O.K. so i just watched 2001 for the first time and I got some questions...

spoilers...


1)What was the point of showing the monkeys at the beginning?

2)What was this mission HAL was talking about?

3)What was it that Dave was seeing through his pod while traveling through space so fast? Was that some sort of time travel imagery?

4)Where the heck did he land at the end? Who's house was that? Why did he keep on seeing himself get older and older? Was that dave they show as a baby or something? Can someone explain what type of human figure that was? An alien baby?

5)What was the significance of that tall black column?

6)Do you think there will ever be a computer as sophisticated as HAL in our lifetime?

7)Why didn't Kubrick direct 2010?

8)Is 2010 better or worse than 2001? A worthy sequel?

9)What do think is better between 2001 and AI?

10)WTF no extras on the 2001 disc? I'd atleast would've liked to have seen making of featurette or at least an audio commentary. What gives Koobster?

I won't try to answer all your questions since it's been years since I've seen this, but I'll try a few...
1. The monkeys at the beginning was supposed to show humankind millions of years ago, before evolution made us as we are now. The section with the ape using the bone to murder signified a step in evolution, with our ancestor learning the use of having a tool to do something, basically. The monolith was there to observe this step in human evolution. Just as it was there waiting to be uncovered later in the movie when humankind reached a point where it would be discovered.

4. Yes, the baby was Dave, but in the next phase of evolution, the "star child."

5. See my answer to 1.

6. Yes.

8. 2010 is at least more understandable to the common viewer. It's worth watching. It'll also answer some questions as to why Hal went psycho.

Ahhh, Kubrick vs the Playstation generation. This should be good to watch.

snob

Exactly! Kahn just exactly how old are you? In your 60s? I'm 30 btw.

1. The Monolith's presence spurs evolution.

3,4.Dave travels through a wormhole to the aliens who created the Monolith. They place him in a sort of zoo (the room) created from his mind. Dave is shown in an instant growing old, dying and being reborn as the Star Child. The Star Child is basically a god he can do pretty much anything he wants.

I didnt much care for 2010.

Do you think we as humans will be able to become Star Childs within the next 20-40 years? I want to visit the Playboy mansion sometime before I croak.

In the movie, it is never fully explained what the Starchild is.

The novel by Arthur C. Clarke does, though, and it is essentially a god-like being. And it returns to Earth.

Another interesting point... when the ape tosses the bone he just killed the other ape with into the air and there is a fast-cut to a satellite, the satellite it cuts to is an orbiting weapons platform. (Again, this isn't explained in the movie and I don't recall if it's in the book, but I read this somewhere.) This essentially says that the human race hasn't made much progress over the past few million years, and still have an interest in murdering their own kind.

To answer the common questions about the movie, it helps a lot to read the book. The movie is a mystical experience, and is uninterested in black and white answers.

6) Do you think there will ever be a computer as sophisticated as HAL in our lifetime?

Yes. Dave has to go around the ship checking the data with a clipboard. Then he has to analyze the data by hand. In the near future, computers will be able do collect and analyze data for you.

10) WTF no extras on the 2001 disc?

Kubrick didn't like extras. He thought that a movie was a work of art that stands on its own. He made a point of destroying leftover footage so other people wouldn't use it later.

7) Why didn't Kubrick direct 2010?

See above. Kubrick had said what he had to say, and had moved on.

8) Is 2010 better or worse than 2001? A worthy sequel?

I haven't seen 2010. If you want to see a nonmystical explanation of 2001, from a novel written two decades later, in a straightforward movie, it's supposed to be good.

See you next Wednesday.

is there any wierd coincidence to the date the HAL9000 was created (it was jan somethin 1992 right)

Hey I own a Playstation and can't stand Kubrick. And I've written about how much I hate 2001 at least a couple of times on this forum.

But the argument you'll keep getting is that the main point of movies from Kubrick (and David Lynch, among others) is that there is no point. You can take as much or as little from it as you like but there are usually very few black and white, cut and dried, yes or no answers to what the movie is about. The movie is about whatever you think it's about. The reason there are no extras is because extras can only limit the possible interpretations of the movie and Kubrick wants them to be as wide as possible.

Most people long for simple answers and this sort of thing drives them crazy. They (like you) will sometimes go to great lengths to find definitive answers when those are the one thing the director doesn't want you to have.

I'm usually with the 'can't stand it' majority but on rare occasions (Mulholland Drive) I can go with it.

Guess your search missed all the previous 2001 discussions, including this one:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=270315

The answer isn't that clear cut. Nobody really knows what the monolith does, at least in the movie. It could spur evolution, it could also just be a marker to record significant events.

The 2001 book is a lot more explicit than the movie in explaining things and that makes it less fun.

I don't know. I think it's pretty clear that the first appearance of the Monolith causes the evolution. I don't believe that the Monolith can "see the future", so how would it just happen to appear the night before a great step in evolution? In the book, a target actually appears on the Monolith and the man-ape (named Moonwatcher) starts throwing things at it. He is actually being taught by the Monolith.

No its not clear. The apes are starving about to die, and then the one monkey comes up with the idea about the bone. The appearance of the monolith may indicate the moment has arrived for evolution and that the ape came up with the bone idea, but it does not mean the monolith caused the evolution.

The 2001 book is a lot different than the movie, you can make assumptions of what the movie was meaning, but Kubrick left it open for interpretation.

Check out this 2001 trivia..

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/trivia

Matt

There's scores of websites dedicated directly to this film that can say what I wanna say much better than me. (Plus, I'm too lazy to type all my thoughts on the film. there's too many.)

Oh C'mon, get off your ass and start typing

Very, very well put.

This is essentially the same reason the directors of these movies are either regarded as "geniuses" or disregarded as "wackos".

Grrrr. Just because a movie does not adhere to one of the standard Hollywood formulas and supports multiple interpretations, does not mean there is “no point.”

ok fair enough.

But that doesn't mean that those who want more are Neanderthals.

Try taking 30 bong hits and watching this movie. I aint been right ever since. WTF???

So you're saying the Monoloth just happened to appear the night before a tremendous evolutionary leap? OK.

1) Monkeys starving.
2) Monolith appears, in alignment with the Moon and star thingy (just as happens with the Monolith later)
3) Next day Monkey picks up bone and whales on Monkey #2.

Surely just coincidental timing.

The whole point of the story is that the aliens behind the Monolith are influencing man's evolution, from the very beginning. I suppose the last Monolith just happened to show up when Bowman evolved into the Star-Child? Another amazing coincidence of timing?

There is no single, definitive point.

In the case of 2001 I'm among those who would like there to be one, but it just isn't there. It's more complicated than that which some see as good, others bad. Kubrick would definitely be delighted that people are still arguing about it decades after he made it.