Just saw Kubrick's 2001. What are your interpretations?

[simps3d]

While 2001 is clearly not for everyone it's an amazing film and is always on top movies of all time list. Any sci fi fan should be thankful for it. Before it sci fi films were cheesy b movies not to be taken seriously. Without it we wouldn't have most of the classics we have today. Such a deep movie but it's something you have to delve into further than just one viewing. I dont blame people who say it's boring because it is an extremely slow art film. But if you are really into sci fi you should give it a serious watch and try to find the deeper meaning at least once.

 

[chickenluver]

This has probably been mentioned, but the monolith sparks the next step in evolution when it appears in the beginning. When another is found on the moon it directs them to Jupiter (Saturn in the book) and when Dave finally gets there the last monolith triggers another jump in evolution, this time into an newly birthed/re-birthed Omnipotent being.

The monoliths were left by super advanced beings (the same that Dave becomes) and they may be alive themselves.

 

[chickenluver]

Anyone here seen the sequel (if you want to call it that), 2010?

I haven't seen it, but I think there's at least 4 books total. I plan on reading them eventually.

 

[Guestx]

I haven't seen it, but I think there's at least 4 books total. I plan on reading them eventually.

I'd like to read them all as well. As I mentioned earlier, I've read 2001.

As for the movie 2010: The Year We Make Contact, it is VERY different from 2001. Much more of a straightforward science fiction story. But as long as you understand that and aren't expect more Kubrick, it's actually not a bad film.

 

[Harmonica]

It's one of my favorite movies. It's a visual illustration of Nietzsche's Ubermensch theory and the meaning and purpose of life in a sense that we are a bridge between the primitive man-apes and the star child.

Yes, albeit only Kubrick's interpretation of Nietzsche's Ubermensch concept, seeing how Nietzsche never argued how we're meant to transcend flesh and become beings made of pure energy. He propagated sublimation of the animal side of our nature.

To address those who bash this movie. People often forget that with Kubrick, nothing major is a coincidence. For example, the atrocious acting was clearly meant to portray humans losing touch with their human side and becoming more machine like. That's why they are so emotionless and dull. I get it why people aren't all that much into this movie, though. Visual narrative is what turns most people off since what they are looking for in movies aren't subliminal messages and food for thought but rather cheap entertainment. Ironically, the slow and boring intro with the monkeys is something I enjoyed the most.

All in all, one shouldn't watch this movie if his attention span is short and/or doesn't like to ponder eternal questions over and over again.

 

[Agent Mulder's Hair]

People often forget that with Kubrick, nothing major is a coincidence. For example, the atrocious acting was clearly meant to portray humans losing touch with their human side and becoming more machine like. That's why they are so emotionless and dull.

Knowing what I know about Kubrick, I picked up on that straight away. Especially when the people are in the same room and nobody talks to each other for like 20 mins. HAL is the most human character in the movie. And that's clearly intentional. I think it's possible that Kubrick saw humanity heading in that direction. Of becoming robotic and less human. And here we are 48 years later and still heading in that direction. Go on a bus or sit in a waiting room, and nobody's talking. Everybody is silent and just sitting there staring at their smart phones, which oddly enough, resemble HAL.

 

[Harmonica]

Knowing what I know about Kubrick, I picked up on that straight away. Especially when the people are in the same room and nobody talks to each other for like 20 mins. HAL is the most human character in the movie. And that's clearly intentional. I think it's possible that Kubrick saw humanity heading in that direction. Of becoming robotic and less human. And here we are 48 years later and still heading in that direction. Go on a bus or sit in a waiting room, and nobody's talking. Everybody is silent and just sitting there staring at their smart phones, which oddly enough, resemble HAL.

Good observation. Another thing worth mentioning is how some machines, more specifically spaceships, started resembling humans physically.

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

You know, I've never seen 2001 or 2010 all the way through, I've only seen the last hour or so of each of them.

However, I've read all four of Clarke's books: 2001, 2010, 2061 and 3001. IMO they each get progressively worse and retcon the earlier ones. For example, the way 3001 ends makes the epilogue of 2010 impossible (it's a brief flash forward to the state of things in our solar system in the year 20,100). It's been about 17 years since I read them, but I can't really recommend the last two, that's for damn sure.

 

[BisexualMMA]

I'd like to read them all as well. As I mentioned earlier, I've read 2001.

As for the movie 2010: The Year We Make Contact, it is VERY different from 2001. Much more of a straightforward science fiction story. But as long as you understand that and aren't expect more Kubrick, it's actually not a bad film.

I think calling it "not bad" is accurate but about the highest praise I can give it.

Helen Mirren was pretty bad with her accent, and it was one of the few times I thought Roy Scheider didn't elevate a movie he was in.

I double checked who directed it, since it's somewhat remarkable to get such unremarkable performances out of these two great actors. The director was Peter Hyams, who helmed: Capricorn One and The Presidio - two more films where he got incredibly boring performances and stories out of very talented casts.

He's just not an actor's director.

I think the best film to compare to 2010 is actually the first Star Trek movie, which I found much more interesting in terms of visuals and characters, while maintaining a similar (slow) pace and inactive plot.

 

[simps3d]

I haven't seen it, but I think there's at least 4 books total. I plan on reading them eventually.

Yea there are four all together. If you like SciFi definitely check them out. And though 2001 the movie is difficult to many because it's slow and not really explained (you definitely should do side research and have multiple viewings to get meanings) the books are quite easy to get through. And they were, for me at least hard to put down. 2061 was the worst IMO. 3001 the fourth and final book is fascinating because it jumps a thousand years in the future and brings back Frank Poole. It's fascinating and also explains the human/monolith relationship, that's all I can say without spoiling it. Great reads though. As for the movies, I wish people would give 2001 a serious chance. It's such a deep film. I find people either absolutely love it or absolutely hate it. 2010 is decent, they moved away from the artsy Fartsy feel. But it suffers from a cheesy 80s vibe. Still enjoyable. I highly recommend the books.

 

[Adamant]

2001...... a dreadfully boring waste of time.

 

[mb23100]

It's only famous because it's Kubrick. He could shit in a camera and people would call it a masterpiece. He's the Pablo Picasso of film

 

[tramendous]

i though that the monith was a symbol of television or any type of screen technology. we get information through them (an awakening) and this lets us create more technology and the process repeats.