5 ms·

I've never been sure what to make of that movie. The writer/director obviously know how to make a high-quality, engrossing movie, as demonstrated by everything

I've never been sure what to make of that movie. The writer/director obviously know how to make a high-quality, engrossing movie, as demonstrated by everything that happens on Discovery One during the middle part of the movie. But the final segment does such a terrible job at communicating to the audience what is going on in the narrative. Did they cut a bunch of content because the movie was getting too long? Does Kubrick just not care whether the viewer can follow the story he's telling?

wdbbdw 9y ago
I'd recommend reading the novel; it's a wonderful read. Clarke wrote it alongside the screenplay (which he cowrote with Kubrick), and it helps clarify some of the more mystical happenings at both the beginning and the end of the film. Kubrick, via wikipedia[1]: "There are a number of differences between the book and the movie. The novel, for example, attempts to explain things much more explicitly than the film does, which is inevitable in a verbal medium. The novel came about after we did a 130-page prose treatment of the film at the very outset. This initial treatment was subsequently changed in the screenplay, and the screenplay in turn was altered during the making of the film. But Arthur took all the existing material, plus an impression of some of the rushes, and wrote the novel. As a result, there's a difference between the novel and the film ... I think that the divergences between the two works are interesting." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)
- ambrosite 9y ago
  The novel and the film are two different things. I actually don't like Clarke's novel because I disagree with the interpretation he put on the film (even though the screenplay was based on one of his previously published short stories).
- leephillips 9y ago
  Also read Clarke's short story "The Sentinel", upon which 2001 is based.
yodsanklai 9y ago
2001 is certainly a unique movie. I was a little disappointed or unsatisfied the few times I've watched it (esp. as a kid) because I didn't understand everything. But I think it's on purpose and it is partly what makes this movie so fascinating.
hindsightbias 9y ago
They didn't know how to end it. Only that Dave was to take the next step in evolution. For more background on the aliens/Clindar, there's a book called "The Lost Worlds of 2001" “And because, in all the galaxy, they had found nothing more precious than Mind, they encouraged its dawning everywhere. They became farmers in the field of stars; they sowed, and sometimes they reaped. And sometimes, dispassionately, they had to weed.”
- valuearb 9y ago
  That’s not the meaning of the end. If it was, Kubrick could have said so. Clarkes book is NOT the film, Kubrick wanted more ambiguity, because the film and topic deserves it.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Asimovs book is NOT the film Asimov wrote a lot of books [0], but none of them have been associated with the film in this thread. I think you mean “Clarke” rather than “Asimov”. [0] like, a truly stupendous quantity of them that is hard to believe a single person could put out in a lifetime.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      Arrgggg! i’ve written Asimov three times by mistake. I’m ashamed:(
emodendroket 9y ago
Isn't the point precisely that you can interpret it yourself? I enjoy avant-garde stuff that doesn't spoon-feed you all the answers.
- pdkl95 9y ago
  > you can interpret it yourself Or, that you cannot interpret it. At the beginning of the movie, the monolith changed monkeys to be intelligent enough to use tools. At the end of the movie, another encounter with the monolith causes a similar change that - to our unchanged, stupid minds - looks like a chaotic mess that cannot be understood. Being confused about the ending was the goal.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    That, in itself, is an interpretation, of course.
valuearb 9y ago
Kubrick trusted his audience. The point of the ending is to make you think, and surface your own meaning. What it makes me think is what if Alien intelligence is just so far beyond ours that we can’t comprehend what they are or why they did what they did? Like ants to humans?
skywhopper 9y ago
(My interpretation:) It's supposed to be about Dave transcending humankind to move to the next stage of evolution, and so all the weird stuff that happens is, yes, supposed to be confusing and nonsensical, because we can't understand it because we're humans. Just like the first monolith taught the apes how to kill to move further along their evolutionary path, this monolith taught Dave Bowman how to ?!?!? we have no idea because it doesn't make sense to us.

wdbbdw 9y ago

I'd recommend reading the novel; it's a wonderful read. Clarke wrote it alongside the screenplay (which he cowrote with Kubrick), and it helps clarify some of the more mystical happenings at both the beginning and the end of the film. Kubrick, via wikipedia[1]: "There are a number of differences between the book and the movie. The novel, for example, attempts to explain things much more explicitly than the film does, which is inevitable in a verbal medium. The novel came about after we did a 130-page prose treatment of the film at the very outset. This initial treatment was subsequently changed in the screenplay, and the screenplay in turn was altered during the making of the film. But Arthur took all the existing material, plus an impression of some of the rushes, and wrote the novel. As a result, there's a difference between the novel and the film ... I think that the divergences between the two works are interesting." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)

ambrosite 9y ago
The novel and the film are two different things. I actually don't like Clarke's novel because I disagree with the interpretation he put on the film (even though the screenplay was based on one of his previously published short stories).
leephillips 9y ago
Also read Clarke's short story "The Sentinel", upon which 2001 is based.

yodsanklai 9y ago

2001 is certainly a unique movie. I was a little disappointed or unsatisfied the few times I've watched it (esp. as a kid) because I didn't understand everything. But I think it's on purpose and it is partly what makes this movie so fascinating.

hindsightbias 9y ago

They didn't know how to end it. Only that Dave was to take the next step in evolution. For more background on the aliens/Clindar, there's a book called "The Lost Worlds of 2001" “And because, in all the galaxy, they had found nothing more precious than Mind, they encouraged its dawning everywhere. They became farmers in the field of stars; they sowed, and sometimes they reaped. And sometimes, dispassionately, they had to weed.”

valuearb 9y ago
That’s not the meaning of the end. If it was, Kubrick could have said so. Clarkes book is NOT the film, Kubrick wanted more ambiguity, because the film and topic deserves it.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Asimovs book is NOT the film Asimov wrote a lot of books [0], but none of them have been associated with the film in this thread. I think you mean “Clarke” rather than “Asimov”. [0] like, a truly stupendous quantity of them that is hard to believe a single person could put out in a lifetime.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Arrgggg! i’ve written Asimov three times by mistake. I’m ashamed:(

emodendroket 9y ago

Isn't the point precisely that you can interpret it yourself? I enjoy avant-garde stuff that doesn't spoon-feed you all the answers.

pdkl95 9y ago
> you can interpret it yourself Or, that you cannot interpret it. At the beginning of the movie, the monolith changed monkeys to be intelligent enough to use tools. At the end of the movie, another encounter with the monolith causes a similar change that - to our unchanged, stupid minds - looks like a chaotic mess that cannot be understood. Being confused about the ending was the goal.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  That, in itself, is an interpretation, of course.

valuearb 9y ago

Kubrick trusted his audience. The point of the ending is to make you think, and surface your own meaning. What it makes me think is what if Alien intelligence is just so far beyond ours that we can’t comprehend what they are or why they did what they did? Like ants to humans?

skywhopper 9y ago

(My interpretation:) It's supposed to be about Dave transcending humankind to move to the next stage of evolution, and so all the weird stuff that happens is, yes, supposed to be confusing and nonsensical, because we can't understand it because we're humans. Just like the first monolith taught the apes how to kill to move further along their evolutionary path, this monolith taught Dave Bowman how to ?!?!? we have no idea because it doesn't make sense to us.