2001: A Space Odyssey

[tryrrthg]

WARNING: If you haven't seen this movie and would like to, don't read any more of this thread! I know the movie is old, but a "young" person like myself may not have seen it, although I dont' feel too young at 25...






I just saw this movie for the first time and I was wondering if anyone would do me the pleasure of explaining what the HELL went on there at the end! He travels through time and space and then BAM his spacecraft is sitting in the middle of some bedroom, and then he gets old? what the hell?

And that Monolith thing? what the heck was that? Did I miss something or is it just "proof" of inteligent life? Deeper meaning?

Please explain! it would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

[Frank Z]

2001 is one of those movies that must be watched at least a dozen times to really figure out what's going on. The monolith was nothing more than a big fancy-assed transmitter that let the "Things/Aliens" that created it now when humans had achieved certain milestones.... using tools/weapons, traveling to their own moon, space travel to another planet. Try watching 2010, a lot of your questions will be answered. I don't want to spoil the movie (2010) so that's all you get!:D

[RuSsMaN]

2010 moves a little faster, I agree. Watch 2010, then 2001 again.

[tryrrthg]

Thanks guys!

But what's with the ending and him ending up in some bedroom?

[tryrrthg]

Is this the right movie? 2010

There's a few options, "2010: the year we make contact", "2010 the odyssey continues"

what am I looking for...

Thanks!

[Frank Z]

2010: The Year We Make Contact is the movie.

We're not gonna tell ya...it will ruin the next movie.

[tryrrthg]

Thanks Frank!

I just put 2010 on reserve at the library!

[DarqueKnight]

Originally posted by tryrrthg
Thanks guys! But what's with the ending and him ending up in some bedroom?

Director Stanley Kubric wanted a minimum of dialog in this movie (there are on 41 minutes of dialog out of a total of 148 minutes). He was widely criticized for not offering more explanations in the movie. He once (jokingly) stated that the movie was made for people who had first read Arthur Clarke's novel. He may have been joking, but I think the movie does not make sense unless you have read the book.

The black monoliths are mechanisms made by alien beings who are helping humans along the evolutionary path. The book alludes to the aliens who created the monoliths as beings who go around seeding and cultivating intelligent life on various planets, and that they could not allow us to distroy ourselves.

At the end of the movie, Dave Bowman spends the rest of his life in that room, although it only seems like a few minutes to him because his mind and body are being accelerated up to the next evolutionary level.

Boman's "death" at the end of the movie is actually a transformation into the "starchild", which represents man's next evolutionary step.

If you recall that at the beginning of 2001, we see various satellites orbiting the earth. Most viewers would assume that those were communications satellites. However, Clarke's book explains that many of those satellites were acutally nuclear weapons that the nations of the earth had launched. The year 2001 is portrayed in the book as a time when mankind enjoys stunning technological achievements and world peace. However, almost every nation has nuclear weapons in orbit and the world enjoys a precarious and uneasy peace based on the prospect of mutual destruction. This is a time in which nuclear annihilation of the world is close at hand.

At the end of the movie the starchild travels from Jupiter and we last see him in orbit above the earth. Then the movie abruptly ends. In the book, the first thing the "starchild" does is safely detonate all the nuclear devices orbiting the earth, thereby assuring that mankind will not be able to blow himself up before he makes the next evolutionary leap.

Another puzzle in the movie is why did HAL become murderous? HAL was actually more humanlike in his thinking than his creators realized. The true purpose of the mission was known only to HAL and the three scientists in deep freeze. HAL also knew that the five astronauts on board had a high probability of not coming back alive. This mean that HAL had to lie and keep up pretenses. Recall when HAL is talking to the newscaster about the perfection of the HAL 9000 series computers and how the the 9000 series had never made an error. For HAL, who was a creature of high intelligence who prided himself on his "perfection", the act of lying (or making any kind of error) was too much for his artificial mind to endure. This (along with Dave and Frank's plan to "lobotomize" HAL) drove him insane. The proof that HAL was no longer thinking logically or rationally was when he murdered four crew members and locked Dave outside the ship. The ship's propulsion and navigation systems were two of the ship's systems not under HAL's control. If he would have succeeded in killing all the Discovery I's crew members, he would have been stranded in space.

The sequel, 2010, provides some additional insight, but does not "fill in the gaps" the way the original novel does.

By the way, I hope you were referring to the Warner Brothers digitally restored and remastered DVD version. MGM's version has horrible picture quality.

[Tour2ma]

Nice write up raife, filled a gap or two I did not even know I had...

[bikezappa]

Clark's book is a wonderful read and explains everything. It may open you up to new options.

Peter

[BRAD-TX]

Hehe, I just watched it for the first time also, this has answered a few questions I had also.

[tryrrthg]

Wow! Thanks everyone for the explanations. I have 2010 on the way from the library. I'll probably watch that this week some time.

I also have Clockwork Orange. Is that worth watching, or is it no good?

I guess I've been on a Kubrik movie craze lately.

[Tour2ma]

Well thee well my little Droogie... Up for a bit of the Ultraviolence are we?

While it now looks a bit dated, after all it was made in 1971, Clockwork Orange is one of my favorite movies of all time. It's Kubrick's dark vision of the Anthony Burgess' novel. Malcolm McDowell was great in the lead role.

I can't promise you that you will love it, but IMO it is a great film and worth a couple hours of your time.

EDIT: Since you on a Kubrick spree, have you crossed "Dr. Strangelove (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb)" off of your list yet?

[tryrrthg]

Since you on a Kubrick spree, have you crossed "Dr. Strangelove (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb)" off of your list yet?

No, I only decided to get Clockwork and Odyssey from the library because I watched part of that TV special on the "top Villains" or whatever it was, and HAL and someone from Clockwork were on the list. I've always wanted to see Odyssey, but never got around to it until now. I'll have to see if the library has Dr. Strangelove...

The only other Kubrik film I've seen is Full Metal Jacket and I LOVE that first 30 to 45 minutes. The drill sergeant is the MAN!

[woodyjacobs]

And don't forget about "The Shining."

...all work and no play make Jack a dull boy. (I think that is how it went)

[bikezappa]

I hope you could see 2001 on the big screen. I have a front projection TV that is a ten foot diagonal, but it is too small for this movie when letter boxed. I saw the movie in the 60's at the large, but now they are all gone, screen movie theaters. The audience was blown away. Nobody had read Clark's book then and everyone was confused. Sort of like the new child in the movie. Every Kubrick film is good or at least has some new perspective.

They are all worth watching even his first few where he didn't have complete control over the films. There is an excellent documentary on HBO I think that explains all his films together, recommended.

Have a blast.

[tryrrthg]

Well I finally watched 2010 last night. Pretty entertaining! I did enjoy it, and the movie answered most of my questions.

Are there any more "Space Odyssey" movies that continue the story line?

[section19]

Originally posted by tryrrthg
Well I finally watched 2010 last night. Pretty entertaining! I did enjoy it, and the movie answered most of my questions.

Are there any more "Space Odyssey" movies that continue the story line?

No, but Clarke wrote a book called "3001: The Final Oddysey" that concludes the story.

[section19]

Originally posted by raife1
Director Stanley Kubric wanted a minimum of dialog in this movie (there are on 41 minutes of dialog out of a total of 148 minutes). He was widely criticized for not offering more explanations in the movie. He once (jokingly) stated that the movie was made for people who had first read Arthur Clarke's novel. He may have been joking, but I think the movie does not make sense unless you have read the book.

He must have been joking since the book wasn't actually released until after the movie came out. Clarke didn't even start writing it until Kubrick approached him about collaborating on a sci-fi film with him. In fact the local library here describes the book, on it's data base, as being "based on the screenplay by Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick". He was still finishing the novel while the movie was being filmed.

I just spent the last few days reading the book and have a copy of the dvd from the library (remastered) that I'm looking forward to viewing again this weekend.

[DarqueKnight]

Originally posted by section19
He must have been joking since the book wasn't actually released until after the movie came out.

Yeah, the film went into general release in April of 1968 and the book was released in July of 1968.

[DarqueKnight]

Originally posted by tryrrthg
Are there any more "Space Odyssey" movies that continue the story line?

In addition to "3001: The Final Odyssey", there was another book published before it, "2061: Odyssey Three".

"The Making of 2001" by Jerome Agel and "2001: Filming the Future" by Piers Bizony are two books that provide interesting interviews with the principals behind the movie as well as photographs and technical details of the film's production.