FMP Script
 

(SCENE 1, Nar A)

2001: A Space Odyssey is better than The Godfather. (Nar B)> The Godfather is one of the best stories ever told, it has one of the most iconic characters ever. One of the best character arks ever, best character development ever, some of the best performances ever, (Nar C)> some of the best cinemaphotography ever, iconic shots, music, detailed set design!…You could go on and on and on. (Nar D)> In terms of traditional story telling (Films that use a common narrative plot structure), its regarded as…the perfect film.
(Nar E)> 2001 doesn’t perfect these aspects like The Godfather does. So how can 2001 be better…than (Nar F)> a film that perfects every traditional aspect that makes a film a masterpiece?...Let’s get into it.
 

(SCENE 2, Nar A) *intro*
(Nar B)> Before I explain why it’s better. First, (Nar C)> we need to understand why it’s not popular opinion that 2001 is better. Just go outside, ask people what the best film of all time is. It should be obvious that it’s not a popular opinion. (Nar D)> (I’ve placed time stamps, so you can skip to the explanation section if you don’t want to watch this part).
(Nar E)> And sorry for the audio quality guys, I don’t have a proper setup yet. There's me, recording this under his bed sheets. Me and my squeaky voice. But if you could please support my channel by giving me a like and a sub, then I could hopefully have a good recording setup someday because honestly, it’s as hot as Brittney under here. Anyway! Let’s keep moving.
 

(SCENE 3, Nar A)

So, why is it not popular opinion that 2001 is better than The Godfather?
(Nar B)> In terms of critical view, If you Google the “Greatest films” lists on the internet. 90% of them rank The Godfather higher than 2001.
*Show rankings* No surprise here! Hence why I feel the need to make this video. There are a few lists that place 2001 higher than Godfather but it’s in the minority as you can clearly see.
How can we make sense of this fact?
(Nar C)> In terms of the general public view, (Nar D)> it does make sense that the average movie-goer would enjoy The Godfather more. (Nar E)> The first 5 minutes is just a black screen! so that can already turn a lot of people off from watching the rest of the film. Because of that, most people aren’t going to pay as much attention as they should to a complex film like 2001. Therefore, the film will most likely go over their heads. (Nar F)> Now remember, I’m only talking about the average movie-goer. 241 people walked out of the film’s premiere. It initially bombed at the box office because people were bored out of their minds! It only became a blockbuster hit because drug users just wanted to watch the film for the stargate sequence. (Nar G)> So, the film was already fighting a losing battle to grab the audience right from the get-go. It was always going to fail with public views in regards to what the best film of all time is. I think it’s safe to say most regular movie goers generally don’t have the attention span to enjoy quite possibly the slowest film ever made.
(Nar H)> However, (Nar I)> in the movie industry, 2001 seems to be talked about on a more consistent bases.
(Nar J)> legendary directors, modern greats of this era and actors love to talk about 2001. (Nar K)> I know these quotes are from a small number of people out of millions. But based on my very very in-depth research, I’ve only managed to find 4 directors that talked about The Godfather.
(Nar L)> Maybe there’s more talk about in regards with 2001. Maybe everything that could be said about The Godfather has been said already? Or maybe It’s because 2001 is not only more of an influence on directors in sci-fi but also outside of sci-fi too?
So why is 2001 better than The Godfather? Let’s dive in…
 

(SCENE 4, Nar A)

Ground-breaking visuals
(Nar B)> Great visuals do not make a film great, but great innovative visuals make a great film more believable and timeless. How does a film that was made in 1968 look SO DAMN GOOD!? You’ve got (Nar C)> The Stargate sequence, which might be the most mesmerizing visuals in the history of cinema was projected on a blue screen but the visuals were created from real world objects. (Nar D)> Douglas Trumbull shot floating objects in a pool and shot vehicles at night with a slow shutter speed. (Nar E)> “chroma keying” (ie. blue screens) was all they could use for visual effects. Blue screen was also used for landscapes and the moon landing sequence. Everything else you see is practical effects. (Nar F)> From the floating pen to the Intricate models of spacecraft that were carefully photographed for a realistic depth of field, while massive sets were created for the monolith scenes, and the interior shots of the ship, like the rotating centrifuge. These mesmerizing effects created a sense of realism that was otherwise absent from other sci-fi films of that era. The effects are often so convincing, it's easy to forget that this film didn’t come out in 2001. (Nar G)> The following year, NASA landed a man on the Moon, providing a real-life reference for future films.
 

(SCENE 5, Nar A)

Influence and Predictions
(Nar B)> Like I said before, It inspired every sci-fi film that came after it. It opened up a market for commercial sci-fi blockbusters Including Star Wars, Close Encounters, Alien, The Terminator, etc. Any film with an A.I was influenced by it. It even influenced non-sci-fi films! There Will be Blood, The Tree of Life, The Silence of the Lambs etc. (Nar C)> 2001 has also had an influence on science. It’s technology and ideas are well ahead of their time. Here’s a quote from Alec Damian Gallimore an American aerospace engineer from the University of Michigan. Who’s been influenced by this film since the age of 4 - “I develop plasma propulsion technology that the movie identifies would be needed to propel astronauts to Jupiter.”
(Nar D)> Robin Murphy, a professor at Texas A&M University said “It placed A.I. into the mainstream consciousness even before the first A.I. robot  ‘Shakey’ was completed in 1969.” (Nar E)> 2001 is becoming more and more relevant as the years go by with the progression of A.I. It showed us iPads, Skype, aerospace technology and of course A.I. …In 1968! It predicted what the surface of the moon would look like, and how Earth looks like from space. (Nar F)> Now, Stanley didn’t get any of them absolutely spot on, especially Earth…but if he did…then…that’s just kind of creepy to be honest and I’d be questioning if Stanley was actually human at all…Just like the creators of The Simpsons.
 

(SCENE 6, Nar 1)

Its A layered puzzle that allows you to connect the dots whichever way you want to connect them
(Nar 2)> I see 2001 as a treasure chest full of Ambiguity, hidden messages, metaphors, questions, a believable philosophy. The film is so rich that people are STILL trying to understand it’s complexities through articles and YouTube videos over 50 YEARS LATER! Theories on who planted the monolith and what it represents, and what the end means etc. are still being discussed (Nar 3)> Despite me being a 2001 fanatic, I just discovered a new theory about the origin of the monolith. It’s called the “Da’at” theory. Da’at is a branch that resides in the abyss in the tree of life. The theory suggests that there are monoliths (Nar 4)> in the real world right now, Phones, Computer screens, future A.I…like HAL9000. Notice he himself is shaped just like a monolith. They all provide information that help the progression of mankind, (Nar 5)> just like the monoliths in 2001. If you want your mind blown, I’ve put a link of the theory in the description. I’m not going to get into any more details as my video is long enough as it is.
(Nar 6)> In this section I’m going to uncover the hidden messages, metaphors, and the underlying philosophy. First though, it needs to be stated (Nar 7)> that Stanley is known for being a perfectionist and someone who pays close attention to the smallest detail. EVERY SINGLE THING you can see inside a frame of any of his films is there for a reason. So, with that in mind! 2001 starts with… (Nar 8)> nothing…or is it nothing? All you hear is 5 minutes of eerie music, nothing on screen to distract you, just emptiness, a black void. Stanley is showing us something, but we don’t know that yet until we get further into the film. For all we know, Stanley is trying to put us into a trance and prepare our mindset for a slow-moving film.
(Nar 9)> We get to the title sequence, its grand and wonderful and then (Nar 10)> monkeys?! WHAT THE FU! We see a tribe of apes just doing what apes do. Then one morning, a tall, mysterious black slab planted in the ground, presents itself. Something clearly not from Earth. The monolith speeds up the process of evolution by turning the apes into killing machines, and we cut to a space station (Nar 11)> I know you’re confused, because that just doesn’t make sense. How does a black rectangle that just sits there and does nothing supposed to speed up evolution? this is where you realise the true genius of Stanley. Any other film maker would have probably used magic for the evolution of a species. But Stanley let the apes evolve organically. Through a more natural means. You can see the apes are startled. They instantly go into defensive mode. This represents “fear”. Then they go quiet and start getting closer and reaching their hand out with caution. This represents “Courage”. Eventually they all crowd the monolith, unafraid. They start caressing it. This represents “Curiosity”. (Nar 12)> “HouseofXen” described it perfectly, “The apes saw the world from a primal and survival-based intelligence level. Then one day, they saw something in a way which they could not describe. The apes transitioned from a lesser state of awareness and into something more. It was so sudden and out-of-nowhere, it captivated them in a manner which superseded all that in the background. The apes had their first intelligently conscious moment.” (Nar 13)> (Now, If you think I’m just trying to create messages that aren’t there, just ask yourself > do you think that’s how you would react if a monolith was to present itself in front of you?) (Nar 14)> There is a realisation for the apes that they can use bones as a weapon. What comes after is widely considered to be the greatest cut in film history. We go from the first ever tool (The bone) to the pinnacle of creative ability (within our limitations of time and space) (Nar 15)> …Aerospace technology. In this case, the satellite. That is why the film starts with pre-historic times, to not only show the evolution of apes into humans, but to also show how far we have come as a species. (Nar 16)> First the bone, then the spear, then fire, then the torch, then the gun, then the light bulb, all the way to satellites and space stations. The progression of technology in one cut.
(Nar 17)> We’re in the present now! And we get to see mankind’s new toys! Wow. WOOW. wooow…I’m sure you’ve thought why do all these shots drag on for 5 minutes each...We’ve just spent 15 minutes in prehistoric times, watching apes in a SCIENCE FICTION film. It’s time to celebrate and appreciate technology. So, relax, put the feet up and let it pull you in. Like I said before, Stanley does everything for a reason.
(Nar 18)> The long shots come to an end, the celebration is finished. Humans discover another monolith buried on the moon, identical to the one seen 4 million years ago. After the evolution of apes, what would be the next evolutionary step for mankind? (Nar 19)> Interplanetary spaceflight. One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. You can see the same reactionary pattern between the humans and the apes (without the fear), which shows just how far we’ve come as a species. We’ve gotten smarter…and dumber at the same time…
(Nar 20)> Anyway! A man finds another monolith orbiting Jupiter. Notice how I reduce David Bowman from a main character down to just “a man”. As if he isn’t important. If you think he is or ANYONE is important, then you’re missing the bigger picture of this film. The film isn’t about him, it doesn’t revolve around anyone. There are no main characters. (Nar 21)> The film focuses on the bigger picture that is mankind and how far we have come and how far we will go. (Nar 22)> What’s interesting about the humans in the film, notice how they all act sort of emotionless and robotic compared to HAL9000, an A.I. that speaks with more emotion and sounds more alive than the humans do, even though he is a piece of technology created by humans. (Nar 23)> When he gets lobotomized by Dave, he begs for his life, while Dave continues the procedure with minimal facial expression.
(Nar 24)> Is that a sign that humans are becoming less ‘humane’ as technology progresses? You can see glimpses of it in society right now, with social media and virtual reality etc. People prefer to stare at a screen, instead of interacting with people face-to-face. How disconnected with the real world are we going to be in 50 years?
(Nar 25)> Let’s get back to what really matters, the monolith. The planets and the monolith perfectly align to form the shape of a cross. What does this mean? The man is then teleported through what seems to be a wormhole to another dimension or a different part of the galaxy. (Nar 26)> The camera cuts to a modernized series of rooms with vintage furniture and antiques. We watch the man watching his older self, then he watches his older self then he watches his older self then it cuts to another monolith, and then a baby!? WHAT THE FU! What did we just witness? We watched mankind’s next evolutionary step. (Nar 27)> Now let’s go back to the cross. What does it mean? It’s a message that the man is Earth’s saviour. This is also where the theory of Da’at comes in (Again, link is in the description). (Nar 28)> He is then transported and fed all information that can possibly exist in the universe…What does “this” look like to you? The big bang perhaps? The man is being shown the creation of the universe and therefore learning all exist information that can possibly exist, becoming more intelligent than we could ever imagine. (Nar 29)> He is then transferred to an unrecognisable place but looks familiar at the same time. Is this room even real? Is he in his own subconscious mind? Heaven? A zoo created for him by Aliens? You can hear animal sounds in the background *Play animal sounds audio* which would suggest this theory. To add to this theory, we know zookeepers make familiar habitats for different animals (Nar 30)> …EXACTLY what the Aliens did for this “animal” here…wondering around in this new familiar but clearly fake habitat. Either way, he is there until he dies of old age. The monolith of course represents the next evolutionary step for mankind. The beginning of a new age of man evolved from a human into an all knowing being called the “Starchild”.
(Nar 31)> Now we can understand what Stanley is showing us before the title sequence. He is showing us a monolith. The film itself is a monolith. Which suggests that we’re about to watch a film so extraordinary, beautiful, and grand, that it exceeds “film”. It’s not a film, it’s an experience.
 

(SCENE 7, Nar A)

There is No other film like it
(Nar B)> How could a film that has roughly 88 minutes of no dialogue, provide so much value? It’s an experience that no other film provides. It’s as close as any film will ever get to an out-of-body-experience.
(Nar C)> I know The Godfather has better plot, and characters bla bla bla…But like I said, 2001 goes beyond that. These aspects are not important like they are in The Godfather. The Godfather NEEDS these things to make it a great film. And without these aspects, there is no film to watch. And may I add! Some say The Godfather ISN’T actually perfect! (Nar D)> according to the mafia, it wasn’t an accurate depiction of life in the Mafia. Some say it isn’t even the best Godfather film! The Godfather part II is in a sense, the first film but bigger and better. It has a deeper, more complex story. It takes aspects from the first film and improves on them.
(Nar E)> Anyway…There is a sense of believability with 2001. It feels factual, not fiction. Everything you see in the film looks like it’s happening in present day or could have happened in the past or will happen in the future…Like a visual history study on not just the origins of mankind but also the universe. (Nar F)> In an interview with vpro cinema, Keir Dullea (who plays Dave) said “A Nun said it was one of the most religious experiences she’s ever had.” (Nar G)> 2001 is like a visualization of an alternate version of the bible. A new religion. All told in 2 and a half hours. To me that is way more impressive and “grand” than anything we see in The Godfather.
And that’s why I believe 2001: A Space Odyssey is better than The Godfather…Thanks for watching…
 

(SCENE 8, Nar A) *Outro*
So yeah. Those are my thoughts, let me know your thoughts. Which film do you prefer? Are you happy? Unhappy? …and ah…how are you doing?! Howw’s your mum…that’s good to hear…
If you made it this far, please…punch your screen…and I’ll See you next time.