2001 A Space Oddyssy

[unclejack]

Hey yall, I just wanted to ask a question for any Space Odyssey fans out there. Please don't be offended by the ignorance of this question if you like the movie because I am a big science fiction fan, but what in the world was that movie about because I just don't get it. I mean, I like movies that are somewhat interpretive in their them and in concepts throughout the movie but when it becomes so abstract that you struggle to make sense of it then it becomes aggrivating to me. I only watched it for the first time in the past year so my interest in understanding it is fairly new. If you think you have it figured out and you understand what was happenen, please let me know. I don't understand the black box on the moon and at the beginning of time and I definately don't get the ending at all. Any comments or thoughts are welcome.

[mosaix]

You probably need to read a short story called 'The Sentinel' by Arthur C Clarke as a starting point.

[gully_foyle]

Actually, you are better off reading 2001 by Arthur C Clarke if you want to understand the ending.

[steve12553]

I saw the movie many years ago and didn't get it, although I was fascinated. I read the book and had a firm grasp of it. Then I saw the movie again and didn't get it again. So I read the book again.

[unclejack]

Hmmm. Well, I was kinda lookin for a quick answer. It's not really important enough to me to know what the ending was all about that I'm willin to go read a book to find out. No sarcasm intended, thanks for the advice but I'm just not that interested.

[kythe]

I thought the book was much better than the movie. It tells a great story, offers insights into human nature and history, and is pretty easy reading. For all the rave reviews about the "classic film", I think you're better off reading the book and skipping the movie entirely. If you decide to pick it up, it won't take long to read.

[j. d. worthington]

Even though I'm a bit late with it, I posted a quick take on this in the Film Club forum, should you be interested, unclejack:

http://www.chronicles-network.com/fo...451-post2.html

Hope that helps....

[unclejack]

Thanks J.D., I read your post in the film section and I have to say that that does make more sense. I can see how that's what Kubrik was trying to portray with the film now that I think about it but I know that I never would have made all those connections on my own strictly by watchin the movie. So, my curiosity is satisfied for the moment. I still think it's way too interpretive of a movie for my tastes though. I think I'll stick to Starman. Speaking of which, I'm gonna go post a thread called Starman in the general media section. Check it out if you want.

[Bikewer]

It's interesting to note that Clarke and Kubrick disagreed over the "meaning" of the film.
Clarke wrote the novelization after the screenplay, as I recall, in order to express what he thought the whole thing was about.
Kubrick stayed pretty mum on his own ideas..... So far as I know.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

It's interesting to note that Clarke and Kubrick disagreed over the "meaning" of the film.
Clarke wrote the novelization after the screenplay, as I recall, in order to express what he thought the whole thing was about.
Kubrick stayed pretty mum on his own ideas..... So far as I know.

I've not run across anything by Kubrick on it, anyway. I've seen things indicating that while they disagreed on the "meaning", there was never any acrimony over it (though I could have missed things indicating otherwise....); but, given Kubrick's approach and Clarke's... yes, I can see where they'd each see different things there... and that's one of the neat things (to me) about such a film... it can bear several interpretations, all quite valid, and so it always has something new to say to you.....

[Jon George]

People might be interested to know that there is a book by Arthur C. Clarke entitled The Lost Worlds of 2001 in which he goes through the different storylines he considered while writing the screenplay – it provides an even greater insight into both film and novel.
Trivia: A university lecturer of mine told me that when he first started, he had to interview a first year undergraduate who had failed miserably, but wanted another go. It appears the guy had a blown vast sum of money on wine, women and drugs. Where did he get the cash? Well, he was lying on a beach and was asked by a casting director if he wanted to be in a film. Sure – what did it involve?
He was one of the apes.

[clovis-man]

Originally Posted by steve12553

I saw the movie many years ago and didn't get it, although I was fascinated. I read the book and had a firm grasp of it. Then I saw the movie again and didn't get it again. So I read the book again.

As mentioned before, the short story "The Sentinal" was the genesis for "2001". To get to the other side of the concept, i.e., what happens after Bowman evolves, You need to read Clarke's "Childhood's End". Not the same story, but goes a long way into the idea of humanity becoming something much more than just tool-using, hairless apes.

Clarke dwelt on the theme of the sometimes benevolent, always omnipotent and occasionally indifferent super beings and how they interact (or choose not to) with us puny hominids. The "Rama" series is maybe the best example.

Regards,

Jim