Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, others join to fast track clean energy innovation

Read More »