Stanley Kubrick Explains The '2001: A Space Odyssey' Ending In A Rare, Unearthed Video (esquire.com) 233
When it was originally released in 1968, audiences didn't really know what to make of "2001: A Space Odyssey". In fact, 250 critics walked out of the New York premiere, literally asking aloud, "What is this bullshit?"
[...] Stanley Kubrick himself was always hesitant to offer an explanation of the ending, once telling Playboy, "You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film -- and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level -- but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point." But, in a bizarre video, which appeared recently, the director seems to provide a very simple and clear explanation of the "2001: A Space Odyssey" ending. Esquire: It comes from a Japanese paranormal documentary from TV personality Jun'ichi Yaio made during the filming of The Shining. The documentary was never released, but footage was sold on eBay in 2016 and conveniently appeared online this week timed with the movie's 50th anniversary. Kubrick says in the interview: I've tried to avoid doing this ever since the picture came out. When you just say the ideas they sound foolish, whereas if they're dramatized one feels it, but I'll try. The idea was supposed to be that he is taken in by god-like entities, creatures of pure energy and intelligence with no shape or form. They put him in what I suppose you could describe as a human zoo to study him, and his whole life passes from that point on in that room. And he has no sense of time. It just seems to happen as it does in the film.
They choose this room, which is a very inaccurate replica of French architecture (deliberately so, inaccurate) because one was suggesting that they had some idea of something that he might think was pretty, but wasn't quite sure. Just as we're not quite sure what do in zoos with animals to try to give them what we think is their natural environment. Anyway, when they get finished with him, as happens in so many myths of all cultures in the world, he is transformed into some kind of super being and sent back to Earth, transformed and made into some sort of superman. We have to only guess what happens when he goes back. It is the pattern of a great deal of mythology, and that is what we were trying to suggest.
[...] Stanley Kubrick himself was always hesitant to offer an explanation of the ending, once telling Playboy, "You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film -- and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level -- but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point." But, in a bizarre video, which appeared recently, the director seems to provide a very simple and clear explanation of the "2001: A Space Odyssey" ending. Esquire: It comes from a Japanese paranormal documentary from TV personality Jun'ichi Yaio made during the filming of The Shining. The documentary was never released, but footage was sold on eBay in 2016 and conveniently appeared online this week timed with the movie's 50th anniversary. Kubrick says in the interview: I've tried to avoid doing this ever since the picture came out. When you just say the ideas they sound foolish, whereas if they're dramatized one feels it, but I'll try. The idea was supposed to be that he is taken in by god-like entities, creatures of pure energy and intelligence with no shape or form. They put him in what I suppose you could describe as a human zoo to study him, and his whole life passes from that point on in that room. And he has no sense of time. It just seems to happen as it does in the film.
They choose this room, which is a very inaccurate replica of French architecture (deliberately so, inaccurate) because one was suggesting that they had some idea of something that he might think was pretty, but wasn't quite sure. Just as we're not quite sure what do in zoos with animals to try to give them what we think is their natural environment. Anyway, when they get finished with him, as happens in so many myths of all cultures in the world, he is transformed into some kind of super being and sent back to Earth, transformed and made into some sort of superman. We have to only guess what happens when he goes back. It is the pattern of a great deal of mythology, and that is what we were trying to suggest.
"I've tried to avoid doing this ..." (Score:2, Insightful)
I've tried to avoid doing this ever since the picture came out. When you just say the ideas they sound foolish, whereas if they're dramatized one feels it ...
Yep. He should have tried just a bit harder. This adds nothing to a great film.
Anyone who wanted to know more could have just read the damn book.
The Monolith (Score:5, Interesting)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
TL:DW - It's the movie screen. When it's shown on the lunar surface, it looks like it's in the middle of a movie set. When Dave encounters it in space near the end, it's horizontal, and when it tilts backwards the camera mimics it.
Re: (Score:2)
The ratio of the monolith dimensions is 1:4:9, the squares of the first three integers. The film was made in Super Panavision, which has a 2.20:1 aspect ratio. 9/4 is 2.25, so it's close.
However, the self-reference of this interpretation is, IMO, particularly appealing to film critics and places an autobiographical slant on the film that doesn't really fit. The film tells a story of the evolution of man, it's not self-referential.
So, it’s basically the same ending as the bo (Score:3)
Re:same ending as the bo (Score:2)
I have ended?
Helpful (Score:5, Interesting)
I've slightly misinterpreted the sequence, but was happy to go with the flow; the point about him ending up as a some sort of super being was obvious; the fact that the French style environment was right was something that I hadn't picked up. I pleased to have got the extra data, but I was happy with where I was in interpreting it; I'd got enough to cope.
I guess the problem was this was seriously groundbreaking, so Kubrick was speaking a totally new language. I first saw it 10 years after its release, so it was probably less challenging by then.
Emperor's New Clothes (Score:4, Informative)
I guess the problem was this was seriously groundbreaking, so Kubrick was speaking a totally new language.
That's one possibility. However, I tend to get rather sceptical about these "Emperor's new clothes"-type of arguments that if you don't understand it you are just stupid. My personal interpretation was a lot more pragmatic: they had no clue how to really end the film so they strung together some ambiguous BS and used the old "it's your interpretation that matters, not mine" cop-out to escape having to explain it. I guess that's why I'm a scientist and not an artist.
Re:Emperor's New Clothes (Score:5, Informative)
I'm inclined to agree. Kubrick had an idea of what it meant, but in the end his real point was the impact it would have on the audience, rather than a deeper meaning. In fact, the real significance of the movie is not that it was "groundbreaking," but rather that it is emblematic of twentieth-century modernism, which glorified technological advancement and the human spirit and believed in deeper meaning while also promoting purely subjective interpretations. So it's important that even though Kubrick intended for the audience to interpret it themselves, he also believed that it was deeply meaningful and signified something transcendent. Hence twentieth-century modernism tends to think that the human subject is able to transcend him or herself and directly encounter meaning that transcends context and history.
In contrast, contemporary postmodern thinking still tends to encourage subjective interpretations, but it also tends to disavow any deeper meaning. It is more the act of interpretation that generates meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet Kubrick's explanation is 99% exactly what I expected, so I understood the movie as intended the first time through.
That does not make the people who do not see the clothes as dumb, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Kubrick never explains anything in his movies. He just shows you stuff and you have to figure it out yourself.
Most people come away from them not understanding parts. That's normal for a Kubrick film.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the problem was this was seriously groundbreaking, so Kubrick was speaking a totally new language. I first saw it 10 years after its release, so it was probably less challenging by then.
"New language" is the right way to think of it. Sometimes a particular message needs a new set of symbology to describe it within the medium.
A kooky example would be of such would be Moulin Rouge! . That movie hurt my head for the first 10-15 minutes, then something clicked in place and got it -- it is really an ingenious and innovation melodrama (that is perhaps not for everyone). The movie successfully established a kind of "new language" where the story could be told. Another kooky example where the d
Did Interstellar tie in with this? (spoilers) (Score:5, Interesting)
The bit Interstellar seems to add is that the beings are us, evolved from the future. I seem to recall that being explicit in the film but haven't seen in a while so could be misremembering. That's definitely the impression I got though. I always thought about 2001's ending in the manner Kubrick described, in part because I read the book but mostly because I thought it seemed clear the direction it was guided in - am surprised it was considered an unknown and matter for debate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Did Interstellar tie in with this? (spoilers) (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah you remember right. Cooper pretty much narrates that end scene to TARS explaining what he was seeing. "They are us"!
Re: (Score:2)
I truly do not understand what people liked about this movie
You truly understand people that poorly?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Please enlighten me, I wish to learn.
Re:Did Interstellar tie in with this? (spoilers) (Score:4, Interesting)
I cannot. I can tell you what I liked about the movie, I can tell you that people come in many flavours, and I can tell you to go read the many reviews each representing the opinion of the reviewer and often in very verbose terms why they liked (or didn't like) that movie.
Why I liked it? Great despair story with an interesting premise for space travel, a very real plight of humanity's potential future. Accurate portrayal of science in many ways from relativity to conservation of momentum, to creative ways to solve problems experienced throughout the film without the usual case of outright making shit up. The use of relativity accurately as key plot device. A plot itself that doesn't rely on MacGuffins, red herrings, ex machinas (save for the completely irrelevant point of the main actor not dying at the end). An powerful orchestral track that drives the emotions of the movie. Overall decent acting. Realistic portrayal of the best of humanity breaking down in failure and isolation.
Speaking of the best of humanity the humours side point of people again saving a stranded Matt Daemon and continuing that meme wasn't poorly received either, though I highly doubt it was an intended casting choice for that reason.
You think shitty and overly long? I say just long enough to cover the exploration of several different planets in a story that could have been well served by a miniseries given the scope of what they were looking at. I'm glad they cut it down but you're complaining about shallowness, but likely for ...
Was the ending a bit off the rails? Of course. But ultimately a) this is still fiction, and b) if you let any minor curve-ball ruin an otherwise good mood you're destined to live your life in misery, and this movie offered far more IMO that any single niggling thing was able to detract from it. Same with the shallowness of the movie. Just because "love" drove 2 minor elements of the movie, doesn't make the plot shallow. That's just letting a small niggling part ruin an otherwise damn good story.
Re:Did Interstellar tie in with this? (spoilers) (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I really hope the +1 you got for this is +1 funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Interstellar was a shitty, overly long movie, with great visuals and a shallow american plot....I truly do not understand what people liked about this movie except for the visuals.
1) A dystopian future (which seems pre-requisite for most sci-fi genre)
2) A small hint of hope for a better life after the environmental disaster
3) Unexplained phenomenon that adds intrigue
4) Future tech that is well advanced but unable to save them
5) Fallible characters due to self preservation taking over instead of altruism
6) Space travel which is currently impossible but very much desired
7) Time effects of black holes confirmed
8) Time travel through signalling
9) Reunification of family and sal
2010: The year we make contact. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the underrated "2010: The year we make contact" pretty much wraps up the 2001 story and explains everything while being a decent sci-fi movie on its own right. Definitely a recommended watch after 2001. Sure, not groundbreaking, but also no sequences that test the audience nerves/patience like in 2001 (referring of course to the start ape sequence and the approaching the monolith psychedelia).
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen 2010, and I found it quite forgettable. I mean, I remember bits and pieces of it, but it didn't make that much of an impression. It's tough to live in the shadow of a giant.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
2010: Odyssey Two is one of my favorite books of all time.
The movie 2010: The Year We Make Contact was a near travesty. For some reason, the director felt the need to add the bit about a war between the U.S. and Soviet Union, just so he could insert his views about Cold War politics into the film. It made the movie felt dated, years before the fall of the Berlin Wall. And the whole "your government asked us
Just read the book (Score:2)
It's not such a mystery, humans evolving to their next form, Homo Superior.
Rare Video (Score:2)
So just as explained in book (Score:5, Insightful)
By Arthur C Clarke. Except a lot more detail on the transformation, why and relationship to monolith.
Why is this a new revelation? Kubrick and Clarke worked closely together on 2001 resulting in arguable best film/book combo ever.
Re: (Score:3)
By Arthur C Clarke. Except a lot more detail on the transformation, why and relationship to monolith.
Why is this a new revelation? Kubrick and Clarke worked closely together on 2001 resulting in arguable best film/book combo ever.
It's a revelation because few people who have seen the movie have read the book. Sure, here on Slashdot that won't be true, but ask some random guy at work in a non-IT department and you'll find that he saw the film but didn't read the book. I read the book in my 20s because the film intrigued me, but I didn't really understand it and I was hoping the book might explain what I had seen. Note that the book is not an exact copy of the film and there are some differences as Clarke points out in his introduc
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously. I remember thinking (over 40 years ago) that the ending would be pretty mysterious for people who hadn't read the book.
It's also pretty mysterious that this took so long to become 'news for nerds'...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah ... anybody who has read the book can explain it; that Kubrick didn't disagree is the least surprising thing.
I told my kids to read the book before I'm showing them the movie, but I think both are worthwhile.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It does not matter what he thinks. (Score:5, Interesting)
That idea gets thrown around a lot and taken for fact, and I'm sure some of the people saying it believe it. Your artist friend may believe that it doesn't matter what he thinks the painting is of.
However, that's not a universal view, and many artist very much have a view of what their art means. In fact, some artists will even refuse to talk about their work for the exact opposite reason. Although they had a particular message or idea they were trying to convey, they don't want to explain it further for fear of muddying the waters. They feel that their art a precise expression of what they want to express, and that further explanation would make it less clear.
Also, a lot of times, even if an artist says "it doesn't matter what I think it means", they'll still get upset if you interpret it to mean something they don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As movies are art, this goes for many movies as well. If I see or feel anything the makers of the movies did not intend, does not make my feelings and ideas about the movie false, just different.
Don't let George Lucas hear you say that. From a 2004 interview [today.com] in response to "Why not release both the originals and special editions on DVD?"
The special edition, that’s the one I wanted out there. The other movie, it’s on VHS, if anybody wants it. ... I’m not going to spend the, we’re talking millions of dollars here, the money and the time to refurbish that, because to me, it doesn’t really exist anymore. It’s like this is the movie I wanted it to be, and I’m sorry you saw half a completed film and fell in love with it. But I want it to be the way I want it to be. I’m the one who has to take responsibility for it. I’m the one who has to have everybody throw rocks at me all the time, so at least if they’re going to throw rocks at me, they’re going to throw rocks at me for something I love rather than something I think is not very good, or at least something I think is not finished.
Some artists really don't like it when you see something they did not explicitly intend.
Re: It does not matter what he thinks. (Score:2)
Apples and oranges. Lucas is saying he doesn't want people to look at unfinished art. He is not saying he takes issue with the interpretation of the art, in either finished or unfinished form.
Re: (Score:3)
This is pretty much the "Death of the Author" view from Roland Barthes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author [wikipedia.org]
So 2001 is WYSIWYG (Score:2)
Kubrick's explanation wasn't necessary (Score:2)
Kubrick's explanation wasn't necessary because the book had already presented the ending with a thorough treatment and a complete explanation.
It does not appear that the author of this article actually read the book.
Can't imagine watching it in theater (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
It was made in a time when the audience liked to think and reason. It is necessary have to have simple plots and obvious endings for the lazy thinkers of today.
Re: (Score:2)
It was made in a time when the audience liked to think and reason. It is necessary have to have simple plots and obvious endings for the lazy thinkers of today.
I'm generally told to stop thinking about movies by my peers. I'm forbidden to talk about a movie with my wife ten minutes after watching it, so she gets a chance to enjoy it for a while. I don't need to be bored to be able to think about the movie. My mind is capable of being entertained and can still think about what I'm watching.
2001 Space Odyssey's third act is slow, boring and not entertaining, especially for people who are capable of consuming new information quickly and doesn't need large stretches o
is the movie annoying? (Score:2)
I'm going to get flamed but I didn't like the movie too much.
Or rather it was filled with "space", both literally and figuratively.
I know some people like just watching a guy jog around a circular station for 10 minutes but I find it annoying.
That seems to be true for all Kubric's movies in my opinion.
They are overlong and underplot.
Do artists in general think that there is only one idea and I have to be psychic to get what they are thinking or I can make up my own mind?
How does Kubric deal with that conund
Re: (Score:2)
The basic issue is that 2001 is "an art movie", meaning you are supposed to pay close attention, think pretty hard about what you are seeing, and maybe you love it, maybe you hate, not likely to be anywhere in between. That is how it is.
And, no, I am not trying to insinuate there is anything wrong with you if you hated it. Art movies are often underplot, and that is arduous for some people, who are perfectly right to say that is not how they want to spend their free time. I personally like many art movie
Re: (Score:2)
My kingdom for a mod point!
Unaware anyone didn't understand the ending? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It all seemed perfectly clear to me what was happening and nothing I just read in TFA was any sort of revelation to me. Do people really have a hard time understanding what was going on there?
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting... (Score:2)
Of course, what he says is almost identical to what I was thinking when I walked out after having seen it when it was released in '69: "he's become the starchild, and he's looking at the Earth, and thinking that he didn't yet know what, but he was going to do something with it."
Of course, I'd been seriously reading sf for about 8 or 9 years at the time, so it was obvious what he was saying.
The reviewers said exactly what I expected of them, because they didn't have a f*ckin' clue, and wouldn't ever be seen
"Explains" vs "Explained" (Score:2)
I can't believe it. (Score:2)
The explanation he gives is pretty much the understanding I had of the ending, with the exception that he was being sent back to earth as a super-being. Maybe it seemed straightforward to me because it is the simple explanation, and I was about 10yo when I first saw it in the theaters.
I just bought 2010 for $5 (Score:2)
I just bought 2010 for $5. Maybe I paid too much? LOL.
The ending was obvious, and leaving it open to speculation made it art. People need to learn to use their brains. Not everything has a pat answer that someone else has come up with. Sometimes you have to come up with your own answers.
Explaining the Plot isn't Really "Explaining" (Score:2)
To me, the literal plot of 2001 was always a bit of a sideshow to the greater metaphorical messaging. The overall arc of the story is of the journey of mankind from a primitive animal to a fully-realized being. It's helpful to know that the title track is Strauss' "Also Sprach Zarathustra" (which is a musical setting for the book by Nietzche) and that the child is the last stage of the "Three Metamorphoses" discussed by the title character of the book (the first two are the camel and the lion). Kubrick was
Re:2001 (Score:5, Funny)
Who cares? It's an awful movie once you strip away the special effects.
Literally no plot, huge long, boring scenes. It's awful.
If you were to remove the soundtrack as well, you'd see how damn boring some of those space-scenes are.
The ending was always quite obvious in intent, but terrible in execution.
Found the Star Wars fan.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
For reference - I hate the Star Wars movies too. All of them. Did when I was a kid, still do. Zippy-zappy effects and unbelievably atrocious dialogue, but at least people talked in it!
2001 is all long-brooding scenes and special effects. Which, whether now or 40 years ago, does not make a movie.
There is no dialogue AT ALL in the first 25 minutes of the movie, or the last 23! 88 minutes of the movie are entirely dialogue-free.
What plot there is is confusing, incomplete, poorly communicated, and not very
Re: (Score:2)
/sarcasm Because under the definition of movie it includes must have dialogue ... oh wait, It does not!
I can only imagine your whining if you watch one of best movies of all time: Baraka (on BluRay):
No plot, no dialogue, no character development yet still one of the best commentaries on the human condition.
Re: (Score:3)
Real life often makes the poorest of stories. That's why we have writers and directors, to let the audience enjoy the good stuff.
Trying to imagine a "Voyage to Mars" movie that runs for 3.5 years, most of it just people eating and jogging on treadmills.
Re: (Score:2)
Real Life is often better than movies. I've been amazed at how many times a day I mutter, "I couldn't make this shit up, and nobody would believe me if I did".
It is all about how you look at things.
Re: (Score:2)
Funnily enough, both things can be true. I agree, I've experienced weird, hilarious, and heartbreaking things that were all too improbable or too convoluted to put in a story and have anyone enjoy them. That definitely happens.
But the person I'd responded to suggested that since "real" space is slow and boring, it's appropriate to be slow and boring trying to tell a story about it, and for the most part that's not true. (Though plenty of people seem to have liked 2001, so obviously there's some market for i
Re: (Score:2)
Re:2001 (Score:5, Funny)
As compared to most movies today where if you remove the special effects all you have is a soundtrack and some guy going AHHHHHHHHHHH for an hour and a half plus a sex scene (two people going AHHHHHHHH for 5 minutes)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except track #5, which is people going "OOOOOOOHHHHHH!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Needed a clearer message.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Needed a clearer message.. (Score:5, Insightful)
if you can definitively tell me what the ending episode was about, line for line, then congratulations.
Beancounter: Sorry, you're show's been canceled. You're overbudget after renting out that stupid island -- airdrop shipping is expensive! So wrap it up.
McGoohan: WHAT? You told me 26 episodes! You promised!
Beancounter: Oops. Life isn't pretty. Oh yeah, you've only got the props and cameras for two more days, the people for four.
McGoohan: How on Earth am I supposed to finish up over 10 episodes of action in only two days?
Beancounter: Not my problem. Oh, and I need to take that chair you're sitting on. There's still a bench over there -- for now. Don't expect it there after lunch. See you, wouldn't want to be you!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He forgot the bit about asking for the ears back.
Re:Needed a clearer message.. (Score:5, Informative)
McGoohan only wanted to make 13 episodes. The studio got him to make another 4, and you can definitely tell which ones were added.
And you missed the perfect opportunity for a "Be seeing you" reference.
Re: (Score:2)
"You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film -- and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level -- but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point."
Re: Needed a clearer message.. (Score:2)
If it was for 5 year olds yes. However, cinema, books and theater are intended to make you think and reflect. Unfortunately, modern cinema often produces films with just one story. No deeper meaning. No reflection on the human condition. No adventure.
Didn't see the movie (Score:2, Insightful)
But I read the book. (In fact, I had gotten both the English original and a Dutch translation from the local library when I was a teenager. Started with mostly the translation, ended with mostly the original.) This description seems to match my impression from back when. Curious, a movie that actually matches the book reasonably well.
But anyway, what is it with Americans and needing things explained to them? Eg. The Devil's Advocate could do without the flames and feathers at the end. If it wasn't obvious b
Re: (Score:2)
Do you realize that Stanley Kubrick is American?
If you liked the book, I suggest you read the Rama series also by Arthur C. Clarke. The three book series is a bit long, but for me a very enjoyable read. In the end of that series you will have the correct answers about the premise of many of Clarke's works.
Re: (Score:2)
I did read all four and the last is where the answers are IMHO.
Re: Didn't see the movie (Score:5, Insightful)
But anyway, what is it with Americans and needing things explained to them?
Are you suggesting that you'd already figured out what the end of 2001 was supposed to (pfft) or that, as a 'properly right-brained Euro' you simply "know not to ask?" (an even bigger "PFFT")
Re:Didn't see the movie (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Kubrick was given a few other short stories to use as background material.
Re: (Score:2)
The movie matches the book because the book was written to go with the movie, and published just after the movie came out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought that movie had six different explanations, hence the name "Kubrick's Cube".
Re: (Score:3)
The top 5 thought-provoking films to watch are, in no particular order:
- Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959)
- Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966)
- Howard the Duck (1986)
- Battlefield Earth (2000)
- Jack and Jill (2011)
After watching those five movies, if will provoke you into never thinking about such lists on the Internet ever again.
Re: (Score:2)
...about asking for such lists...
Stupid slashdot and its lack of editing function.
Re: (Score:3)
Plan 9 From Outer Space and Manos are very thought-provoking. You'll be spending the entire movie, and several hours afterward, thinking, "What the fuck was that?"
Re: (Score:3)
Howard the Duck and Battlefield Earth have you spending the entire movie, and several hours afterward, thinking, "Why the fuck was that made?"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Plan 9 was ok, but Manos was awesome in its ineptitude.
Howard the Duck was mostly just a film about bestiality. It would have worked better with Ron Perlman as the the duck.
Re: (Score:3)
It's satirical, which is a form of humour.
Solution: READ THE BOOK (Score:3, Informative)
If you have to explain it because MILLIONS of people for decades have no idea what it was about, you did a shitty job of telling story.
Here's the solution: Read the novel [wikipedia.org] that was released concurrently with the movie. A two hour film will focus mainly on visuals and storytelling, and can't go into too much detail about "meaning". You need to read the book for that.
Re: Solution: READ THE BOOK (Score:3)
So, you think that any movie you've seen but haven't understood is the fault of the director? Nice fantasy you've constructed for yourself...
Re: (Score:2)
I'd also say that story elements that Clarke talks about in the book "Lost Worlds of 2001" would make fine additions to a movie remake.
Mod parent up. I'd love to see some of those elements used in something released too...
Re:Exactly. (Score:5, Funny)
Millions of *Americans*.
It's like listening to a 6 year old constantly asking "Why did he do that ?...why did the car blow up?...why is the man running away?...where are the ninjas?"..
Fuck....... American movies are supposed to be light entertainment....full of bright shiny things......leave the thinking to the people who have the capacity.
And now....Kardashians !!
Re: (Score:2)
Kubruck: This ending in the book, I just dunno... Clarke seems to think it's OK, but I'm just not happy with it. I don't have any better ideas, though. I guess I better use it, but I can deck it out with a bunch of psychedelic BS and make it look all trippy and mysterious. Yeah, that's the trick.
Re: A movie that should have been aborted (Score:4, Informative)
The movie was not taken from the book. The book was published after the movie. Clarke wrote the screenplay and novel essentially at the same time.
Re: A movie that should have been aborted (Score:2)
Well except for the part where Saturn became Jupiter... (ie a major mismatch between the book and movie)...
Re: A movie that should have been aborted (Score:5, Informative)
Well except for the part where Saturn became Jupiter... (ie a major mismatch between the book and movie)...
Actually, the screenplay matched the book, but the special effects at the time couldn't get the rings of Saturn to look realistic, so they changed the plot to Jupiter at the last minute. By that time, the book had already gone to pre-print, so couldn't be fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
Not trying to be a besserwisser, it's a very important distinction when talking about evolution.
Re: (Score:3)
Apes, not monkeys.
Ook?
Re: (Score:2)
Superman character is concerned about humanity destiny. Dave becomes something that could be not interested at all in us.
I'd concur, with a bit more description: Dave becomes something that is above every current human conflict, both literally and figuratively. In the book, he is the star-child, the first human-derived citizen of a space-based civilization. Earth has its wars and governments and politicians who will all panic at his arrival, but they don't mean anything to him. He will be concerned with the issues of the galaxy and the destiny of the planet as a whole, just as the humans have stopped caring about the petty sq
Re: (Score:3)
Daves not here man.
Re: (Score:2)