2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

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.
 
Re: 2001 A Space Oddyssy

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

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.....
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.....:rolleyes:
 
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.

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

Aitch,
 

Similar threads


Back
Top