2001: A Space Odyssey

[The Mandarin 0]

I just watched this, and obviously it will require a second viewing (or even a reading of the book)..but..

 

What the hell went on during the last thirty minutes? I think the high pitched noise the monolith made scrambled my brains.

 

Can anybody explain what went through Stanley Kubrick's mind during filming?

[Art Sandusky 0]

If you read the book and keep in mind this was made in 1969, you'll see why the last thirty minutes ended up the way it did. Were it made today it would have been a lot more representative of what was in the book thanks to current effects abilities. What bugs me most is them going to Jupiter instead of Saturn in the film and then Clarke altering the later books to take place around Jupiter instead of Saturn.

 

Then again, the book and screenplay were written almost in concert, and some later prints of the book have been altered, so whatever.

[River City Rocker 0]

After Dave Bowman outsmarted HAL by getting back into Discovery and disabling him, the prerecorded message from Dr. Floyd came on. I don't remember the exact message, but it still inspires Dave to take another pod out to meet the new monolith floating in Jupiter's airspace.

 

The monoliths (placed by an apparently superior race of aliens monitoring human activity on Earth) only showed up at crucial points in mankind's developments. First, it appeared at the dawn of man, where the apes discovered how to use tools (the bones) to defeat the rival tribe, kill animals for food, and ensuring its survival. The next appearance was when man landed on the moon and excavated the second monolith. The sharp signal was the warning that man had made it all the way to the moon, which is worlds removed from the primitive man that evolved from the apes.

 

The third monolith that Dave confronts in space is the one that was destined to show up when man finally evolved to the point where he does not NEED machines or tools anymore, and is ready to move up. You could argue that the "beyond the infinite" sequence was the portal to wherever Dave ended up, and it's been said that the hotel suite that Dave ends up in is part of a great cosmic zoo. The final monolith that appears as Dave is dying is the one signaling man's evolution to godhood (for lack of better terms).

 

Of course, Arthur Clarke once said: "If you understand 2001 completely, [Kubrick and I] failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered."

 

-Ben

 

P.S. Rock Hudson walked out of the Los Angeles premiere, saying, "Will someone tell me what the hell this is about?"

[Art Sandusky 0]

The first monolith taught Man how to use tools and showed it images of what it would eventually become in the actual book. In the film, the monkey looks it and gets the idea without much exposition as to how. The monoliths were all planted simultaneously, all showing the same age. The second on the moon was indeed meant to send a signal to the big one by Saturn (I'm using the book version here), which was indeed meant to be a portal to show man what else was in the universe, and took Dave Bowman to be monitored and have a final monolith help him transcend his physical form and become pure, free-floating energy. The sequel books expand on this a LOT more, and are what I consider real science fiction more than the common defition of Star Trek/Wars or whatever.

[The Mandarin 0]

Thanks for helping.

 

What was the symbolism of the baby at the end, though?

[Ravenbomb 0]

That was David being reborn as the "starchild" (What it was called in the book)

[Art Sandusky 0]

The baby was Dave Bowman. In the book, he actually uses his new powers to detonate some of the oribiting space bombs around Earth to alert humans to his transendence.

[Anakin Flair 0]

I started watching this moive, then realised it SUCKED. I loathe this movie in ways that I never thought were possible.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Oh, you done fucked up now boy-o. If you didn't want to finish it, you didn't deserve to see it in the first place. Arthur C. Clarke owns you.

[MrRant 0]

The first monolith taught Man how to use tools and showed it images of what it would eventually become in the actual book. In the film, the monkey looks it and gets the idea without much exposition as to how. The monoliths were all planted simultaneously, all showing the same age. The second on the moon was indeed meant to send a signal to the big one by Saturn (I'm using the book version here), which was indeed meant to be a portal to show man what else was in the universe, and took Dave Bowman to be monitored and have a final monolith help him transcend his physical form and become pure, free-floating energy. The sequel books expand on this a LOT more, and are what I consider real science fiction more than the common defition of Star Trek/Wars or whatever.

Star Wars isn't really sci-fi compared to Star Trek. Star Trek is very much sci fi and has had been praised by both Arthur C. Clarke and Issac Asmoiv (sp). Gene Roddenberry is just as important to science fiction as those two.

[Ravenbomb 0]

how would you rank 3001 among the books? I never got past the part where they find whatshisname since I lost the book

[Art Sandusky 0]

The first monolith taught Man how to use tools and showed it images of what it would eventually become in the actual book. In the film, the monkey looks it and gets the idea without much exposition as to how. The monoliths were all planted simultaneously, all showing the same age. The second on the moon was indeed meant to send a signal to the big one by Saturn (I'm using the book version here), which was indeed meant to be a portal to show man what else was in the universe, and took Dave Bowman to be monitored and have a final monolith help him transcend his physical form and become pure, free-floating energy. The sequel books expand on this a LOT more, and are what I consider real science fiction more than the common defition of Star Trek/Wars or whatever.

Star Wars isn't really sci-fi compared to Star Trek. Star Trek is very much sci fi and has had been praised by both Arthur C. Clarke and Issac Asmoiv (sp). Gene Roddenberry is just as important to science fiction as those two.

Well yeah, but as far as Joe Blow is concerned, it's all about spaceships and photon torpedoes and Spock.

 

Talking about this reminds me, I still need to see Solaris.

 

EDIT: I'd rank 3001 3rd among the four books, ahead of 2061.

[Guest El Satanico]

Talking about this reminds me, I still need to see Solaris.

Which one?

 

If you mean the original Russian film...drink alot of coffee before hand. It's looong and slowly paced, not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Youth N Asia 0]

I loved the stuff with Dave and HAL. That alone made for a great movie...but the rest just seemed confusing for confusings sake. Fuckin' Kubrick. Also I could have done without a long shot of the little pods taking their sweet time loading up and slowly leaving the ship.

[Guest El Satanico]

Don't you bad mouth Kubrick, ya bastid

[Youth N Asia 0]

Yeah, and Eyes Wide Shut was shyte too

[AndrewTS 0]

2001 isn't exactly supposed to be an "entertaining" movie. It's a visual work of art that was also, correct me if I'm wrong, the first time the real physics of space were represented on the big screen. It's deep in symbolism and yes, it is supposed to raise a lot of questions and leave you wondering "what the hell?!"

 

Yeah, it's long...and a lags a bit...it's supposed to. Get over it.

 

Of course, there's the theory that it was intended for potheads to trip to...

 

Kubrick's vision for EWS was different from what you ended up seeing, BTW.

[Betty Houle 0]

2001 is in my top 25 favorite movies.

 

I feel if you don't walk away from 2001 (or almost any piece of art) with your own interpretation, you shouldn't be given one.

 

In days past you might not be. Now the internet can provide you with the "official explanation" of all imagery, subtext, etc.

 

Sheesh!

[AndrewTS 0]

I agree--but this is a case where there's no "official" explanation. I've seen no less than five different theories about what the monoliths represent, for instance.

 

While I don't need to have my hand held through most movies with symbolism, etc, once I've deduced on my own, it's fun to read up on it, see some things that I missed, and so on.

[Betty Houle 0]

While I don't need to have my hand held through most movies with symbolism, etc, once I've deduced on my own, it's fun to read up on it, see some things that I missed, and so on.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. Don't mind me - I woke up on the wrong side of bed today.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Talking about this reminds me, I still need to see Solaris.

Which one?

The recent one with George Clooney. I've had it sitting in the pile of DVDs I still have from working at a video store last summer (I got tipped off that I was getting canned, so I grabbed some of our better films or stuff I thought would be good that no one would miss). Same with Magnolia. I've had both for almost a year and still haven't watched either.

[AndrewTS 0]

While I don't need to have my hand held through most movies with symbolism, etc, once I've deduced on my own, it's fun to read up on it, see some things that I missed, and so on.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. Don't mind me - I woke up on the wrong side of bed today.

Well, Wheat's book gives you probably the best look at Arthur C. Clarke's most likely interpretations, but the movie is hardly limited to them. Plus, the use of the visual medium (basically, almost all of 2001 is visual, which makes so many of its symbolism and subtext difficult to identify at first) expands it far beyond what can be done in a book.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I try to keep my interpretations of things in the simplest way I can, because the later books get really abstract as far as Dave and his actual state go. I read all of them, but damned if I knew what the non-narrative part was about that involved Dave and HAL floating around.