Kubrick explains the ending of 2001
#1
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Kubrick explains the ending of 2001
You begin with an artifact left on earth four million years ago by extraterrestrial explorers who observed the behavior of the man-apes of the time and decided to influence their evolutionary progression. Then you have a second artifact buried deep on the lunar surface and programmed to signal word of man’s first baby steps into the universe—a kind of cosmic burglar alarm. And finally there’s a third artifact placed in orbit around Jupiter and waiting for the time when man has reached the outer rim of his own solar system.
When the surviving astronaut, Bowman, ultimately reaches Jupiter, this artifact sweeps him into a force field or star gate that hurls him on a journey through inner and outer space and finally transports him to another part of the galaxy, where he’s placed in a human zoo approximating a hospital terrestrial environment drawn out of his own dreams and imagination. In a timeless state, his life passes from middle age to senescence to death. He is reborn, an enhanced being, a star child, an angel, a superman, if you like, and returns to earth prepared for the next leap forward of man’s evolutionary destiny.
That is what happens on the film’s simplest level. Since an encounter with an advanced interstellar intelligence would be incomprehensible within our present earthbound frames of reference, reactions to it will have elements of philosophy and metaphysics that have nothing to do with the bare plot outline itself.
When the surviving astronaut, Bowman, ultimately reaches Jupiter, this artifact sweeps him into a force field or star gate that hurls him on a journey through inner and outer space and finally transports him to another part of the galaxy, where he’s placed in a human zoo approximating a hospital terrestrial environment drawn out of his own dreams and imagination. In a timeless state, his life passes from middle age to senescence to death. He is reborn, an enhanced being, a star child, an angel, a superman, if you like, and returns to earth prepared for the next leap forward of man’s evolutionary destiny.
That is what happens on the film’s simplest level. Since an encounter with an advanced interstellar intelligence would be incomprehensible within our present earthbound frames of reference, reactions to it will have elements of philosophy and metaphysics that have nothing to do with the bare plot outline itself.
so there you go.
#8
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Kubrick explains the ending of 2001
This is the only part I don't get:
Unless you'd seen 2010, how do you get that Bowman returned to Earth from the ending of 2001? All they show is the baby/planet as a new entity in the universe, they don't show him returning to Earth or even imply it as far as I'm concerned. -kd5-
and returns to earth prepared for the next leap forward of man’s evolutionary destiny.
#10
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vichy America
Posts: 13,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Kubrick explains the ending of 2001
This is the only part I don't get:
Unless you'd seen 2010, how do you get that Bowman returned to Earth from the ending of 2001? All they show is the baby/planet as a new entity in the universe, they don't show him returning to Earth or even imply it as far as I'm concerned. -kd5-
Unless you'd seen 2010, how do you get that Bowman returned to Earth from the ending of 2001? All they show is the baby/planet as a new entity in the universe, they don't show him returning to Earth or even imply it as far as I'm concerned. -kd5-
#12
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Kubrick explains the ending of 2001
I thought Arthur C. Clarke once said that Kubrick admitted to him that the ending he created essentially didn't mean anything at all (i.e. he had no idea what it was supposed to mean), but he thought it was strange enough that people would be making crazy theories about what really happened. Or is that bunk?
#13
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Kubrick explains the ending of 2001
The 2nd to last shot of the movie is Bowman/Starchild hovering over Earth.
#14
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Kubrick explains the ending of 2001
At any rate, that's pretty much everyone's interpretation of the film, though I don't like the "zoo" thing, and prefer to think that Bowman was pulled out of regular space/time by the Monolith (or its creators) and given an experience he couldn't comprehend, much like what the apes in the beginning went through examining the Monolith, where they were confronted with this thing that was alien and unnatural to them.
In essence, we modern humans could sort of understand the Monolith at the beginning, at least we could describe it, measure it, or even create a lookalike, but all of those things were a few thousand years beyond the mind of the primitive hominids. Similarly, Bowman was shown things beyond the grasp of his and the audience's minds, preparing him and the human race and, by extension, the audience for the next step.
#15
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Kubrick explains the ending of 2001
Originally Posted by kd5
Unless you'd seen 2010, how do you get that Bowman returned to Earth from the ending of 2001? All they show is the baby/planet as a new entity in the universe, they don't show him returning to Earth or even imply it as far as I'm concerned. -kd5-
Unless you'd seen 2010, how do you get that Bowman returned to Earth from the ending of 2001? All they show is the baby/planet as a new entity in the universe, they don't show him returning to Earth or even imply it as far as I'm concerned. -kd5-
I still like 2010, though.
#17
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Kubrick explains the ending of 2001
In the link it says the interview was from 1969...
At any rate, that's pretty much everyone's interpretation of the film, though I don't like the "zoo" thing, and prefer to think that Bowman was pulled out of regular space/time by the Monolith (or its creators) and given an experience he couldn't comprehend, much like what the apes in the beginning went through examining the Monolith, where they were confronted with this thing that was alien and unnatural to them.
In essence, we modern humans could sort of understand the Monolith at the beginning, at least we could describe it, measure it, or even create a lookalike, but all of those things were a few thousand years beyond the mind of the primitive hominids. Similarly, Bowman was shown things beyond the grasp of his and the audience's minds, preparing him and the human race and, by extension, the audience for the next step.
At any rate, that's pretty much everyone's interpretation of the film, though I don't like the "zoo" thing, and prefer to think that Bowman was pulled out of regular space/time by the Monolith (or its creators) and given an experience he couldn't comprehend, much like what the apes in the beginning went through examining the Monolith, where they were confronted with this thing that was alien and unnatural to them.
In essence, we modern humans could sort of understand the Monolith at the beginning, at least we could describe it, measure it, or even create a lookalike, but all of those things were a few thousand years beyond the mind of the primitive hominids. Similarly, Bowman was shown things beyond the grasp of his and the audience's minds, preparing him and the human race and, by extension, the audience for the next step.

#18
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Kubrick explains the ending of 2001
Also, we DO see Bowman return to Earth at the end of the film. And if I remember the book correctly, he arrives just in time to stop a nuclear war.

#20
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Kubrick explains the ending of 2001
Fuck 2001, someone dig up Stan and have him explain the ending to The Shining.
#21
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Kubrick explains the ending of 2001
Right, because anyone who has read the book (which was written alongside the screenplay) knows that is exactly how it is explained.
Also, we DO see Bowman return to Earth at the end of the film. And if I remember the book correctly, he arrives just in time to stop a nuclear war.

Also, we DO see Bowman return to Earth at the end of the film. And if I remember the book correctly, he arrives just in time to stop a nuclear war.

The novel 2001 ends with the Starchild arriving at Earth, and (I think) destroys the orbiting nuclear weapon seen at the beginning and removes the clouds from the sky. The novel tells us that he is now master of the Earth, and doesn't know what he will do next, but like the ape at the beginning of the story, he would think of something. The film 2001 doesn't go that far, and the novel 2010 doesn't really pick up that thread either. Though I don't think Clarke's four novels, 2001, 2010, 2061, and 3001, are direct sequels to each other and should be read as standalone novels that share common characters and themes than an actual series.
#22
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Kubrick explains the ending of 2001
Like many unplanned sequels, the story had to be retconned in order for the sequel to make sense (lord knows that Star Wars is the king of that domain). While 2010 is a great sci-fi flick, it should kind of stand alone itself. There is more than one continuity error with 2001, (Heywood Floyd declaring that he "didn't know" that HAL had been told to lie being a glaring one, despite the fact that it's him explaining it all in the tape at the end of 2001).
#23
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vichy America
Posts: 13,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#24
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Kubrick explains the ending of 2001
Having never read the book if I knew that floating baby had some sort of new power and interaction with 'Earth' I might have understood the connection to humaniods and bone tools/weapons. As it stands I recall watching 2001 and coming away not liking the film at all. I literally thought it was much about nothing and couldn't understand for the life of my why it was always regarded so highly.
#25
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vichy America
Posts: 13,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Kubrick explains the ending of 2001
In 2010 the Starchild/Bowman is never shown anywhere near Earth. He seems to be living on or near Jupiter or the Monolith. Nobody in that movie seems to know what happened to the crew other than Bowman's "My God, it's full of stars," transmission that was never shown in 2001, and they don't seem to be aware of any Starchild entity.
I still like 2010, though.
I still like 2010, though.
In the novel, all that happens, but we also get a slightly tweaked version of the last chapter of 2001 showing Bowman approaching Earth and blowing up the orbital nuclear platform. IIRC, the implication is that Bowman had spent the intervening nine years in the Galactic Hotel, and was sent back to our solar system because of the Leonov mission.