2001: A Space odyssey wtf ?
- Thread starter jvd
- Start date
That sequence was supposed to represent Dave's being transported to some far distant construct, where either he or his copy is transformed into a being of immense potential, the Star Child. Supposedly, this was part of the monolith's purpose, to propogate intelligent life and prod it towards ascension. Various events in the movie sort of hint of what happens in the book.
It makes a lot more sense in the novel, where each step of what makes up the odd succession of events is explained. Personally, I think Kubric just gave up on trying to get that to translate to film.
It makes a lot more sense in the novel, where each step of what makes up the odd succession of events is explained. Personally, I think Kubric just gave up on trying to get that to translate to film.
It's the only way it's going to make any sense, I'm afraid.
edit: Here's a quick synopsis from what I remember of the movie compared to the book.
The first scene with the ape-men is supposed to represent how the monolith used its awesome technological powers to send humanity's ancestors down the path towards sentience.
Later, there's a scene where astronauts on the moon uncover a monolith, and it shoots out this piercing radio scream. This was actually meant to signal the larger monolith around (edit: in the book, it's Saturn) Jupiter that the subject race humankind had achieved space flight.
Later, space-capable humans would detect the larger monolith and investigate. Upon finding a sample of intelligent life, the monolith would take it and essentially jump start its evolution. The result would then be used to help further the ascendance of humanity, or something (I don't recall if Arthur C. Clark actually ever pinned down the precise goal beyond just advancing intelligent life).
The HAL conflict was based on the limitations of the computer's intelligence. HAL went insane, unable to internally justify lying to the ship's crew about their mission, while unable to tell them the truth due to his hardwired directives forbidding mention of the monolith at Jupiter.
edit: Here's a quick synopsis from what I remember of the movie compared to the book.
The first scene with the ape-men is supposed to represent how the monolith used its awesome technological powers to send humanity's ancestors down the path towards sentience.
Later, there's a scene where astronauts on the moon uncover a monolith, and it shoots out this piercing radio scream. This was actually meant to signal the larger monolith around (edit: in the book, it's Saturn) Jupiter that the subject race humankind had achieved space flight.
Later, space-capable humans would detect the larger monolith and investigate. Upon finding a sample of intelligent life, the monolith would take it and essentially jump start its evolution. The result would then be used to help further the ascendance of humanity, or something (I don't recall if Arthur C. Clark actually ever pinned down the precise goal beyond just advancing intelligent life).
The HAL conflict was based on the limitations of the computer's intelligence. HAL went insane, unable to internally justify lying to the ship's crew about their mission, while unable to tell them the truth due to his hardwired directives forbidding mention of the monolith at Jupiter.
Unfortunately, a lot of the exposition is after the fact, written in novels that were made after the movie.
A lot of the explanations in the story were made to fit a lot of the events in the movie. The original book itself was only a little more lucid than the acid trip at the end of the movie.
A lot of the explanations in the story were made to fit a lot of the events in the movie. The original book itself was only a little more lucid than the acid trip at the end of the movie.
That would be an interested (or maybe not) directors cut. Assuming any of that film actually got shot, and still exists.
Actually, 2001 the film wasn't based on the novel of the same name. IIRC, Clarke and Kubrick co-wrote the screenplay for the film using a short-story by Clarke (The Sentinel) as the basis. Only later did Clarke write the full book. It must be one of the only occasions when a decent book came after the film. Of course, Clarke then went on to write 2010, 2061 and 3001.
That said, the book is definitely much easier to decypher than the film. And I'm afraid you've got to plough through all four books if you want to know what Dave really became (at least in Clarke's version).
That said, the book is definitely much easier to decypher than the film. And I'm afraid you've got to plough through all four books if you want to know what Dave really became (at least in Clarke's version).
I always fall asleep when the movie spaces out - literally. It's very good IMO up until the last 15-20 minutes or so and then it just goes off into la-la land.
I read the book years ago and the ending was much better. And yes, I know the book was written after the movie was made. Hell, they wrote the script as they were shooting the damn thing, lol!
I read the book years ago and the ending was much better. And yes, I know the book was written after the movie was made. Hell, they wrote the script as they were shooting the damn thing, lol!
Schadenfroh
Newcomer
read the books
mcsven said:
Even that is open to debate. Clark has said before that he didn't like the use of the word "sequel" when it came to the various books. He was more apt to desribe them as being stories told in alternate universes with similar starting points.
It's a convenient way to not have to worry too much about continuity.
