# 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)



## padders (Mar 2, 2001)

I never seem to be able to find this on tv, never seems to be on! I loved the book and really want to watch it. If anyone from the UK knows when it is next on, give me a shout!


----------



## markpud (Mar 5, 2001)

its a good film, very odd...

Will keep my eye out for it for you Padders  (its hard to search for it in the listings now, as there are tonnes of programs on the telly with 2001 in the title at the moment  )


----------



## Dave (Mar 28, 2001)

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) 141 Minutes.

http://uk.imdb.com/Title?0062622


Directed by Stanley Kubrick.  

Writing credits Arthur C. Clarke.(short story)

Mankind finds a mysterious, monolithic artifact buried on the moon and, with the most famous of all sci-fi movie computers, HAL 9000, sets off on a quest. The monoliths have been watching over us, and guiding mankind since the dawn of time. What it all means.... seems it means different things for different people. Some people read Religious significance. Kubrick was deliberately obtuse.

Before I ever saw the film, a friend told me that I would understand it better if I read the book first. He them added that I wouldn't understand the book, until after I had seen the film. That about sums it up for me!

Brilliant model work, accurate scenes of the Moon before we had been there, and obscure.


----------



## nicscifi (Nov 12, 2001)

*General Discussions*

Is there anyone there who has enjoyed this awesome film?


----------



## DarkCity545 (Dec 9, 2001)

yes, it was the best i have ever seen.  i have it on video and dvd.
for the time it was made it was so realistic and most of it has come to pass in this day and time.  while i was station in germany i would fall a sleep to this movie it was so calming.


----------



## nicscifi (Dec 9, 2001)

Fall asleep? I could never do anything like that. I have got the film on video (also 2010) really want to see it again, but cant, we dont have a VCR, it's not on the high proirity list.
It was ws very relistic, i agree to that. Hav you read the novel as well?


----------



## Ivanhoe (Feb 9, 2002)

*A Masterpiece !!*

: Because of it's intelligence and unique story, especially when we take note  that this movie was made back in 1968, I can say that this movie is the  best SF movie ever made. With effects that were groundbreaking at the time but are also quite acceptable for today's standards.  It was made  cleverly and with stile, so that the technological flaws of the time of  it's creation failed to show. It is also important to say that this is the first movie that showed alien intelligence as  something so much different   of our own, which is large step forward from little green bug-eyed monsters, that were so viciously exploited since then. 2001 is movie that is totally opened to interpretation, it's visually strange ending something that makes it so great because you can understand it the way it suits your own mind, so if you've somehow missed it , go and se it because this is not wham-bam action movie ... this is a piece of art.


----------



## thor4713 (Jan 3, 2004)

*2001:A space odessy*

I have recently watched this film on t.v. and i can't qite figure out what happens.  Please can someone explain to me how there is a giant alien at the end and what the story is in general.

                                           Thanx in advance

                                         Thor4713


----------



## ray gower (Jan 3, 2004)

Welcome to the clan! 

I never really worked out what the film was about either, unless it was a long running commercial for velcro!

The theme of the book, however is enlightenment. 
This is the idea behind the cave apes finding the obelisk at the beginning.
The finding of the alien artifact at the end is supposed to spur us on to the next great stage of evolution, where we start to exceed our own boundaries.


----------



## L. Arkwright (Jan 3, 2004)

The Baby at the end is supposed to signify Bowman reborn as a starchild, the next evolutionary step in humans. The Black slab kickstarts this at the moment of his death just in the same way it tampers with the apes at the begining of the movie. The baby is how Bowman percieves himself. 

Welcome to Ascifi Thor.


----------



## Tabitha (Jan 4, 2004)

Yep, I don't think you are supposed to understand it all right away.  Perhaps the meaning becomes clear with repeated viewings, but in my own case I took the book out at the library, and greatly enjoyed the (actually very clear) explanation of what happens in the film.

In fact, 2001 and its 3 sequels are very enjoyable, I couldn't recommend them enough, even if the last one (3001) is not clearly part of the series.

Do you think anyone understood this right off the bat?


----------



## L. Arkwright (Jan 4, 2004)

I read the books first and like you say, they clear up the fuzzy bits in the film very well. It's just a shame that 2001 came out as a movie before the novel. People must have been wandering about thinking "Eh?"
Going back to your problem though Thor, maybe you should follow Tabitha's suggestion and read the story. It does actually heighten the enjoyment of the movie.

If you can, get a hold of edition of "The lost worlds of 2001." This is a kinda diary that Clarke wrote concerning his feelings and ideas with the 2001 project. It includes rough drafts of the plot, complete storys that where to be the movie but didnt make it and the short story, "The Sentinel" that started off the whole thing.


(Tabitha, was it just me or did you find 3001 a bit of an anti-climax?)


----------



## ray gower (Jan 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Tabitha _
> *Do you think anyone understood this right off the bat? *


*Ans* No!

Not sure if I understand it now and I've read the book!

The use of Velcro- Yes
Appreciation of the Blu Danube- Yes
Artificial Intelligence Computers not being a good idea- Yes

Inspiration to bigger things- No


----------



## Whitestar (May 19, 2004)

*2001: A Space Odyssey Question*

In 2001, the first monolith (found on the moon) was called TMA
-1 (Tycho Magnetic Anomoly 1). Does anyone know what was the name of the second monolith, the one in orbit around Jupiter (or Saturn in the book), called?


Whitestar


----------



## polymorphikos (May 19, 2004)

*Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey Question*

I don't think it had a name, did it?


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 19, 2004)

*Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey Question*

I'm afriad I haven't actually read 2010 - is it named in there?


----------



## Foxbat (May 20, 2004)

*Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey Question*

It's quite a while since I've read the book but isn't there some reference to it being the Monolith at La Grange Point (some astronomical term)?


----------



## Michael (May 20, 2004)

*Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey Question*

I still need to read the first two.  Since I saw the movies I went directly to _2069_ and _3001_.  I'm sure I'll more from the books than I did from the movies (although, for a movie, _2001_ was very well done).


----------



## Stryker (Nov 16, 2004)

*Re: General Discussions*



> _Originally posted by nicscifi _
> *Is there anyone there who has enjoyed this awesome film? *




Me!!!!

Loved this classic movie and the music score that went with it.

Not much for classical music but in this case you could not help but to enjoy it.



Stryker


----------



## unclejack (Sep 5, 2007)

Hey yall, I just wanted to ask a question for any Space Odyssey fans out there. Please don't be offended by the ignorance of this question if you like the movie because I am a big science fiction fan, but what in the world was that movie about because I just don't get it. I mean, I like movies that are somewhat interpretive in their them and in concepts throughout the movie but when it becomes so abstract that you struggle to make sense of it then it becomes aggrivating to me. I only watched it for the first time in the past year so my interest in understanding it is fairly new. If you think you have it figured out and you understand what was happenen, please let me know. I don't understand the black box on the moon and at the beginning of time and I definately don't get the ending at all. Any comments or thoughts are welcome.


----------



## unclejack (Sep 6, 2007)

*2001 A Space Oddyssy*

Hey yall, I just wanted to ask a question for any Space Odyssey fans out there. Please don't be offended by the ignorance of this question if you like the movie because I am a big science fiction fan, but what in the world was that movie about because I just don't get it. I mean, I like movies that are somewhat interpretive in their them and in concepts throughout the movie but when it becomes so abstract that you struggle to make sense of it then it becomes aggrivating to me. I only watched it for the first time in the past year so my interest in understanding it is fairly new. If you think you have it figured out and you understand what was happenen, please let me know. I don't understand the black box on the moon and at the beginning of time and I definately don't get the ending at all. Any comments or thoughts are welcome.


----------



## mosaix (Sep 6, 2007)

*Re: 2001 A Space Oddyssy*

You probably need to read a short story called '*The Sentinel*' by Arthur C Clarke as a starting point.


----------



## gully_foyle (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: 2001 A Space Oddyssy*

Actually, you are better off reading 2001 by Arthur C Clarke if you want to understand the ending.


----------



## steve12553 (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: 2001 A Space Oddyssy*

I saw the movie many years ago and didn't get it, although I was fascinated. I read the book and had a firm grasp of it. Then I saw the movie again and didn't get it again. So I read the book again.


----------



## unclejack (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: 2001 A Space Oddyssy*

Hmmm. Well, I was kinda lookin for a quick answer. It's not really important enough to me to know what the ending was all about that I'm willin to go read a book to find out. No sarcasm intended, thanks for the advice but I'm just not that interested.


----------



## kythe (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: 2001 A Space Oddyssy*

I thought the book was much better than the movie.  It tells a great story, offers insights into human nature and history, and is pretty easy reading.  For all the rave reviews about the "classic film", I think you're better off reading the book and skipping the movie entirely.  If you decide to pick it up, it won't take long to read.


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 7, 2007)

unclejack said:


> Hey yall, I just wanted to ask a question for any Space Odyssey fans out there. Please don't be offended by the ignorance of this question if you like the movie because I am a big science fiction fan, but what in the world was that movie about because I just don't get it. I mean, I like movies that are somewhat interpretive in their them and in concepts throughout the movie but when it becomes so abstract that you struggle to make sense of it then it becomes aggrivating to me. I only watched it for the first time in the past year so my interest in understanding it is fairly new. If you think you have it figured out and you understand what was happenen, please let me know. I don't understand the black box on the moon and at the beginning of time and I definately don't get the ending at all. Any comments or thoughts are welcome.


 
A rundown on *2001*? Been a while, but here goes:

The "black box" or monolith seen at the beginning with the early hominids and then again on the moon (and later in space) were alien devices that (as I understand it) were a very sophisticated type of computer/communications device, perhaps having some organic aspects as well (I'm going strictly from the film here, not the books, in the last of which, I understand, more information is given... but I've not read that one). Via these devices, an alien race gave our ancestors a slight "nudge"... a very tiny tinkering with our reactions... to give us a possibility of evolving into a complex intelligent species. It nudged us into being toolmakers, essentially, launching us on the path to a technological civilization, but leaving the full development to us; in part, I'd say, to see if we could achieve such without "nursemaiding", and also to see what variety of technological civilization we would develop.

The monolith on the moon was buried there so that, should be achieve that level of sophistication (space travel to our satellite), it would challenge us to find it and, once it was exposed to the sun's rays, it acted as a communications beacon, letting the originators of the device know how far we'd come; sort of an early warning system to let them know we were on the way (at least, that we _might_ be... we were getting there). By tracing where it's signal was aimed, we were given a clue where to head to meet with them -- or whatever remnants of their civilization existed at that time. (For all we knew, they might have become extinct in the interim.)

As for the ending... I assume you mean once Dave Bowman goes through the Stargate? Well, that's a part of the lightshow, if you will... the travel through an alien "corridor" to where the originators live(d). Hence, very alien landscapes, distortion of sensorium, etc. The portion at the end, where we see Dave go through various ages... he is under study as a representative of the human race... his individual development being studied, for instance, and also a probing of his reactions and psychology as they decide their next step where we are concerned. In the end, a circle is closed, and Dave is both sent back and forward to an embryonic state... he becomes the potential of the "New Man"... an evolutionary jump, as it were, as we become a species on the brink of genuine travel into the deep universe. Thus he is a symbolic guidepost to the future, that next step looking back on the world as it is, poised on the threshold of the past and the future. (A favorite theme with Clarke during those years; cf. *Childhood's End*.)

Now... the novelization of the film, done by Clarke, added a few things to this, especially at the end, where there is the idea of the Star Child (Bowman) confronted with the nuclear warheads of our world, which still clings to the violent simian reaction of destroying what it does not understand... but he is so far beyond that that they are not actually a threat. It's been a very long time since I read the book (about 20 years, I think), but, as I recall, it ended with the Star Child pondering what to do with them, and ending on the ambiguous note of "He would think of something."

As I said, this isn't taking in the later novels, which went in somewhat different directions, but the film itself (except for that last note), and my interpretation of that. I would imagine others would be able to give other readings of this, as it is very symbolic and intended to have many mythic layers to play on....


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: 2001 A Space Oddyssy*

Even though I'm a bit late with it, I posted a quick take on this in the Film Club forum, should you be interested, unclejack:

http://www.chronicles-network.com/forum/916451-post2.html

Hope that helps....


----------



## unclejack (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: 2001 A Space Oddyssy*

Thanks J.D., I read your post in the film section and I have to say that that does make more sense. I can see how that's what Kubrik was trying to portray with the film now that I think about it but I know that I never would have made all those connections on my own strictly by watchin the movie. So, my curiosity is satisfied for the moment. I still think it's way too interpretive of a movie for my tastes though. I think I'll stick to Starman. Speaking of which, I'm gonna go post a thread called Starman in the general media section. Check it out if you want.


----------



## unclejack (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks again J.D., just a little FYI for ya, I reposted this and all the other recent posts from this section in the general media section because I find that people don't respond as quickly in this section as they do in general media.


----------



## Bikewer (Sep 8, 2007)

*Re: 2001 A Space Oddyssy*

It's interesting to note that Clarke and Kubrick disagreed over the "meaning" of the film.
Clarke wrote the novelization after the screenplay, as I recall, in order to express what he thought the whole thing was about.
Kubrick stayed pretty mum on his own ideas.....  So far as I know.


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 8, 2007)

LOL... Yes, I saw... _after_ I responded here.... *sigh* I always _was_ a bit slow.....


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 8, 2007)

*Re: 2001 A Space Oddyssy*



Bikewer said:


> It's interesting to note that Clarke and Kubrick disagreed over the "meaning" of the film.
> Clarke wrote the novelization after the screenplay, as I recall, in order to express what he thought the whole thing was about.
> Kubrick stayed pretty mum on his own ideas..... So far as I know.


 
I've not run across anything by Kubrick on it, anyway. I've seen things indicating that while they disagreed on the "meaning", there was never any acrimony over it (though I could have missed things indicating otherwise....); but, given Kubrick's approach and Clarke's... yes, I can see where they'd each see different things there... and that's one of the neat things (to me) about such a film... it can bear several interpretations, all quite valid, and so it always has something new to say to you.....


----------



## Jon George (Sep 9, 2007)

*Re: 2001 A Space Oddyssy*

People might be interested to know that there is a book by Arthur C. Clarke entitled _The Lost Worlds of 2001_ in which he goes through the different storylines he considered while writing the screenplay – it provides an even greater insight into both film and novel.
Trivia: A university lecturer of mine told me that when he first started, he had to interview a first year undergraduate who had failed miserably, but wanted another go.  It appears the guy had a blown vast sum of money on wine, women and drugs.  Where did he get the cash?  Well, he was lying on a beach and was asked by a casting director if he wanted to be in a film.  Sure – what did it involve?
He was one of the apes.


----------



## Vladd67 (Sep 15, 2007)

JD mentioned it but if you read the novelization it does make the film easier to follow. But then I've always thought books were better than films and communicating ideas. Perhaps that is just me.


----------



## Pyan (Sep 15, 2007)

You're not alone, Vladd - I've yet to see a film made from one of my favourite books that didn't disappoint me in *some* way.....


----------



## Vladd67 (Sep 15, 2007)

Another thread there I think


----------



## Pyan (Sep 15, 2007)

Hmmm....


----------



## clovis-man (Sep 29, 2007)

*Re: 2001 A Space Oddyssy*



steve12553 said:


> I saw the movie many years ago and didn't get it, although I was fascinated. I read the book and had a firm grasp of it. Then I saw the movie again and didn't get it again. So I read the book again.


 
As mentioned before, the short story "The Sentinal" was the genesis for "2001". To get to the other side of the concept, i.e., what happens after Bowman evolves, You need to read Clarke's "Childhood's End". Not the same story, but goes a long way into the idea of humanity becoming something much more than just tool-using, hairless apes.

Clarke dwelt on the theme of the sometimes benevolent, always omnipotent and occasionally indifferent super beings and how they interact (or choose not to) with us puny hominids. The "Rama" series is maybe the best example.

Regards,

Jim


----------



## harryfielder (Jan 9, 2008)

I remember it being made at the old MGM Studios Borhamwood Herts UK.
About 1967.....

Aitch,


----------



## starman7 (Feb 1, 2008)

Great film!


----------



## MG1962 (Feb 1, 2008)

Vladd67 said:


> JD mentioned it but if you read the novelization it does make the film easier to follow. But then I've always thought books were better than films and communicating ideas. Perhaps that is just me.


 
The problem 2001 had - the script called for scenes no one could visualise well enough - All the book did was put the star gate journey into context. Today, as evidenced by Contact, the technology is there


----------



## Joe Meils (Dec 6, 2008)

For one thing, the novel was written at the same time as the film was being made. Sure, they based the film on Clarke's short story "The Sentinel" but they went far and away from where that story did. 

The film is meant to be an art peice. Kubrick wanted to take the audiance on a mindblowing journey through time, and space. For the most part, he succeeded. The only parts of the film that don't seem to hold up are the "stargate" sequences where they used various chemicals in a tank to simulate stellar scenes. 

Make of it what you will... great art should be interpreted by the individual viewer.


----------



## Metryq (Apr 7, 2011)

*Comments on 2001 by Margaret Stackhouse*


----------

