2001: A Space Odyssey -> WTF is going on?

[MrCraphead]

Ok, so I just finished watching the movie and I have no idea what's going on. Will someone that has completely understood this movie tell me it's underlying meaning? I have so many questions....... :\

Like, what's the significance of the monolith? what happens to the astronauts that experienced an ear piercing noise while taking a picture? What was the mission of the jupiter mission? Why did HAL malfunction? What was with all those color streaks at the end, and why did the movie end with a picture of an embryo?

*sigh* Yes, I'm too lazy to think through it myself, I just want people to tell me what it means, thanks.

 

[dribgnikcom]

What's going on is that it's a crappy movie.

The only Kubrick movie I remotely liked was Full Metal Jacket. (Apocalypse Now sucked ass).

 

[Ladies Man]

read the book

it's good

then read 2010... then 2064.... then read 3000

I think i got all of the dates correct..

 

Read This you lazy bum

 

[UberNeuman]

The Monolith appears at the different peaks of human evolution... This is only key you need to understand the movie...

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: dribgnikcom
What's going on is that it's a crappy movie.

The only Kubrick movie I remotely liked was Full Metal Jacket. (Apocalypse Now sucked ass).

Apocalypse Now was Francis Ford Coppola, not Kubrick.

 

[MrCraphead]

Originally posted by: Roger
Read This you lazy bum

OMFG Roger, this is way too much information, lol, thanks.

 

Fine,the short version

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: MrCraphead
Ok, so I just finished watching the movie and I have no idea what's going on. Will someone that has completely understood this movie tell me it's underlying meaning? I have so many questions....... :\

Like, what's the significance of the monolith? what happens to the astronauts that experienced an ear piercing noise while taking a picture? What was the mission of the jupiter mission? Why did HAL malfunction? What was with all those color streaks at the end, and why did the movie end with a picture of an embryo?

*sigh* Yes, I'm too lazy to think through it myself, I just want people to tell me what it means, thanks.

I consider 2001 to be one of Kubrick's biggest failures. I don't know a single person who has not read the book who has understood the movie. Without the book, the movie is senseless. It sure looks pretty, but it has no meaning.

It's been awhile since I read the book, but....

The monolith: The monolith was planted on the Earth in the prehistoric days (that part with the dancing gorillas in the beginning) as part of an ancient spacefaring civilization's "experiment" in which they planted these monoliths on many planets in the hopes of "seeding" more intelligent races.
When the gorillas touch the monolith, they learn new concepts like how to make hand tools (and weaponry) from rocks and such.
There were 2 "tribes" of monkeys, and the ones who were not afraid to touch the monolith eventually won out over the luddite tribe.

The monolith, then, basically represents the hand that the alien race had in giving humanity the "push" that turned it into what it became in 2001.
Consequently, the over next 60 years, similar monoliths with proportional sizes would be discovered elsewhere in the solar system. The ancient starfarers didn't just plant seeds on Earth.

The mission to Jupiter had two functions. The "outward" function was to simply take an exploratory trip to Jupiter. Probe the surface, maybe breeze by some of the whacky Jovian satellites, basically just gathering information.
The actual function was actually to search for a monolith somewhere in the Jovian system. IIRC, radio telescopes were picking up screams from the direction of Jupiter that matched screams from the other monolith(s).

This leads directly to why HAL9000 went bonkers. His given mission was the secret search for monoliths, while Dave, Frank and co. thought they were just explorers. He was programmed to always tell the truth by Dr. Chandrasekhar, his creator but also to always follow his orders. Then he was told by NASA to keep the real purpose of the voyage a secret from the crew at all costs.
As a result, HAL went off his rocker at the conundrum that he was being ORDERED to LIE to the crew. Since HAL knew that he could pilot the ship and complete the voyage without the crew, (this is my theory at least) he decided to murder the crew because then he would not have to lie to them.

The end of the movie is whacky, but basically Dave is taken to the "next level" by the alien race. They free him of the limits of his Earthly body to roam space as a sentient entity. The book calls him a "Star Child."

Sorry if I got anything mixed up...like I said, it's been awhile.

 

[Iron Woode]

There is also another book by Clarke, I am having trouble remembering the name, something like the Lost Worlds of 2001. It contains chapters that were omitted from the official book and back ground on the movie, and explains what was actually going on.

Seems there was some sort of space warp near Jupiter that transports dave to another planet in another Galaxy or something.

I would suggest that this would be a good thing to read.

 

[DigDug]

My uncle was a friend of Arthur C. Clarke. He moved to Sri Lanka, where he met my uncle spearfishing.

Sadly, Clarke is a well-known pedophile in those parts, and recently its come to attention here in the West too.

 

[UDT89]

how can you call it a failure, maybe because he was 2 decades ahead of his time.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: UDT89
how can you call it a failure, maybe because he was 2 decades ahead of his time.

I don't care if he was a century ahead of his time! Of what use is a film based on a novel if that film is completely unintelligble without the novel? It may have been a technical tour de force, but in terms of adapting a novel to a film, Kubrick seems to have relied way too much on the assumption that everyone would understand every little nuance and symbolism he threw in there to even grasp the plot at all. The plot of 2001 is not really that complicated, yet when you watch the movie without having first read the book, you feel like an outsider wondering if you're the only person who can't seem to make sense out of the monkeys dancing on the screen or the pretty colors.

Remind me how this movie could NOT be considered one of his greatest failures? When compared to Dr. Strangelove or A Clockwork Orange, which both were technically impressive for the times they were made, those films actually made sense when you watch them cold.

If Starwars ep IV had no dialog, would it still have been considered a classic simply because of its technical merit, or would it be considered Lucas's folly because what good is the movie if you can't understand what's going on?

Quite frankly, I'm surprised 2001 isn't required reading in most high schools for no reason other than the fact that you can be certain that no student will be able to cop out and "just watch the movie" and be able to even begin to participate in a discussion or be tested on it.

 

[eLiTeGoodGuy]

Jzero you can add Dune to the list of movies that are completely unintelligibe without the book

 

[Iron Woode]

<<I don't care if he was a century ahead of his time! Of what use is a film based on a novel if that film is completely unintelligble without the novel? >>

A little research would have shown the actual history of the movie/book. The movie was based on a short story called The Sentinel. It was maybe 20 pages long. The movie was made with ideas for a book. They both evolved at the same time. The book started off as a working script for the movie. Chapters were written and discussed to decide what stays and what goes; the general direction of the story. The book is different from the movie in many ways. The book was more involved in the story because no one wants to watch a 10 hour movie that explains everything.

Today, movies are either based on an existing book or the book is written sometime after the movie was made. Doing both at once was different.

 

[Jzero]

The book was more involved in the story because no one wants to watch a 10 hour movie that explains everything.

Counter to that, no one wants to watch a 2 hour movie that explains nothing...

Today, movies are either based on an existing book or the book is written sometime after the movie was made. Doing both at once was different.

Different? Yes.
Cool movie? Yes. Especially after you've read the book and it actually makes sense.
Successful "experiment?" No. Not in my opinion, at least.

PS...while I've read all 4 books in the series, I never did catch that about the simultaneous development of the film and book. Interesting fact.
It's origin as a short story is meaningless. Most all of the "old school" sci-fi writers published short storys and novellas in pulp mags like Analog and F&SF and then later reworked them as full-length novels. Clarke and Asimov were huge contributors, and Asimov ended up founding his own pulp mag. Pohl was also a pulp regular that comes to mind.

 

[Iron Woode]

<<PS...while I've read all 4 books in the series, I never did catch that about the simultaneous development of the film and book. Interesting fact.
It's origin as a short story is meaningless. Most all of the "old school" sci-fi writers published short storys and novellas in pulp mags like Analog and F&SF and then later reworked them as full-length novels. Clarke and Asimov were huge contributors, and Asimov ended up founding his own pulp mag. Pohl was also a pulp regular that comes to mind. >>

Try finding the book Lost Worlds of 2001. Its basically the history of the book/movie.

The reason most wrote short stories is that they got paid faster by cranking them out. Novels took time and there was no guarantee of publishing. Pohl was good as was Asimov (rip) and I like Clarke's writings too. I also like Wells, Wyndham, Bradbury, Laumer and many others. I found some good war anthologies. A 3 part one called The Future at War. Not a bad series of short stories. I also like the Bolo series too.

 

[Jzero]

Try finding the book Lost Worlds of 2001. Its basically the history of the book/movie.

I think I actually had that in my hand once at a used book store, but I looked more closely at it and realized that it was just a meta-text and wasn't actually part of the series, and I put it back b/c I didn't really care. Maybe I check that out, now

The reason most wrote short stories is that they got paid faster by cranking them out. Novels took time and there was no guarantee of publishing. Pohl was good as was Asimov (rip) and I like Clarke's writings too. I also like Wells, Wyndham, Bradbury, Laumer and many others. I found some good war anthologies. A 3 part one called The Future at War. Not a bad series of short stories. I also like the Bolo series too.

Yep...gotta put food on the table. I passively collect older copies of IF, Analog, F&SF, Amazing Stories, etc. It's fun to find the full-length story later on. I had one with a Pohl story called "The Gold at the Starbow's End" which had some pretty nice Kelly Freas artwork. Pretty good story.
A couple weeks later I was looking over Pohl novels in the library and picked up "Gem" and started to flip through realizing that it sounded awfully familiar Look on the cover flap and it talks about how it was originally published 20 years prior in Analog.

 

[LordJezo]

Originally posted by: Ladies Man
read the book

it's good

then read 2010... then 2064.... then read 3000

I think i got all of the dates correct..

2061, 3001
You were close though.

 

[notfred]

2001 sucked. It was boring, nothing happened in the whole damn movie, and it was WAY too long. I don't care who made it or what the novel says, the movie still sucked.

 

[Ramsnake]

Originally posted by: eLiTeGoodGuy1
Jzero you can add Dune to the list of movies that are completely unintelligibe without the book

wrong it can be understood without the novel...

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: notfred
2001 sucked. It was boring, nothing happened in the whole damn movie, and it was WAY too long. I don't care who made it or what the novel says, the movie still sucked.

hahah...That's funny.

Anyway, I've watched the movie and had NO clue as to what was going on. I went to the link and it now makes more sense. I do have to agree with Jzero with the movie ultimately being a failure as a film. It's one thing to leave some up to the audience to figure out, but the 2001 makes absolutely no sense without knowing what's in the book. The film and the book together, however, seem to be a somewhat interesting combination.

 

[Nefrodite]

u watched that pos without smoking something?

of course there are many kubric fans out there that think every oneof his movies are works of art go figure. i respect the film as a ground breaker, but it wasn't very entertaining

 

[apoppin]

Actually, I saw 2001 in the movies when it first came out. Although I did not read the book, I had read so much scifi that it was pretty easy to figure it out. Unfortunately, I did spend hours explaining it to everyone else who saw it with me.

And I was most unimpressed - 'boring and loud' was how I described it then.

 

[BatmanNate]

I actually watched the movie prior to having read the book, and I can honestly say I enjoyed it. Every little detail of background was not set up in the film as it was in the book, however the symbolism conveyed more than enough to understand the plot and what was taking place, which to me, made the film a success. Perhaps I go in to a film watching experience with too much imagination from having grown up reading SCIFI books and watching films of similar nature, but that allows me to ascertain a good deal from the little the the movie gives you, and makes it a more interesting experience. Watching a movie that holds your hand the entire way and where every aspect is black and white throughout is not nearly as enjoyable, IMHO.

BTW, I don't think removing the dialog would have harmed Star Wars episode ONE at all whatsoever, but then again that's neither classic nor what you were talking about.