PDA

View Full Version : the end of 2001, a space odyssey....open end ?



u2336
02-10-2005, 10:31 PM
Just read the age post.
Ok we have HAL onboard, thats good to know...

but can anyone explain me the end of the movie, I have my version but as I never read the book maybe I am totally wrong...

blue_76
02-10-2005, 10:47 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif one of my favorite subjects..
the end of the movie (there are several sequels by the way.. 2010 also, there are books 2061: Odyssey Three, 3001: The Final Odyssey). Oh, and also, Arthur C. Clarke lives in Sri Lanka btw.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I hope he is doing well after the tsunami... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

anyway, to get to the point.. at the end of the movie, the astronaut 'dave' or david bowman experiences something that has to do with rebirth.. the whole scene is just visual and there are no explanations as to what is going on.. he seems to travel in high speed in his robotic pod.. in that scene he is undergoing birth and he fails to understand it just as a child would.. the whole thing, in my point of view had to do with rebirth of man, of stars, of life.

Pr0metheus 1962
02-10-2005, 10:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blue_76:
...I hope he is doing well after the tsunami... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I went to his website after the Tsunami. Apparently he's fine, although his tour business equipment - boats etc. - was pretty much wiped out.

Heuristic_ALgor
02-10-2005, 11:19 PM
The Monolith turns out to be (among its other wonders) a €œstar gate€ €" a literal doorway (which, of course, is why Kubrick cinematically made it a door €¦) to other dimensions of space and time €¦ and, ultimately, the mysterious €œProgenitors€ of the Human Race itself.

When Bowman eventually falls through it, he enters the Star Gate€s vast Hyperdimensional transport system, culminating in his own ambiguous meeting with €œthe Progenitors€ (or, at least as much of them as they allow him to experience €¦), which results in his final €œtransformation€ and return to Earth €¦ the latest agent in Humanities continuing €œmanaged evolution.€

blue_76
02-10-2005, 11:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
I went to his website after the Tsunami. Apparently he's fine, although his tour business equipment - boats etc. - was pretty much wiped out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

good to know he's doing well. thanks.

SailorSteve
02-11-2005, 01:36 AM
Yes, Clarke wrote several sequels. I personally have only read 2001 and 2010.

Some of you may not know that there is an earlier (and I think better) source: back in 1948 Clarke wrote a short story titled 'The Sentinel'. It is a must-read for science-fiction fans.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743407210/ref%3Dpd%5Fsl%5Faw%5Falx-jeb-8-1%5Fbook%5F3668182%5F1/104-4274890-7369504
It tells a much more concise story, with a much more vague ending.

Seewolf1939
02-11-2005, 04:26 AM
I saw that film when I was 13 and I was absolutley entranced even if I couldn't understand the last part.
I loved the ORION III sequences...any takers?

Kapitan von kahil

oscar0072004
02-11-2005, 04:33 AM
arthur c clark used to have a tv program on discovery called , ARTHUR C CLARK,S MYSTERIOUS UNIVERSE . i loved that show where he investigated all kinds of mysterious happenings in the world and have a realistic opinion about them .

u2336
02-11-2005, 04:40 AM
guys ! check this one :

http://www.kubrick2001.com/2001.html


....."You are free to speculate about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of 2001"

.Stanley Kubrick, 1968.

Dominicrigg
02-11-2005, 05:50 AM
As my friend explained it to me (and i like this version though its open to debate)

The monolith pushes us to our next stage of evolution, first at the start of the film with apes ect.

The final scene shows him travelling at super speeds through space (thats what the funky lights are ect) and then he finally reaches the next stage of evolution which is a star child. Lol when i started this post i was going to go into deep details but then i decided i didnt have the heart or skills lol. Well next stage of evolution, star child! I like that one.

diveplane
02-11-2005, 06:11 AM
for me film is outstanding,

start of the movie is powerful,
early man =apes, once the apes stand beside
the et monolith, power and knowlegde are handed
to earlyman, = in other words its et giving us
a kick start,
as you see in the movie scene the ape pick up a bone and use it as a weapon to club another ape to death.....


.....................
later in the movie they find the buried monolith
on the moons lunar surface, its et again giving
us helping hand ,radio signal to jupiter
.............
films ending.......
its our creators et , david bowman is choosen by et to be taken away and shown the creation
off our meaning and existence, ...........

ITS WONDERFUL........I understand now
..........

hence the second movie 2010
new solar system gets made for mankind for peace
,because man has nearly destroyed earth......
=nukes

............
also the music score is a classic,......

wish they would make the third book into a film

..............................
classic part in film =2001 hal computer with human feelings and thought, wonder if our
home pcs will be like this 1 day........lol
......Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am a HAL 9000 computer. I became operational at the H.A.L. plant in Urbana, Illinois on the 12th of January 1992. My instructor was Mr. Langley, and he taught me to sing a song. If you'd like to hear it I can sing it for you.
Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea): Yes, I'd like to hear it, HAL. Sing it for me.
(HAL's voice slows down as he sings, until it's completely unintelligible at the end of the song.)
HAL: It's called "Daisy." Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do. I'm half crazy all for the love of you. It won't be a stylish marriage, I can't afford a carriage. But you'll look sweet upon the seat of a bicycle built for two.
(HAL dies)

U1409
02-11-2005, 06:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by diveplane:
hence the second movie 2010
new solar system gets made for mankind for peace
,because man has nearly destroyed earth......
=nukes <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, I think that is a misunderstanding. Actually, the new solar system is made for the benefit of the life found below the ice on Europa - not for mankind. In 2001 the monolith was depicted as mankinds great mentor and benefactor, but in 2010 and onwards it reveals it's true nature: mankind is an experiment among many others, and nothing more. And we better evolve, or we will be replaced...
So mankind finds itself on the brink of getting sidetracked by the Europans just like those inferior apes at the pond. They were chosen for extinction, just as mankind was chosen for evolution.

Pr0metheus 1962
02-11-2005, 08:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by U1409:
No, I think that is a misunderstanding. Actually, the new solar system is made for the benefit of the life found below the ice on Europa - not for mankind. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would have thought that a new star in place of Jupiter would boil off all life on all of Jupiter's moons, as well as making life pretty much impossible on Earth. If the movie was reality, there wouldn't be much good that could happen to any living thing in the solar system if Jupiter became a star.

Messervy
02-11-2005, 08:20 AM
That`s why the genre is called Science Fiction! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TinPins
02-11-2005, 08:23 AM
Have read all the books. The ones after 2010 aint as good as the first two. I actually enjoyed the film 2010 more than 2001 (Note to Kubrick fanboys that may be present: this is my subjective opinion so don't bother shouting at me). Then again I enjoyed the second book better than the first so that aint suprising.

I was 10 when I saw 2001 in the theatre and I did'nt really get the ending. Still did'nt get it upon subsequent viewings when older. Twas only after reading the book that it all became clear. I Prefer Asimov to Clarke anyway but I enjoyed 2001 more after reading the book....

u2336
02-11-2005, 08:28 AM
WHAT ??? YOU DO PREFER 2010 MORE THAN 2001 ??? HAVE I WELL READ ?????

........just kidding........

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

TinPins
02-11-2005, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by u2336:
WHAT ??? YOU DO PREFER 2010 MORE THAN 2001 ??? HAVE I WELL READ ?????

........just kidding........

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh. Seriously if I'd posted that on some message boards I'd have been in for a flaming. Not that I'm expecting that from here of course. But with fanboys you never can tell where you'll encounter em. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

bertgang
02-11-2005, 08:41 AM
I am with Tinpins in preferring Asimov to Clarke, an I share his point of wiew about the ending of the movie: litle interest for the true meaning, I just don't like misterious endings.

u2336
02-11-2005, 09:24 AM
I like Kubrick (I hate the word fan) but you are free to think 2010 is better...Arent you ?
Hopefully there is not a single thought. It would be quite boring.

Ok, lets get back to work, I have this new version of the Newspeak dictionary to write. And guys, dont forget to watch the execution tonight on the TV !

Oceania will beat Eurasia.

End of transmission.......bzzzzzz...

Pr0metheus 1962
02-11-2005, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Messervy:
That`s why the genre is called Science Fiction! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it's more like fantasy than science.

blue_76
02-11-2005, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I would have thought that a new star in place of Jupiter would boil off all life on all of Jupiter's moons, as well as making life pretty much impossible on Earth. If the movie was reality, there wouldn't be much good that could happen to any living thing in the solar system if Jupiter became a star. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


that part of it is as u say fantasy.. but i like the zero gravity physics, very well done and the quietness of space.. lets be thankfull they didn't make that part like star wars lol

bertgang
02-11-2005, 09:46 AM
I'd say that the border between science fiction and fantasy is often uncertain.

The main difference between a technological stargate and some kind of magic circles, as example, is the look: the same for other possible equipements or spells; different names and fictional context, same effects in their fictional worlds.

Dominicrigg
02-11-2005, 10:00 AM
Imagine Britney spears dressed up in a rubber scientists outfit... Mmmmm i think that blurs science fiction and my fantasies pretty well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

blue_76
02-11-2005, 10:02 AM
britney: 'i thought the old lady dropped it in the obelisk in the end...'
dave: 'well baby, i went in and got it for you'
britney: 'awwwwwwwwww, you shouldn't have'
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Pr0metheus 1962
02-11-2005, 10:08 AM
Britney Spears is so skanky.

Yarrick_
02-11-2005, 10:51 AM
I didn't like the film 2001, not by its content but by the way it is realised. I specially hate the scene when Dave returns to the spaceship to kill Hal, because he needs maybe 10 minutes to open a door. It's all those scenes where everything happens so slowly and has not much interest which are nonsense to be so long in my point of view.
You see people eating, reading a newspaper, yes they are human but I saw them with the video in Fast Forward. Most people say to me it is part of the appealing of the film, but I can't see the point. I prefer other films.

u2336
02-11-2005, 10:56 AM
for some it is what makes the film a master piece, for the others it is what makes the film a bad one....I am of the first group, it is for me an aesthetic movie. Kubrick was a genius of the photography, watch Barry Lyndon and you will see what I mean.

Kubrick made 4 of my favourite movies...2001, Barry, The path of Glory, Dr Strangelove...

bertgang
02-11-2005, 11:14 AM
I totally agree for Barry Lyndon and other Kubrick's works but, on my point of wiew, 2001 was more anaesthetic than aesthetic.

Once seen, I never wished to watch it again.

Yarrick_
02-11-2005, 11:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by u2336:
Kubrick made 4 of my favourite movies...2001, Barry, The path of Glory, Dr STRANGELOVE... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did you learnt to love the bomb? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Yes, that one is a funny film.

TinPins
02-11-2005, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by u2336:
I like Kubrick (I hate the word fan) but you are free to think 2010 is better...Arent you ?
Hopefully there is not a single thought. It would be quite boring.

Ok, lets get back to work, I have this new version of the Newspeak dictionary to write. And guys, dont forget to watch the execution tonight on the TV !

Oceania will beat Eurasia.

End of transmission.......bzzzzzz... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's all the difference in the world between someone who likes something and a fanboy of something. I was in no way accusing you of being the latter.

Yeah I don't like the word fan either. I aint ever been a fan (which of course is short for fanatic) of anything really, plenty of things I like but none that I would be a fan over.

Good luck with the dictionary. I'm sure Big Brother will be pleased and it won't be long now until the final elimination of subtlety of thought is fully realised. So many bogeymen these days in the media and only a daily two minutes of hate to throw at em....

Think I might have a Victory cigarette now.

blue_76
02-11-2005, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
Britney Spears is so skanky. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh come on beeryus! wouldn't like to have her lap dance for ya? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
everyone's got a different taste, i'm not a diehard fan of britney, but she gets my attention http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pr0metheus 1962
02-11-2005, 10:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blue_76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
Britney Spears is so skanky. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh come on beeryus! wouldn't like to have her lap dance for ya? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man, I don't know where she's been. Even if I found her attractive, the last thing I'd want her doing would be a lap dance. I would be afraid to touch her with a ten foot pole.

blue_76
02-11-2005, 11:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
Man, I don't know where she's been. Even if I found her attractive, the last thing I'd want her doing would be a lap dance. I would be afraid to touch her with a ten foot pole. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

shirley ye kant bi serius? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

http://tinypic.com/1phuah

Dominicrigg
02-12-2005, 05:31 AM
He is serious and dont call him shirley!!

http://img170.exs.cx/img170/2913/britters9aj.jpg Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting (http://www.imageshack.us)

Opps i did it again!! Got carried away, and posted some totty!! Soon I, will get banned like Lanzfeld!!

Heuristic_ALgor
02-15-2005, 12:02 AM
She's a skank Dave.

HelicalPropwash
02-15-2005, 06:13 AM
2001 -- To understand the ending I'll recap on the story a bit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It's a version of several stories that Arthur C. Clarke has written through the years.

As with "The Sentinel", "Childhood's End" and the "Rama" series we are faced with a sentinent race that scours the universive for budding life, nutures it, and shows it the way forward.

There was an earlier draft of 2001 (printed in the book, "The Lost Worlds of 2001") that was much more specific. Kubrik wanted magic instead, and retold the tale with the barest of hints.

Essentially, a long time ago, the near-human race is given a nudge in the right direction by a planted Monolith. After the encounter, a hominid troop is able to use tools. The first tools "discovered" are those of war.

After a battle with a rival troop over a watering hole, the main ape "Moonwatcher" sends his weapon, a femur, up into the sky. There, at the apex of the throw, Kubrik cuts to a nuclear bomb platform in space. From the first to the latest weapon... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Thus starts the adventure in space.

The movie then relates (fuzzily) how a Monolith was found in the crater Tycho. Uncovered, it's struck by sunlight during an official inspection. When sunshine hits the object a signal is sent...

... to Jupiter.

A mission is sent to investigate. (The signal was tracked). After a lot of trouble with the control-computer, Bowman (the only surviving crewmember takes a pod out to a huge floating monolith. Awe-struck he is "sucked" in...

Clever use of Douglas Trumbull's optical effects. (Some using oils in a pan the size of a book).

Waking up in a room, Bowman is prepared for his after-life. He ages. Alone in that room. Clever cuts show the monotony and wonder of his last decades as a man.

"Reborn" on the next level of stellar consciousness he is sent to earth, or wills it. (He has a message for the human race).

Events are then stopped. The film actually ends. The book ends with missiles being fired at him. He snuffs them out. He has more important things to do.

The sequel to 2001, "2010" fills out the story from when Bowman arrives back at Earth. His message is "Keep away from Jupiter". Unfortunately the Russians and the Americans have sent another ship there.

The sentinent beings that build the monoliths have discovered life on Europa. It is imperative that this life gets to develop WITHOUT HUMAN INTERFERENCE.

Jupiter is "switched on" -- its mass is increased so it turns into a star that can warm the frozen oceans on Europa, Jupiter's enigmatic water-ice moon.

At the very end of that movie we see another monolith waiting for some form of "intelligent" Europan contact.

One isn't sure if 2001's sentinent beings themselves, like the Overlords in "Childhood's end", aren't on an evoltionary dead-end. In that story the Overlords are given the job of helping other beings on their way up.

All very Utopian and hands-on Godlike. As if Clarke is driven by the idea of a divine presence, wistfully interested in change and development for its own sake, without being too bothered by the existence of nuclear bomb-platforms.

/Soup

Pr0metheus 1962
02-15-2005, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HelicalPropwash:
The book ends with missiles being fired at him. He snuffs them out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually he merely destroys the orbiting nuke platforms. The Earth folks don't know he exists, and (unlike in the movie) he's not hovering in space above Earth, so they couldn't fire at him even if they wanted to.