# 2001: A Space Odyssey (WTF!? , I need help understanding...)



## 6Christ6Denied6 (Jun 2, 2010)

I watched this movie for the first time yesterday and was left with many questions; what is that black rectangular structure that makes strange noises, and why is it so important, why were scientists going to Jupiter, and WTF happened the last 15 minutes of the movie with the whole acid trip thing and appearing in some random room and being old and then appearing in space as a giant fetus?! that was the weirdest shit i have ever seen. Someone please help me get this.








EDIT: if a mod happens to stumble across this could you edit the thread title, just get rid of the stuff in the parentheses. i have begun to understand the movie more.


----------



## FractalEffect (Jun 2, 2010)

The big giant rectangle aka the monolith was supposed to have helped with evolution on planet earth. It is supposed to be of alien origin. When they found the monolith on the moon it sent off a signal which they tracked to Jupiter. The trippy ass part at the end of the movie is Dave's meeting with the monolith.


----------



## 6Christ6Denied6 (Jun 2, 2010)

FractalEffect said:


> The big giant rectangle aka the monolith was supposed to have helped with evolution on planet earth. It is supposed to be of alien origin. When they found the monolith on the moon it sent off a signal which they tracked to Jupiter. The trippy ass part at the end of the movie is Dave's meeting with the monolith.




what about the very end, the whole star child thing, what does that represent... the next step in human evolution?


----------



## ry_z (Jun 2, 2010)

6Christ6Denied6 said:


> what about the very end, the whole star child thing, what does that represent... the next step in human evolution?



That's more or less how I take it. A big part of the film (as I see it, anyway) is the idea of transcendence - of moving on to the next evolutionary step, to other planets, to other stars. 

It's purposely vague as hell, though.  Just take it however you want.


----------



## t3sser4ct (Jun 2, 2010)

Everything said so far is basically right. Check out the book(s) if you want a clearer understanding. Reading a plot overview/synopsis might be helpful too. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## LUCKY7 (Jun 2, 2010)

Kubrick 2001: The space odyssey explained


----------



## synrgy (Jun 2, 2010)

It means that Kubrick was completely out of his mind, in a good way.


----------



## ShreddingDragon (Jun 2, 2010)

I haven't read any "Space Odyssey explained" articles on the film, but the final room scene I have understood as a symbol of a human's life cycle, which ends in death - and on his dying bed, Dave points at the monolith (which has served as a marker of the start of a "new era" several times throughout the movie). And the "new era" this time, is to be born again


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jun 2, 2010)

I thought this was the worst movie I've ever watched. The only people I know who liked it are the ones who do drugs. That should tell you all you need to know about the movie  I actually made it all the way to the end though, how I managed is still a mystery to me. I've stopped watching better movies half way through out of sheer boredom.


----------



## 6Christ6Denied6 (Jun 2, 2010)

i dont do drugs whatsoever and at first right when it ended i wanted to hang myself but now that i understand (somewhat) what the director was trying to portray, i dont mind it anymore. i will probably watch it again any maybe i wont be so  the next time


----------



## Origin (Jun 2, 2010)

I loved that movie and I hate stoners. Most of it's open to interpretation but what everyone's said is right basically.


----------



## playstopause (Jun 3, 2010)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I thought this was the worst movie I've ever watched. The only people I know who liked it are the ones who do drugs. That should tell you all you need to know about the movie  I actually made it all the way to the end though, how I managed is still a mystery to me. I've stopped watching better movies half way through out of sheer boredom.



That's fucking bullshit. 

I'm a bachelor in Film Production and "2001" is without a doubt one of the 10 best film ever. Back in University, I've had whole classes about this single film. Not only was it a HUGE breaktrough in filmmaking at the time, but it's one of the only movie out there that people still ask themselves what the hell it is about... And it's not because it's confusing, because it is open to interpretation. There is only a handful of films which are as accomplished as this one. Kubrick's mastery at its finest. A true twisted space ballet, an object of beauty.



ry_z said:


> A big part of the film (as I see it, anyway) is the idea of transcendence - of moving on to the next evolutionary step, to other planets, to other stars.



Voilà. That's a huge part of it. The end also show how all things come full circle. The monolith could also be seen as a representation of human's endless quest for knowledge (religion, science, power, truth, etc.) from the start of humanity to this present day.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jun 3, 2010)

I'm just not into artsy movies with deep meaning I guess. However, it ISN'T bullshit that the only people I know in real life who like this movie are all brain dead stoners


----------



## metalvince333 (Jun 3, 2010)

I love most of his movies but that one..bored me to death but I went trough it thinking something interesting would happen soon...I was pretty disapointed..


----------



## 6Christ6Denied6 (Jun 3, 2010)

playstopause said:


> I'm a bachelor in Film Production and "2001" is without a doubt one of the 10 best film ever. Back in University, I've had whole classes about this single film. Not only was it a HUGE breaktrough in filmmaking at the time, but it's one of the only movie out there that people still ask themselves what the hell it is about... And it's not because it's confusing, because it is open to interpretation. There is only a handful of films which are as accomplished as this one. Kubrick's mastery at its finest. A true twisted space ballet, an object of beauty.




i agree, many people must think it is bad at first because they dont think about it, what Kubrick was trying to accomplish was to create a movie that will get people really thinking about it. i believe he did that.


----------



## Randy (Jun 3, 2010)

File me under the "loved the movie and I don't use mind altering substances" category. It's a work of art.


----------



## MFB (Jun 3, 2010)

playstopause said:


> That's fucking bullshit.
> 
> I'm a bachelor in Film Production and "2001" is without a doubt one of the 10 best film ever. Back in University, I've had whole classes about this single film. Not only was it a HUGE breaktrough in filmmaking at the time, but it's one of the only movie out there that people still ask themselves what the hell it is about... And it's not because it's confusing, because it is open to interpretation. There is only a handful of films which are as accomplished as this one. Kubrick's mastery at its finest. A true twisted space ballet, an object of beauty.
> 
> Voilà. That's a huge part of it. The end also show how all things come full circle. The monolith could also be seen as a representation of human's endless quest for knowledge (religion, science, power, truth, etc.) from the start of humanity to this present day.



Frenchy, there's two ways people interpret Kubrick : one really enjoy the shit out of them because of the technical aspect and whatnot, and others find it to be bullshit and pointless


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jun 3, 2010)

I like a few of Kubrick's other movies, but when you need to Google it and ask other people to find out what's going on, you know there's something wrong 

I know what he was trying to accomplish because my friends told me, I just found myself not caring


----------



## MFB (Jun 3, 2010)

I'm a fan of "A Clockwork Orange" and "Full Metal Jacket", so I don't hate Kubrick's works but I find him to be grossly over-rated for reasons like this. The film junkies love his work and hype the shit out of it, and stoners love this one because it's trippy, but to the common folk his films can be over-whelming and confusing to the point where instead of becoming interested and wanting to understand; we dislike/hate it.


----------



## Randy (Jun 3, 2010)

Most of Kubrick's films have a reasonably "surface level" story going on, along with the more cerebral stuff (FMJ and ACO). 2001 is almost all cerebral, and doesn't hold the interest of people who are looking for something else, like the others.


----------



## MrMcSick (Jun 3, 2010)

I love this movie and don't smoke. Another movie in this vein that I love is The Fountain.


----------



## ittoa666 (Jun 3, 2010)

Fuckin big black monoliths. How do they work?








But seriously, i thought this movie was boring too, but I don't discount it because of that. I see why people consider it a masterpiece, and I appreciate it. The main story is very interesting, but to some I can see how it can be a bit plodding.


----------



## JohnIce (Jun 3, 2010)

It's a difficult movie, for sure. I mean, it goes for over 20 minutes before there's even any dialogue. But the concept is very interesting, like a slow, passionate mindfuck.

I haven't read the book but I have read Childhood's End by the same author (Arthur C. Clarke), and it touches on a lot of the same themes while being a LOT more concise and to-the-point. I definately recommend it.


----------



## playstopause (Jun 4, 2010)

Randy said:


> Most of Kubrick's films have a reasonably "surface level" story going on, along with the more cerebral stuff (FMJ and ACO). 2001 is almost all cerebral, and doesn't hold the interest of people who are looking for something else, like the others.



Well said.



MFB said:


> Frenchy, there's two ways people interpret Kubrick : one really enjoy the shit out of them because of the technical aspect and whatnot, and others find it to be bullshit and pointless



I'll admit that Kubrick's film are not for everyone. Especially "2001", it's far from a movie made for a large "general" audience. But you know what? I don't think that people's opinion counts when it comes to Kubrick. If some think he's pointless, well they don't have a freaking clue. Those who find it boring have the right to (you really have to be in a slow paced mood to watch 2001... This ain't the fucking Transformers), but IMHO (and cinema history books all over the world), you can't touch Kubrick. You have to get passed that "bored" feeling and use your head a little, you know? Kubrick is one of the 10 best filmmaker ever and everyone studying cinema will have classes about Kubrick. He's essential but some get it, some don't.


----------



## ElRay (Jun 4, 2010)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I thought this was the worst movie I've ever watched.


If you know the book, the movie is great. If you don't know the book, there are a lot of WTF moments. Similar to David Lynch's Dune.

Ray


----------



## ry_z (Jun 4, 2010)

ElRay said:


> If you know the book, the movie is great. If you don't know the book, there are a lot of WTF moments.



I haven't read the book, and it's still possibly my favorite film of all time. 

(I don't do drugs, either.  )


----------



## LUCKY7 (Jun 4, 2010)

Millenium Hilton Hotel
55 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
212.693.*2001*


----------



## LUCKY7 (Jun 5, 2010)

"How obvious&#8212;how necessary&#8212;was that mathematical ratio of its sides, the quadratic sequence 1:4:9! And how naive to have imagined that the series ended at this point, in only three dimensions!" -Clarke A (1968). 2001: A Space Odyssey, Signet.

Clarke's monoliths are black, extremely flat, slightly reflective cuboids whose dimensions are in the precise ratio 1:4:9 (the squares of the first three integers). These dimensions are the main source of debate regarding the monoliths' simple external design. It is suggested that this number series does not stop at three dimensions, presumably also extending into the fourth and fifth dimensions. What is meant by this is not clear.

2001 vs. 2001






































So, was your consciousness transformed the first time you had contact with the monolith on 9/11/2001?


----------



## Randy (Jun 5, 2010)

What the fuck are you on and where can I get some?


----------



## LUCKY7 (Jun 5, 2010)




----------



## playstopause (Jun 6, 2010)

Randy said:


> What the fuck are you on and where can I get some?


----------



## ShreddingDragon (Jun 15, 2010)

The movie was on TV just a few days ago again. Didn't watch it with full concentration this time since I was recording stuff, but I got to play along with Also Sprach Zarathustra, which just feels awesome. 

And chiming in on what some have said - I've never used "mind altering substances" at all besides alcohol. And I have to say I'm sort of annoyed when the only conclusion some people come to, upon seeing the Jupiter and Beyond section of the movie, is that "haha what an acid trip! It's like he's on drugs!" This movie is about something a bit bigger than that...I'm not saying I even fully understand all the references and meanings behind the film and story, but it's not very hard to respect the depth put into it. 

I'm not a film fanatic or any sort of purist in the usual sense, but I can tell this is a movie that one should look at like a highly impressionistic painting. If you only look at what happens on the screen and try to put it together in the everyday-Hollywood way...doesn't make any sense at all.

Oh well, imagine if this movie was directed by Michael Bay (no offense, I like the Transformers movies, but... )


----------



## ry_z (Jun 15, 2010)

ShreddingDragon said:


> I'm not a film fanatic or any sort of purist in the usual sense, but I can tell this is a movie that one should look at like a highly impressionistic painting. If you only look at what happens on the screen and try to put it together in the everyday-Hollywood way...doesn't make any sense at all.





Roger Ebert said about the film: "Alone among science-fiction movies, 2001'' is not concerned with thrilling us, but with inspiring our awe."


----------



## Edika (Jun 15, 2010)

The movie and the messages it tried to pass was very cool. I didn't get all of it in the beginning but after thinking about it a bit I started understanding more. But this happened after my initial frustration with how slow everything in the movie was going. I know Kubrick tried to show the enormity of space and how time as we perceive it doesn't matter but the fact that everything that had to do with outer space moved disgustingly slow pissed me off when I saw the movie. I was with a couple of friends and we were screaming at some points for things to move a bit faster. I mean more than two minutes for the space ship to traverse the TV screen? Come the fuck on!!

But aside from that a very good movie.


----------



## LUCKY7 (Jun 15, 2010)

The director Stanley Kubrick encoded his movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" with the number 666.

To summarize the occurrences of 666 in the movie:

1) The "monoliths" in the movie appear for 666 seconds. The time between the first appearance and final disappearance of each of the four "monoliths'," the four times added together, is 666 seconds.

2) The number of camera shots starting from "The Dawn of Man" (the first shot after the opening credits) to "The End" (the last shot of the closing credits) is 666.

3) The running time of the movie is 666 in different ways. The running time of the film in seconds, from the beginning of the "Overture" to the end of the "Exit Music" (total exhibition time), is equal to the number of moon orbits contained in 666 years (8903). The running time of the film in seconds, from the beginning of the MGM lion logo to the fade-out of the story, is equal to the number of moon phases contained in 666 years (8237). Everything before and after the movie proper, that is, the "Overture," end credits, and "Exit Music" times, adds up to 666 seconds.

?) For an "added bonus," the director Stanley Kubrick was reported to have died 666 days before the year 2001, on March 7, 1999.


----------

