http://gamingtrend.com
October 02, 2014, 02:35:39 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Can somebody please explain 2001:A Space Odyssey to me please  (Read 1022 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
metallicorphan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 16378



View Profile
« on: June 12, 2012, 08:33:16 PM »

Back in the late 80's i was sick of reading everywhere how 2001 influenced all the great Sci-Fi films,so as a 13 year old i sat down to watch it...I didn't get it,i was confused and had no idea what was going on

I watched it for the second time today(with the first showing still in mind)this time around i enjoyed it,i enjoyed the story,i enjoyed the visual effects and can easily see Alien and Star Wars in there,and i loved the music of the film also

However,i still have not got a clue what that end was about


brief explanation to remind people:(yup,obviously spoilers here if you have not seen it or fancy watching it again)

After disconnecting HAL 9000(about 20 minutes from the end of the movie),the ship enters Jupiter's space and a video plays of their Top Secret orders,that a Black Monolith(similar to the one shown at the beginning of the film with the monkeys..more on that later)was found buried on the moon and is 4 million years old and was giving off a radio signal coming from they suspect Jupiter,and it's is their job it investigate(reminded me of Dead Space that part...the Artifact etc)

next cut to Jupiter and surrounding Moons and David out in the space hopper(i dunno,space vehicle thing) and he looks to be going through a Vortex or wormhole or something,as that(or another)Black Monolith appears to be floating in space

David,in his space suit still inside the space hopper,suddenly appears in a bedroom(as in him and the space ship in the bedroom),and then he appears out off the space hopper in his space suit

he sees an old man having his dinner sat at the table,the old man turns round and gets up and walks in David's direction,only David is no longer there,and the old man turns out to be David

So,Old man David returns to his Dinner at the table but drops a Glass,as Old Man David looks at the glass,he notices somebody in his bed,and it turns out to be "even older man David",and as we look upon Even older man David,old Man David is no longer there

So while in bed,Even Older Man David lifts his arm up and points to the Black Monolith which has just appeared at the foot of his bed...we suddenly see what appears to be a Baby in a Womb(i say baby,but it looks a bit odd to me)


and the movie ends there



so,a few things of point
1)-Throughout the movie it appears the Black Monolith has appeared at vital times during man's existence,first at the dawn of man while we were still Monkeys,when the monkey got an idea to use the Bone to first smash the skull in near the bone he found and then later to kick the shit out of his fellow monkey,using the bone as a weapon,then later it appears on the Moon and then at the end

2)-Are the answers in the sequel "2010:The Year we Make Contact" with Roy Scheider and Helen Mirren?

3)-The only thing i can think of about that end is that we are somehow witnessing a new life form perhaps,or David's life is flashing before him before dying and then reincarnation perhaps(i dunno I'm making this up as i go along)


or
4)-Am i not meant to get it,but sport a Goatie beard and smoke Pall malls while wearing a beret saying "great Art,man" ?


thanks for any explanation,and sorry for the long and annoying post
Logged

Manchester United Premier League Champions 2013!!

Xbox LIVE:Metallicorphan
Wii:8565 1513 0206 1960
PSN:Metallicorphan
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 8837



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 12, 2012, 08:36:13 PM »

There are answers in 2010.  The Soviets and the Americans both send a mission to see what happened to HAL. 
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
PR_GMR
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3422



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2012, 08:39:35 PM »

The whole ending of '2001: A Space Odyssey' is meant to represent man's evolution into a higher lifeform. The monoliths that are encountered thru the film evolve all who come in contact with them. When Dave falls into the monolith, it's like he's fallen into a black hole. Time passes by ever so slowly. It's like he lives the rest of his life inside the monolith and then dies.. only to be reborn as The Star Child, a higher, more evolved lifeform.

No, the answers aren't in the sequel, btw.
Logged
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 8837



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2012, 08:51:47 PM »

THE answers, no, but there are answers.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
Montag
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 97


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2012, 09:23:21 PM »

Tareeq of Octopus Overlords did:

http://octopusoverlords.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=58617&p=1175188&hilit=2001+space+odyssey#wrap
Logged
metallicorphan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 16378



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2012, 09:54:01 PM »

Quote from: PR_GMR on June 12, 2012, 08:39:35 PM

The whole ending of '2001: A Space Odyssey' is meant to represent man's evolution into a higher lifeform. The monoliths that are encountered thru the film evolve all who come in contact with them. When Dave falls into the monolith, it's like he's fallen into a black hole. Time passes by ever so slowly. It's like he lives the rest of his life inside the monolith and then dies.. only to be reborn as The Star Child, a higher, more evolved lifeform.

No, the answers aren't in the sequel, btw.

Ahh,that does sound better than my(point 3) answer

I'm just glad that i enjoyed it this time around,i have loved all Stanley Kubrick films i have seen(yes even Eyes Wide Closed),but 2001 was always the black sheep

I have seen 2010 a long time ago(maybe even before i saw 2001)...but i can not remember anything of it,i just remember watching it with my Dad

Looking on IMDB i see John Lithgow is also in it..he is always worth a watch,he made 2010 the same year as Footloose  ...and Buckaroo Banzai Tongue

The director Peter Hyams had made a few decent films(Outland,Capricorn One)and a few bad ones(Timecop,Stay Tuned),so i will keep a look out for 2010

thanks for your answers guys

EDIT:Thanks for your link Montag,i quite liked that Amazon quote in the first post,whether true or not..and Tareeq's comment was enlightening
Logged

Manchester United Premier League Champions 2013!!

Xbox LIVE:Metallicorphan
Wii:8565 1513 0206 1960
PSN:Metallicorphan
Teggy
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 8650


Eat lightsaber, jerks!


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2012, 10:30:29 PM »

Read the book, it actually explains what's going on.
Logged

"Is there any chance your jolly Garchomp is female?" - Wonderpug
kronovan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7921



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2012, 10:37:18 PM »

Despite very much liking the movie, I never felt the ending was very coherent - apparently that's the way Kubrick and Clarke intended it. Sort of a "leave as many questions unanswered as answered" approach. If you really want to understand it IMO you have to read the 2001 novel which differs slightly is more lucid IMO. Both the novel and the movie script were adapted from 1 of Clarkes earlier short stories named The Sentinel.

Quote from: PR_GMR on June 12, 2012, 08:39:35 PM

The whole ending of '2001: A Space Odyssey' is meant to represent man's evolution into a higher lifeform. The monoliths that are encountered thru the film evolve all who come in contacty with them. When Dave falls into the monolith, it's like he's fallen into a black hole. Time passes by ever so slowly. It's like he lives the rest of his life inside the monolith and then dies.. only to be reborn as The Star Child, a higher, more evolved lifeform.

Yeah, pretty much my understanding of it, and that makes the lead up to the end more comprehendible. As I understand it; the monolith is an extraterrestrial superintelligence that is strategically positioned at 3 historical and physical junctures of Human evolution. The 1st, the dawn of man, is a visit to a site populated by a community of our primate anscestors roughly 4 million years ago. Those primates are introduced to simple tool manipulation, which is the start of the evolution towards modern Man.

The 2nd Monolith buried on the moon is situated so that it will be discoved when humanity has developed the capability of space travel and inhabitation 4 million years later. Once reached it emitts a radio transmission to 1 of Jupiter's moons -IIRC In the original novel it was Saturn- so that Humans will explore out to that point. The distance is deliberate, because to travel their Humanity will have to have evolved even more sophiticated space travel and be assisted by advanced Arificial Intelligence. As it stands, in both the movie and novels timeline, Humanity was already at that point where an exploration to Jupiter is possible. The extraterrestrial monolith doesn't actually care which 1 succesfully reaches it -a biological crew member or the sophistcated HAL AI computer- as either are capable of evolving. IIRC that wasn't so much Clarkes idea as Kubrik's.

When astronaut Bowman finally travels out to the monolith in orbit around Jupiter in his EVA Pod, he begins a new stage of Human evolution. In the novel its a bit more clear that he actually descends into the Monolith which becomes tunnel-like and which then portals him across time and space, eventually arriving at a suite that resembles 18th century colonial architecture. The important thing to realise about the ending scene and suite, is that the location is an artificial construct created by the extraterrestrial Monolith soley for Bowman's benefit.

Its been decades since I've read the novel, but I remember the concept of that location as an artificial construct being much better explained. Its at the colonial suite where Bowman undergoes Humanities next transformation/evolution. Which is why you see him in different stages of human growth - i.e. middle aged, ederly, on his death bed, and finally a reborn fetus. In fact he's evolved into something well beyond a biologial Human Being in the final scene where he's represented as a fetus in Earths orbit, but IMO the movie screwed that concept up quite badly. In the 2010 movie you see Bowan again as an appartition, but by that time he's almost tranitioned to the next stage of evolution.

Quote
No, the answers aren't in the sequel, btw.

I tend to agree. The 2010 movie took a bit more literal or straight forward approach, but it still didn't answer all the questions of the 1st movie. The orignal novel IMO is still the best source for a clearer explanation.

[Edit] Oh crap I typed a lot more than I thought I would.  icon_confused
« Last Edit: June 12, 2012, 10:43:29 PM by kronovan » Logged
PR_GMR
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3422



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2012, 10:44:26 PM »

Quote from: metallicorphan on June 12, 2012, 09:54:01 PM


EDIT:Thanks for your link Montag,i quite liked that Amazon quote in the first post,whether true or not..and Tareeq's comment was enlightening

Here's Tareeq's remarkably comprehensive post:

Quote

Postby Tareeq Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:59 pm
It isn't necessarily a sign of great art that a work produces confusion and consternation forty years after its release, but it's not Dogs Shooting Pool #5 either.

Without referring to the Ebert link, I'll try to explain what I love about this film. It may take me several posts, and I may lack the technical knowledge or jargon to explain the cinematographical aspects, but I'll try. Some of this comes from a drunken telephone conversation with our own Enough during this thread's first incarnation, and some from an aborted post at Mr. Fed's blog which I deleted before publication because it didn't feel right. It may take me a week to flesh out what I have to say about this film, and I may just move on, but any comments or criticisms about what I do write would be appreciated.

The easiest part of the film's appeal is thematic. 2001 is the only critically and commercially successful film whose subject is human evolution and godhead. All of us wonder where we came from, and where we're going, and what will become of the species once we're gone. 2001 is the only film of which I know that even tries to tackle this, the biggest of subjects, what is man? The monoliths that appear in the film, I posit, are metaphors, visual shorthands as much as storytelling devices that allow us, the audience, to jumpcut through millions of years or decades to view the progress of our ancestors and descendants.

At the beginning, I do hope we can all concede that the longterm survival of our species depends on getting off earth and establishing a foothold in space. We may not be able to survive on this planet in 500 years. This is apparent from our pessimistic viewpoint in 2008, but the need and desirabililty of space travel, even in the optimistic times of 1968, with the moon just before us, was apparent to Clarke and Kubrick, who didn't know about global warming but sure as hell did know about the fear of nuclear war between Americans and Russians, a point to which I shall try to return. As an aside, at 40 years of age I can remember worrying as a child and as an adolescent that my life would be cut short by nuclear war. Engaging in moral equivalency, Osama Bin Laden and George Bush had nothing, for sheer terror, on Jimmy Carter/Ronald Reagan vs. Leonid Brezhnev/Yuri Andropov. I was sure I'd be dead in 2008. I can't imagine the fear that people felt in 1968, when the Prague Spring was being crushed.

At the beginning of the film (titled as a hint-hint "The Dawn of Man") we're introduced to a tribe of apes, who are, in all important respects, animals. These apes battle a larger tribe, or run from them, over possesssion of a water hole, and live in mortal terror of the local leopard. They eat and shelter in unaggressive proximity to peccarys, piglike African mammals which share a vegetarian diet but don't compete for the same foods.

The apes are failing. Their competitors in the larger band hold the water hole, and their numbers diminish under the leopard and similar predators.

Something changes. The first monolith appears. The smartest ape in the smaller band, as a consequence of the monolith's influence (it may be God, it may be genes, it may be culture, but for the purposes of the film it is posited as alien intelligence) discovers the most primitive form of tool use: that the arm is a lever, and that a thigh bone from one of the peccarys lengthens the arm and makes it a more powerful lever. It allows the smaller band to crack peccary heads, gaining meat, a better food source, to ward off the leopard, which for earlier apes was as mysterious and dangerous as lightning, and most importantly, to drive off, and kill, the larger band of apes, taking their females and their water. The intelligent ape who had this insight into tool use is rewarded with a longer and easier life, and many descendants who in turn have their own insights.

(In this, the monolith is merely a metaphor, for insight, intelligence, and inspiration.)

This leads to a shot, a single montage, which has been parodied many times and become a staple of popular culture, but which was and still remains astonishing, the triumphant evolving ape's tossing of the thigh bone with which he has defeated his rivals into the air, becoming a space station. Like the baby carriage in Battleship Potemkin, like the shower scene, like Leatherface waving his chainsaw in the early dawn hours after Sally's escape, this is one of the most unforgettable film sequences created. It will remain so.

Tens of thousands of years later, the descendants of that ape occupy near earth orbit, and the moon. And yet, though all descended from that ancestor, they're still divided into tribes (The Americans and the Russians as well as every other nation), and still in danger of the leopard, which is now their own ability to destroy themselves with nuclear weapons. They still confront one another over the metaphorical water hole, through diplomacy and through disinformation, illustrated by American Dr. Heywood Floyd's genuinely warm and friendly discussion with Russian Dr. Andrei Schmislov concerning the "epidemic" at the American Clavius moon base, where Floyd lies like a rug.

In fact, the Americans have discovered something. Another monolith. Another advance. In this case, something we don't quite, and can't quite, get. We, the audience, understand tools, but we don't quite get what the next step is. Will it be AI? Evolution and improvement of the mind itself? Some other technological or even ontological discovery? It will be conveyed, as the film progresses, through visual and filmic metaphor.

I am proud to say that Tareeq is a real-life good friend of mine.  nod
Logged
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3395



View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 13, 2012, 02:24:57 AM »

The Space Odyssey Explained
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 13, 2012, 03:14:45 AM »

wooo, woooo, wooo...

so 2001 is just a metaphor for clubbing women on the head so we can drag them back to our cave and listen to dark side of the moon???

also, its full of stars???

and finally, god bless america, and dune

what?
Logged
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 13, 2012, 03:15:35 AM »

ooooooooh, THAT floyd!
Logged
Creepy_Smell
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 652

Load"*",8,1


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 13, 2012, 03:37:18 AM »

Pacino in 2001 smile
Logged

Blackjack
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10874



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 14, 2012, 12:35:17 PM »

Questioning whether any Stanley Kubrick film is less than genius is like questioning if the Pope is Catholic. icon_razz

For my part, my family saw 2001 at a theater in Virginia in 1969 when I was 4. Apparently about 15 minutes into the movie I curled up in a ball in my seat and slept through the rest of the movie. I think the movie had the same effect on me a couple of times as an adult when I rented it on Betamax and VHS.  icon_smile

The one time I stayed awake through it I believe was for a college class. It wasn't even a film class. I just remembered we watched the whole thing, and our teacher occasionally pointed out things of interest to us, and we discussed certain points in the movie. I think if the DVD has some sort of commentary (clearly Kubrick the recluse never did one), maybe by a film critic or film historian, that would be a good way to watch the film if you're struggling to understand "what it all means."

As "entertainment," I'm not sure 2001 ever worked for me. For the most part it's a cold, detached film (by design).

As for the answers, you can Google much better ones than anything I can come up with.  icon_smile
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 12:38:53 PM by Blackjack » Logged

Playing
PC
-Wasteland 2 (post-apoc, turn-based squad strategy/RPG )
-Grim Dawn
-Gauntlet (4 player co-op dungeon arcade brawling)
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.094 seconds with 51 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.014s, 2q)