I saw the movie when it first came out in the '60s. I've watched it a dozen times since. I've read the book twice, and I still don't know. Good luck.
2006-07-13 07:14:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
You should probably read the book. The book isin't as vague as the film. As has already been mentioned, it was based on a short story by Clarke. Clarke wrote the book in New York, while Kubrick was in England shooting the film, and they both wanted wanted to make "the proverbial good science fiction film".Everything in the film was based on scientific knowledge at the time. There's no noise in space (its a vacuum, no air to carry sound) so all you hear is the astronauts breathing. No loud explosions or "lazer beams". Heywood Floyd, who goes to the moon to investigate the second monolith, looks bored on the way up because space travel was supposed to be routine and monotonous by 2001. The same boredom can be seen with the astronauts. Another routine flight. Clarke once described the monolith to be like a "cosmic pen knife". It has several functions, one of which is to experiment with evolution. It was placed on the Earth to "jump start" early humans. That's why it taught the early humans to use a bone as a tool or weapon. The second monolith on the moon acted as an alarm clock. It could only be activated when humanity reached a certain level. When that level was reached the monolith would be "switched on". When it finally was discovered it was "switched on" and then sent a message to a third monolith to saturn or jupiter. I forget which one. The Discovery was already planned to go to that region anyway, so HAL was reprogrammed. He alone, had full knowledge of the third monolith. The astronauts didn't know and HAL was told not to tell them.This was a big mistake. He was programmed to lie which messed with his mind. (This is explained in the sequel 2010) He became trapped and paranoid and decided to kill the crew as he saw them as a threat to the mission. He can be heard during the film repeatedly saying "You know I have the greatest enthusiasm for the mission". The third monolith had plans for humanity and turned Bowman into the star child so they could use him to further tinker with human progress.The film is all about the creators of the monolith. In a back story, Clarke claimed humanity is just one of many experiments made by the makers of the monoliths. The second and third monoliths were left to continue with the experiments. The makers of the monoliths never planned on hanging around.
2006-07-13 16:09:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by Melok 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
2001 A Space Odyssey is a movie that can have as many interpretations as the number of people who watch it. And that is its brilliance. This is what Kubrick himself said about the film-
"I tried to create a visual experience, one that bypasses verbalized pigeonholing and directly penetrates the subconscious with an emotional and philosophical content...I intended the film to be an intensely subjective experience that reaches the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does...You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film."
The following is an edited and revised version of undergraduate honors thesis at Northwestern University in 1997-1998. Unlike most essays on the film, it does not attempt to find a single interpretation of 2001, instead it looks at the different ways that the film has been interpreted over the last 30 years.
http://www.palantir.net/2001/meanings/essay00.html
Notes From the Jacket of the 25th Anniversary Video Release
Written by Arthur C. Clarke.
http://www.palantir.net/2001/meanings/clarke.html
Check out this flash presentation
http://www.kubrick2001.com/
Frequently Asked Questions about 2001
http://kubrickfilms.warnerbros.com/faq/2001_faq.html
Lots of info on the movie at Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey
Trivia on 2001
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/trivia
2006-07-13 15:51:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is about how aliens interacted with humans. In the beginning, a monolith is used to give early humans intelligence. Years later, astronauts find a monolith on Mars, which starts to broadcast to another monolith orbiting Jupiter. Astronauts are sent to look at the new monolith. Unfortunately their master computer was told to prevent the crew from knowing the mission at all cost. The computer starts killing the crew. One of the crew members stops the computer and then goes to explore the monolith. The monolith then becomes a gateway to another area in space. The astronaut then gets transported to an area that tries to mimic the lifestyle on Earth (yet because they are using television broadcasts, there is no food in the refrigerator for instance). There he is turned into a star child.
2006-07-13 15:18:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by gregory_dittman 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
... as the name says · it is an Odyssey – a long long journey from the beginning of man to ... no, no, not the end ... to the FUTURE.
The movie is very old (1967 – 1969) and it's very optimistic – maybe "naive" – but it looks friendly in to the future of mankind...
There is no other sci.-fi.-movie I know which is that clear and friendly looking to the future ... I'm talking about the film – the book is different and was made AFTER the movie. That's very strange ... The story Stanley Kubrick used for his film was "The Sentinel" by Artur C. Clark ... "The Moon watcher" ....
2006-07-13 14:39:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's a book written by a guy called Arthur C Clark. He's also the fellow who discovered geosynchrous orbits. They happen to be the orbits in which almost all broadcast satellites revolve.
He just felt that since he discovered this orbit, he was competent enough to write a book.
Althought the book explores a lot of new scientific avenues, its not meant to be an entertainer, but more an insight into the mind of a scientific thinking man.
2006-07-13 14:22:25
·
answer #6
·
answered by STAR 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think the reason it is so popular despite being so obscure and difficult to understand is that it's one of those films that allows you to layer your own belief system, thoughts and understanding onto the images you see. It does get lost in itself, confusing, weird and at times boring; but it's a wonderful piece of arthouse, intellectual, beautifully made cinema. And if nothing else, it's introduced the music Also Sprach Zarathrustra into the public consciousness which may not have been as widely remembered.
It's definitely worth watching and trying to understand. Maybe he was just more clever than all of us...
2006-07-13 14:20:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
it is based on the short story "the sentinel" by arthur c clarke and is, in a nutshell, about man's innate curiosity and the discovery we are not alone in the universe. It is a classic movie that is either loved or hated but i think it is a work of cinematic art that has stood the test of time. One does not go to the art gallery to analyse the artists motive, but to analyse our emotional response to what we observe.
My advice would be to read the series of books - this will help you see the scale of the imagination of the author as well as his sound scientific reasoning.
2006-07-13 14:27:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by Allasse 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
It means different things to different people.
I’ll tell you one thing tho, after the monolith promotes the advancement of man, and the man/ape creature discovers the use of weapons (The bone) to hunt for food & to protect themselves, thus survival.
When the Man creature throws the bone in the air the scene changes to a MILITARY space vehicle. (Weapon to weapon)
A lot of things were explained in the 2 hour CH4 (UK) TV Documentary shown in 2001.
2006-07-13 16:52:25
·
answer #9
·
answered by Norman Bates 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
something to do with monkeys on a spaceship then i think they get drugged up and start having hallucinations at the end or some thing, oh and i think they end up in a black hole with this weird red robot thing and their ship pegasus goes to heavan its really weird. lol.
2006-07-13 15:39:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by ripsnate 1
·
0⤊
0⤋