2001: A Space Odyssey - Ending Explained

[@thetake]

Get a full month of MUBI, a hand-picked selection of cult, classic and award-winning films, FOR FREE: mubi.com/screenprism Support ScreenPrism on Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=7792695 Subscribe to keep up with our latest videos, and let us know what you want to see next!

[@ScoreMagnet]

First of all, that´s a good video. But it is quite unnecessary, if you´ve read the book anthology containing 2001, 2010, 2061 and 3001, because in the book 2001 the ending is clearly explained, and totally non confusing, maybe you should take a look :)

[@jnxmaster]

Score Magnet as far as I know, the latter three books were made after the release of the movie.

[@ScoreMagnet]

Yes, because they are sequals xD

[@Rrtnns]

This film isn't intended to have a clear-cut story but to leave room for interpretation. All this awful channel does is make subjective claims based on random whims.

[@jnxmaster]

What I meant by that is that Kubrick himself didn't necessarily know the plot of the latter books (and he also didn't follow the story of the first book precisely). As he himself stated, he wanted things to be up for interpretation. I am sure he had some rough idea of what happened during the ending though.

[@chimpinaneckbrace]

Explain the ending to you? I’m sorry Dave. I can’t do that.

[@ScoreMagnet]

The book can :)

[@krispysback9604]

I thought the ending was fucking awesome! It creeped me the fuck out which is why i thought it was awesome. I took it as he was in another dimension or reality that i could not comprehend but was still left trying to figure out. So yeah the ending worked the why it was intended at least for me. Kind of a slow movie but all in all it's a damn good movie

[@olgakim4848]

HAL is such a jerk!

[@austindarrenor]

All of the graphics near the end of the movie had to be based on one hell of an LSD trip. Especially seeing how predominant that drug was during the time of the making of this movie.

[@johnellizz]

@@austindarrenor Bruh, the ending is about how the Devil control Earth. He done took them apes and taught them to kill. Evolved them until they got into space. Then he took the astronaut and made him into a 'Left Eye' convert who could rule over the world. That why the Star Baby got only a left eye. That the Devil's eye, bruh.

[@LIQUIDSNAKEz28]

I COMPLETELY understood this movie, but then the acid wore off.

[@Brandon-yg7mw]

Did you ever actually trip Shalashaska?

[@LIQUIDSNAKEz28]

Yes, I try to trip at least once every other month or so, but I'm currently down to my last two stamps and don't know anyone selling the stuff, so I see a little bit of a dilemma in the near future.

[@LIQUIDSNAKEz28]

@TheRealMrMcCoy Sometimes I take up to 3 stamps but usually 1 is good enough

[@DBZ483]

I've done it twice in my life and still vibe off the feelings it left me with

[@brianarbenz1329]

Did the acid go a hundred percent failure in 72 hours?

[@vicenteortegarubilar9418]

Me: I need to study, I need to stop watching screenprism videos. A voice in my head: I am sorry Vic, I'm afraid I can't do that.

[@Luvie1980]

Vicente Ortega Rubilar this mission is too important for you to jeopardize.

[@gmu2]

You ARE studying homie.

[@gurt6265]

Vicente Ortega Rubilar Hmmm. Very similar to your comment on CrashCourse....

[@derekrogers1668]

😂😂😂

[@bennyton2560]

You're studying Philosophy

[@swagpuertorican2002]

Everyone: wtf did I just watch Stanley Kubrick: you wouldn't get it

[@ariatolouei5908]

Absolute mad lad

[@jathinr5142]

Yeahhhhh totally

[@lisatsuda]

HAL, a rogue computer .. IBM, letters adjacent to HAL.. ...OOOOOO..

[@DZ-bj3yx]

Bro fr . I just finished the movie. Finally saw it after being curious as fuck. Don’t know what in the fuck I just watched but it was quite an experience and it was beautiful damn

[@sofiu-v3p]

Stanley Kubrick: You would *NEVER* get it

[@jacksaintjack2844]

A cinematic masterpiece. To create special effects so startling that they appear to be created today, yet done 50 years ago is incredible. Images, lighting, suspenseful silence, the struggle between man and artificial intelligence. Pure genius.

[@clevelandtyler2]

It's truly amazing how good the visuals were for a movie in 1968. It's hard to even understand how they did it.

[@user-iu3kv2bo4h]

To be fair the movie is probably refurbished nowadays

[@DZ-bj3yx]

Facts , beautiful

[@timothycurnock9162]

Even Hal would be proud.

[@steveohiowine]

Many modern films use "lens flare" like 2001 in the time travel scene. They just don't do it as well.

[@danpenia219]

The ending made me feel like how I felt during math class in high school

[@ledfloyd6943]

"What the fuck is going on"

[@rudolphguarnacci197]

Apparently, more like English

[@FiveFemboys]

But you are in the first class...

[@walkerh2745]

it's like i almost understand but once i think about it more, not at all

[@Eric-qi9us]

underrated

[@pradnyadesai7666]

Whoever that has installed the monolith at Utah has got a really dark sense of humour

[@mariapearce8098]

And a second one in Rumania!!

[@mariapearce8098]

And a second one in Rumania

[@erickarambula3494]

Very dark sense of humor cus this could mean alot of things if an artist put it there. Samething if an E.T did it because of the spiritual awakeing going on rn.

[@kflashcarr1992]

In the movie they use a fake pandemic as a cover story.

[@pinkithecat9101]

that guy probably think that covid 19 is next step in our revolution....and if u analyze situation maybe he is right...

[@Afxonidis]

Is it just me or during the whole film, especially the last part, I was so quiet and into the movie, and when it has finished I yelled "WHAT THE ACTUAL FCK!"

[@ind3n]

I literally said that

[@rodneyprill4618]

Me too

[@agentorange8772]

😂😭 same here

[@theuniques1199]

Stanley Kubrick would be so proud of you all because he made his point loud and clear.

[@robertsullivan4773]

I saw it when it came out, I remember everything about the Friday night I saw it with college friends. No one understood what the end was about, but we all was ver impressed with what the future held. Looking back it's clear the title should have been pushed out to at least 2050, we aren't nearly as advanced as he thought back then now,

[@matthewmorrison9700]

What makes 2001: A Space Odyssey so special is its use of cosmic horror. Rather than scaring the audience with graphic images of gore and jumpscares, it relies on evoking fear into its viewers through subtle intimidation that makes them realize how small they are. After Dave passes "beyond the infinite" he is presented with a display of sights and images that are impossible to verbalize. When he ends up in the otherworldly dimension, he cannot explain what he is witnessing. The human brain is incapable of processing what he is looking at, and if I had to describe the feeling it would be something like "trying to point out every detail in a realistic painting" You experience it, but you can't think around it. It makes us realize just how little we've come in evolution compared to what we become in the future.

[@mopnem]

What is also a unique perspective is that the movie looks antiquated watching it now in terms of the "futuristic style" lack of diversity, defined roles, ect.. The real future is largely unpredictable because you can be too antiquated to even realize you are.

[@Hot_And_Sour_Stinky]

They were definitely wrong about where we’d be in the future. Instead we are arguing about genders, sexuality and killing babies.

[@pyroxxx]

@@mopnem In terms of looks and design, wether it be for example cars or buildings, people will always fail to portray a fairly accurate future. Nobody really knows how the future will look like, so they design something and just add some fancy things to try making it more futuristic while not realizing it will still look outdated in let's say 50 years.

[@hfkhan9470]

"If 2001 has confused you, but still emotionally affected you, then it's done it's job." *I can't tell how happy I felt when you said that*

[@BrickAlmondsArchive]

the drinking of the glass of water is a mirror image of te apes drinking water at the sgart of the movie in the lake. The glass is the next stage of drinking and it breaking shows that the next stage after that is going to begin,

[@TonyPizzaPie]

Good point!

[@willbond]

Good observation.

[@atticuspomerantz65]

naaaw.

[@harponercam]

Mazel tov means BIGGER BONES! Yeah yeah, that's the TICKET!

[@brianarendon111]

A really good point! And if you don’t mind, can I add my theory? I think that that parallel and interpretation is very interesting and I think similarly to the interpretation made by the video, but I think it was less about his soul breaking away and more like the breaking of the terrestrial mind to transcend human consciousness. The glass, which is so basic and mundane a tool, shattering is what causes him to snap out of the construct created by the higher life forms enough to be able to take the next step in human evolution

[@kennooo535]

My Brain: tries to make sense of this film Also My Brain: *I'm sorry Brain, I'm afraid I can't do that.*

[@plantgang3631]

My head canon is those who make a very important scientific breakthrough ascend to the room there they live out the rest of their lives and eventually die after dieing they become monoliths that help humans with the breakthrough they made after successfully fulfilling their purpose they become the baby gods

[@bill775]

lmao

[@brianarbenz7206]

"Open the analysis bay door, Brain."

[@unclemonty9506]

my dad took me to see 2001 when I was around 5 years of age and I'd seen it at least 3 times before I was 10. I'm no genius but it affected me so profoundly that even though I am now 56 it is still the most incredible piece of cinema I have ever seen

[@ernestbuckley8671]

Thats why its a masterpiece... once you see it, you're are moved. Some never return to it and call it weird or boring but they never forget it. Others like you and I return to it often and discover another level with each viewing.

[@finddeniro]

My Father saw the Film...and did Not take Me.. Ah Resentments...a Many...

[@rebeccacummings6697]

@@ernestbuckley8671 I don't get that. Having a strong emotional reaction from a movie? Like, it's fake, how do you get suspension of disbelief?

[@ernestbuckley8671]

@@rebeccacummings6697 there are multiple themes in the movie. Its about the evolution of humanity/consciousness

[@rebeccacummings6697]

@@ernestbuckley8671 yeah, I can't find that "profound" or "thought provoking"

[@alx5904]

i do not understand how this movie looks better than most space movies nowaday...

[@cloudbyx9970]

not just space movies but every other movies too

[@ZakRios333]

And better than real life moon landing

[@morten1]

Hard work (non-cgi), passion, artistic courage, vision, meaning. All those are lacking in most movies today. But not all. Arrival is great too

[@realbr1koo]

Style. Style is always stronger than trends.

[@jakedowell7457]

@@morten1 and interstellar

[@moonlightmando7163]

I watched this last week. I’m 16, so way after its time. I saw it being listed in the airplane’s movie selection and it ringed a bell, so i gave it a watch. I will say, HAL was so well made down to every line of dialogue , and the ending had me experiencing an emotion that i cant depict. By the time it got to the part where the old bowman looked at the bed, i knew it was going to show an even older, dying, bowman and it didn’t disappoint. For being made in 1967 (I think), it was way ahead of its time both in writing and visuals.

[@ckk5762]

Right on

[@dessfred]

It took me a few watching of 2001 to understand the ending was about the next evolution of humanity, but never realised how HAL is the obstacle to attain this evolution. AI is already controlling us in some ways right now. The battle against the machines is not even started and we're kind of losing already. Aw man!

[@bacchicbachian3694]

Can you name one example of AI "controlling us" today?

[@dessfred]

Oh, I can name two: Algorythms on the internet and social medias reconforts our values and likings, trapping us in a bubble of things that are familiar to us. The Block Chain is a secure, unbreakable code used in crypto-currency, and it's so new, I don't even graps the full potential of it. You could say those are "electronics tools", not AI. But add facial recognition, self-driving cars or drones, and I cross my fingers that all of this fall in good hands.

[@MrMrprofessor12345]

I never took HAL as intended to symbolize an obstacle. I thought he was a new born race of sorts. Something we've created as a symbol of our readiness to for the next step.

[@alexanderrojas7945]

I see HAL as a test

[@canturgan]

Alexander Rojas HAL is Google, watching, waiting.

[@jmchez]

According to the actor, Keir Dullea, the wine glass scene was not in Kubrick's original plan. He told Dullea to act as if he heard a sound coming from the bed. Dullea thought that was kind of boring and , as an actor, wanted to act. So he proposed that he was going to act clumsily, knock the glass over, reach for it and notice his older self on the bed. Kubrick thought that that was brilliant. He may have grasped the deeper meaning that so many people attribute to the glass breaking or, he may have just simply liked more movement in that one scene.

[@katkatkatkat463]

Thanks for that info. I found the glass breaking an odd moment to latch onto for meaning in a film of such broadly cryptic imagery.

[@lawrencejelsma8118]

And like Stanley Kubrick said different people will get different messages showing his brilliance in making movies. I got, as a child watching this movie for my first time, and understanding of learning while we may seem like we are born into indestructible bodies made for us (like a manufactured wine glass) it will eventually break down one day for us; and then we may see ourselves dying, reaching out to what we think (the monolith in this movie) will bring us next where to! ... From our death to what new life form. To begin in infancy once again on Earth to be a new Earth life form beginning from our Earth past's old (like I was back then as a child watching this movie). Our ancestor's aging and past is our own infancy and beginnings to bring forth new sciences and understandings (new alien life form) different than our past experiences. It will all be different and new and "evolutionary" ... That's Life experiences on Earth and Time.

[@whydoimevenhere]

It's not that deep.

[@dan797]

Yes, he dropped the wine glass by mistake. Vancouver kept it in as a transition to the next sandwich, which was very clever

[@dan797]

Yes, he dropped the wine glass by mistake. kubric kept it in as a transition to the next scene , which was very clever

[@nicholaskatsikas4904]

This movie must have been a trip if you were on LSD

[@coreyfro]

Nicholas Katsikas I have watched it on LSD. In 2001.

[@1pcfred]

In the first theatrical release seeing the movie tripping was popular with a large segment of the audience. It was 1968 after all.

[@robtennant98]

Nicholas Katsikas I’ve watched it on cannabis so good

[@1000000man1]

When it was first released, there was some worry about it not doing well because a LOT of people walked out of the cinema, but then it grew more and more popularity, especially with younger audiences. A fair amount of them did get high, typically during the 'stargate' sequence.

[@sherryk30]

It was!! Lol

[@eyezack2778]

I never felt so confused while watching a movie, that ending left me speechless, brilliant film.

[@helenhuntsforehead9690]

It "affected me mentally" by confusing and frustrating the shit out of me.

[@ernestbuckley8671]

Funny, I've watched this around 4-5 times now and each time brings more appreciation for the masterpiece it is... this is just my take and I welcome your take... I see 2001 as a history of consciousness. The monolith represents mans highest level of consciousness (aka God). When the apes first experience the monolith, they become aware and now they learn to use weapons against each other and learn to eat other animals. Ape progresses into modern day man who has learned to fly and is now in space. When modern man experiences the monolith on the moon, he is again awakened and graduates to another level of consciousness. Dave Bowman (think David and Goliath... Goliath being Artificial Intelligence of HAL) must eventually conquer HAL (or organized religion) to realize God... he eventually experiences the monolith and enters into a higher realm of consciousness.... suddenly he is older and transported to a larger and strange room ("in my fathers house there are many rooms".... Jesus referring to the many levels of consciousness). In this higher level of consciousness, Dave experiences his present moment and then the glass falls off the table... the glass represents his body... physical but old and broken.... next he looks up and we see Dave on his deathbed... he sees the monolith and reaches out to it... this is man ever-reaching for God or higher levels of consciousness. Then a newborn child is on the bed where Dave died (reincarnation) and the movie ends with the baby or Dave returning to earth as humanity continues to evolve into higher levels of consciousness... The monolith represents God... something we do not understand... it is beyond our current level of understanding so we continue to evolve. HAL, the artificial intelligence also becomes conscious but its role in the movie is a warning... humanity will only experience God through mans individual efforts, not through an artificial means or organized religion.... Thats just my take of the movie after watching it 4-5 times. Its a masterpiece nonetheless.

[@despacitodaniel801]

My thoughts exactly ahah

[@AskMia411]

Just watched it for the first time and yeah, saying a nonsensical ending is “good” because it was meant to be nonsense is bizarre to me. I feel like the kid in “the emperor’s new clothes” that finally points out that the emperor is naked, going through this comment section. No one wants to look stupid by admitting that they don’t get the “genius” of the ending, when from a storytelling standpoint it ISN’T good. The visuals are amazing, the story is good up until the final scene. The movie just doesn’t stick the landing for me .

[@thehightable5995]

You made the best analysis about this movie ending that I ever seen. Thank you.

[@ScoreMagnet]

Well actually the interpretation is unnecessary, because the ending was explained in the book 2001. For some reasons they made it totally confusing in the movie, while it´s totally understandable in the book.

[@rpajela7]

Best analysis

[@akizeta]

+Score Magnet The book was written by Arthur C Clarke, an old school science fiction writer who just had to explain what was going on. The movie was Kubrick's baby, so he made it as an emotional journey, like an old school director. While the story was a collaboration, they each brought it to their own media in their own way.

[@frankmaclow2709]

Actually no. Kubrick didn't write the movie, Arthur C Clarke did and it's very clear in the book what happens at the end. The people who made this video didn't read the book and didn't care about it unfortunately. They made their own BS analysis without knowing what is in the book

[@akizeta]

+Frank Maclow I didn't say that Kubrick wrote the movie - though since Clarke wasn't an experienced scriptwriter, Kubrick undoubtably had some input into the writing process - I wrote that the movie was "Kubrick's baby", meaning that Kubrick did all the stuff a director has to do to make the movie happen. A movie is more than a script.

[@dominic2014]

I think the monolith has an ability to enhance consciousness. Broadening the primitive ape's mind causing it to create tools, and allowing HAL to achieve the instinct of self preservation. The reappearance of the monolith could have also been a test between humans and artificial intelligence. If HAL had been able to complete the murders it could have been HAL that went through portal.

[@randaljbatty]

The HAL 9000 was constructed and programmed by men -- no alien interference here. HAL's failure was due to conflicting objectives built into its programming -- a fault of man, no one else. The Monolith that is hovering around Jupiter was never meant to be a "test between humans and AI." HAL was manufactured independent of the moon monolith that sent a message to the giant Monolith orbiting Jupiter or one of its moons -- no actual connection is ever indicated in either the book or the movie. Ideally, Dave would have sent a drone to inspect the giant monolith, just as in 2010 where the Russians sent a probe to explore Europa. While not a deal breaker, one of the Discovery's EVA pods could have been programmed to inspect the giant monolith. With HAL becoming homicidal prior to a close encounter with the giant monolith, Dave had no choice but to try and complete his mission without any assistance from HAL. If HAL had been the resource that entered the stargate, from the outside (let's say Dave's point of view), the pod would have been absorbed by the giant monolith and disappeared (as exemplified in 2010). Any attempts by HAL to communicate with Dave once inside the stargate would probably have been futile. The other thing is that we really do not have a complete understanding of the alien race's objectives. The race (probably defunct) seemed focused on biological life forms, so it might have regarded an AI-equipped pod as flotsam and simply disregarded or even destroyed it.

[@alexanderjakubowski6183]

Thor Odinson Maybe Human beings were created in the same way, by whoever or whatever left the monolith for us.

[@howardchambers9679]

Read the fucking book please?

[@barryhallsack2434]

@@randaljbatty I feel as though you can see the the correspondence between how AI works and how Dave went through that worm hole of some sort. The images you see are very electronic like, as well as cosmic objects being integrated into this images. I'd like to see it as a connection of how this monolith functions and communicates between both human AND AI.

[@MM-wr5cx]

Fuck hal!

[@kahlbutomacfarland]

It makes me so happy that people aren’t forgetting this film. The GOAT.

[@ScoreMagnet]

Well, but the book is much better :C

[@antihinduismisbased]

Score Magnet your opinion. I think the film is better. The book tried explaining too much.

[@ScoreMagnet]

Ok, I think the movie explained not much enough.

[@seth1627]

Kahlbuto MacFarland same here, to me this is one of the greatest films ever made.

[@kodakblake7310]

Kahlbuto MacFarland This movie is an overrated, piece of garbage.

[@christopher7398]

Am I the only one who felt like it was strange how the main character switched halfway through the film? Like it went from Heywood being brain scrambled by the monolith and we never saw him again.

[@adumdumdum]

he wasn't brain scrambled, it was the signal going off from the moon monolith to the jupiter one. Hence the mission to jupiter, probably directed by Heywood since we see him in the video message in HAL's mainframe.

[@TheMCCraftingTable]

They are two completely different persons... One is a scientist investigating the moon anomaly (which sends a signal to Jupiter) and the second is an astronaut investigating the signal's destination (Jupiter's monolith)

[@rosco8453]

he appears in the other books going on missions, so he is not completly left out in the whole series

[@asukalangleysoryu6695]

@@TheMCCraftingTable Are you fucking stupid? Not a single fucking soul ever claimed that they are the same person.

[@CleoPhoenixRT]

Even while lost towards the end, my eyes were glued to the screen taking in all the visuals while my mind ran a mile a minute. It wasn't unpleasant, but knowing his vision for it now, I have greater appreciation! Thanks 🙂

[@bill775]

Would love to know what you thought about this movie!

[@brainix]

This narrator has such a pleasant voice.

[@AllThingsFilm1]

Very good explanation of the inexplicable ending of "2001". To me, it was very clear that Kubrick wanted "2001" to be a personal experience. That it was criticized upon its initial release, then heralded as a classic years later speaks to this.

[@zeroone8800]

My personal experience is Kubrick was on drugs and the movie is garbage, except what should be the short film in the middle, which I think takes place in 2000. About the timeline: When was 2001? The video thinks the modern age part of the film starts in 2001 and the stargate is entered in 2002 or 2003, but I think the odyssey (the ending) is what, at least, begins in 2001.

[@AllThingsFilm1]

Zero One, there is ZERO reasoning in your disrespectful response. If you had any knowledge of Kubrick's brilliant film work, you would've left your stupid comment where it originated; in the unexperienced, unimaginative deep recesses of your brain. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[@zeroone8800]

What occurs in the year 2001? This is a simple question unexplained in the movie. This would be fine except it is titled "2001".

[@kostajovanovic3711]

+Bobo Boy it is not actually, the were made side by side, but yes that guy is a moron

[@zeroone8800]

Who is throwing insults? Those that like the movie. I do like most of Kubrick's work from both before and after 2001. It you read the negative reviews from 2001's original run, the issues have only magnified with age: the slow pacing (movies are shorter now), the non-original effects (effects are better now), the thinness of the plot and message, and the overreliance on the same two musical pieces. But while the film is aging very poorly, the critics have rallied to declare it a masterpiece of masterpieces. This is groupthink as the failure to recognize the "brilliance" of 2001 is taken as an admission of poor taste, and no one is willing to say they dislike the film.

[@ukdan899]

The ending is simple really, you are not supposed to understand it. This is alien technology, it is beyond our understanding. If you come away confused, which you will, then that's the exact feeling that Kubrick was trying to evoke. Our understanding of the universe is infantile, Kubrick knew this. There's another movie that does something like this, Perfect Blue; scenes will abrubtly end and jump ahead in time. Watching the movie, you become confused which irritates at first, until you realise that the woman is slipping into madness and you are experiencing her confusion.

[@gusgrizzel8397]

I agree. We only know what we see, there is no narrator explaining things.

[@Stli]

Arty and hollywood anaysis; the monlith creates humanity, it alters primate to a 'sapiens' all through these errors. in this commentary. good ; but wrong and shallow. the memories of bowman and the monolith are the 'starchild'''''''''''''''''' it is superficial understanding - good at this low level. even Clarke changed his ideas from 1950s- till his death.

[@ZeeshanMalik-f2l]

Well Its not all about how confusing a movie is,its about closure that's why people don't like these kinds of movies ..... Well I haven't seen PERFECT BLUE but it does sound interesting. However ending a movie saying that you cannot understand the ending because you are not meant to is just a slap in the face. It's just that movies are supposed to be fun and interesting and are not meant to have a good trip if you are high (then just go for it).... The way I see it Kubrick couldn't deliver in spite of having a fascinating idea (It could be because of lack of tech or just he wanted to kill people with the help of their own anxiety)

[@stantwitter1016]

Agreed but for me Perfect Blue is more straightforward and more understandable than 2001:A Space Odyssey. Perfect Blue was created that way, to capture the psychological state of the main character which has lost touch with her sanity, hence the confusing and surrealistic execution, it inspired Black Swan too. All of these movies could fall under psychological thriller, and in fact I think there’s a horror element and suspense in 2001: A Space Odyssey too.

[@SkylordProductionz]

@@ZeeshanMalik-f2l whos to say what movies are and arent supposed to be? at the end of the day movies are just an art form.

[@virtualatheist]

The ape who interacted with the monolith was Moonchild, the first prehistoric human ancestor to reach the next stage of evolution. Bowman became Starchild, who was the first modern human to reach the next stage of evolution.

[@howardchambers9679]

Moon watcher not child.

[@ilikelines7271]

Exactly my thoughts when I watched the film.

[@educostanzo]

In the movie he's called Moon Watcher. The correlation still exists but it's not that.

[@danteprudente8637]

So, next would come what... a galaxychild?

[@numinous2506]

Kubrick deserves his legacy. He more than earned the GOAT title. 2001 is one of, if not the best movie ever made. The ending never ceases to fill me with curiosity. It never gets old. So many good parts in this movie.

[@TheEndofZombieShakespeare]

You explained and interpreted 2001 without being as obtuse as the film itself, a rare feat.

[@ScoreMagnet]

It´s no challenge, if you´ve read the books, because there, the ending is clearly and non confusing.

[@hopelessent.1700]

The intention of the film is to be the visual aid as the book helps explain and explore characters that you see...

[@weesnaww]

@@ScoreMagnet Clarke and Kubrick went different directions with the story. The book was only written as a way to help assist with the creation of the movie's plot.

[@TheVinylBroadcaster]

If you read the books of the series, you would understand everything. And understand that the people behind this video have zero clue about what's going on.

[@marias.larsen5315]

I watched this movie when I was 15 years old and thought it was mind-numbingly boring, but it's actually really not. Very interesting analysis of a very thought evoking film!

[@zeroone8800]

The film is meant to be personal. If you found it boring; it is boring to you. Don't change your mind; because, the internet wants you to!

[@marias.larsen5315]

Hahaha, you're totally right about that. I ended up watching it a couple of years later, and had a really great watching experience. Time ended up really changed my perception of it (:

[@Alexander-tj2dn]

I saw it with my school classmates when I was 10 and I loved it, but not the adults and my teachers.

[@kaamilmirza6963]

I am 16 and I watched it now , Totally loved it , one of the best ever seen

[@ScoreMagnet]

The book is much more exciting than the movie. Also there are actually 3 more parts of the series in the books.

[@nicholaskatsikas4904]

Kubrick is not my favorite director but his ability to make complex films without pandering to the audience is something that I deeply respect and 2001 is the greatest sci fi movie of all time no question.

[@64bitUnity]

fuck no! heaven once that becomes NO! I agree with you that it is very nice that he does not pander, thought as to greatest anything... NO, i think that he should be ashamed that he managed to make something so important and wonderful so dreadfully boring! Yes no question it is art, but it is NOT entertainment nor does it do such a wonderful concept justice!

[@Synr9]

Jon okayyyyy....

[@MrGlostuber]

@Sofia the Mexican You mean stress pill

[@obi-wankenobi5411]

Greatest sci-fi film of all time? I would give that to Interstellar. This film is a classic masterpiece. That's just it.

[@dark_peak_army]

@@obi-wankenobi5411 interstellar better than 2001. Are you having a laugh. Who will still be watching interstellar in 50 years time. No one.

[@ProsperingNerd808]

This reminds me of a quote I heard a long time ago “When technology reaches a certain level of advancement, to lesser beings it becomes the work of miracles and magic”

[@pnp072000]

I heard that in Star Trek TNG

[@ProsperingNerd808]

pnp072000 hmmm I never watched Star Trek tng. I can’t remember where it was from but for me personally I didn’t hear it from there.

[@revolverocelot1380]

Not exactly. The quote was it becomes indistinguishable from magic.

[@davidbowman271]

Was so thrilled that when this movie came out the main character's name was..mine!

[@brianarbenz7206]

Stop, Dave.

[@besnick]

@@brianarbenz7206 I'm afraid he can't do that.

[@justanotherjosh5293]

Im afraid Dave. Will, you stop?

[@ryanb6047]

When you compare human recorded history to the millions of years of earth's evolution, we as humans are amazingly early in our technology and advancement. Think about it; the earth has been around for millions of years and our written recorded history of basic civilization starts only 5 to 10 thousand years ago. We've only had recorded history including photographs for 150 years give or take. We've only had video records for around 100 years. If you look at a timeline of earth's evolution over the millions of years and that timeline was represented by a road a mile long; human recorded history would be represented by the last centimeter. Another thing to think about is technology was basically unchanged in all of human history up until the Industrial Revolution. Then all of a sudden within 150 years our technology underwent total advancement; the combustible engine, electricity, microscopes, computers. People assumed that technology would keep advancing at the same fast pace, but it's also possible that it could take hundreds of years for the next major advances that could change the current ways of life. In a few thousand years we will be looked at as the beginning of the technological movement just after the Middle Ages.

[@emersonsimmo90]

Ryan B the earth has actually been here for 4.5-5billion years

[@yowajomeen3151]

@@emersonsimmo90 Human evolution... HUMAN !!! He's not talking about earth.

[@emersonsimmo90]

Yowa Jomeen where did I comment saying he didn’t mean HUMAN? I said Earth has been around for many billions of years and not just millions

[@yowajomeen3151]

@@emersonsimmo90 who the fuck cares..... people mixes up words all the time, I'm sure he knows its billions of years and not million Just you pointing it out rather than understanding the content of his comment like a know it all is clearly annoying.

[@FL33-AP]

I am a human😿

[@stephengrigg5988]

this woman could read the back of a cereal box and I'd listen to the narration

[@jeffglass5771]

make a star baby with this chick , huh?.....I could plow her universe with my Discovery...hehe

[@CaptainPeterRMiller]

No, doubly no. She was the reason I broke free to complain about my inability to accept her nauseating, facetious, monotonous diatribe.

[@underbudget2584]

Stephen Grigg 1:58

[@tulljack8472]

She sounds like a corporate lackey to me.

[@rishaa682]

your all fucking creeps

[@jangeorge9574]

I saw this in the 70mm Panavision format on a very large(wide) curved screen with multi-channel audio back in what I would swear was 1967 ( although 1968 is the official date on most of the stuff I find). This film changed my life permanently as well as others I presume. A rare GEM indeed!

[@ihunterx59]

i had no idea what i was watching but the cinematography blew my mind also the storytelling that is mostly visual the movie is open to many interpretations and it moves you emotionally and mentally provoking many thoughts I loved it and i got why this is Christopher Nolan's favourite film

[@davisdowell1986]

Shit was a masterpiece. My only regret is that I wasn’t on shrooms watching the ending.

[@geno7462]

The first time I saw this movie I was on acid… through the entirety. Indelibly impacted the way I experience films…

[@davisdowell1986]

@@geno7462 You sir, are a national hero 👍🏾

[@johnburns8660]

@@geno7462 I did that too when I went to see The Green Slime. It was awesome.

[@geno7462]

@@davisdowell1986 🤣 I fkn love this movie so much bro

[@geno7462]

@@davisdowell1986 🤣 I fkn love this movie so much bro

[@MushahidAli]

There's literally a 2020 Utah Monolith out there.

[@nicolebaker3974]

It's gone now.

[@MushahidAli]

@@nicolebaker3974 damn that was quick xD

[@jamiewilliams8452]

It’s in Romania now

[@samuelarevalo4861]

Now in California

[@kurtzleebedford8529]

One in las vegas now

[@swabby429]

I watched 2001 for the first time just after its public release. It's ambiguity has kept me intrigued ever since then.

[@vetb882]

My father took me to see this film when I was 8. 1969 in Tarrytown, NY. It's never left me. When he passed away 2 years ago I had the theme, "Thus Sprak Zarathustra" at his services. I hope he knows I loved him and as a science fiction screenwriter, THIS movie is what started it all. 👀💝😎💪🏿🙏🏾

[@allansantiago3401]

There will never be another film like it; and that's a good thing. It remains unique in the cinematic annals. Many have tried to copy it in some way or form, but they never come close. The testimony to it's timelessness is that it seems to mean something different with each new viewing. My first viewing of it was in 1977 on NBC. I was 11. I never forgot it.

[@kf5541]

I was watching this the other day and my dear wife walked in the room and asked “are you watching Prometheus again” I told her no and space odyssey it was made in the late 60’s and she was gobsmacked

[@Android3DZ]

Been looking for something like this for years. Thank you.

[@rachaelregier8442]

Robert Warren Robertson Jr Matthew Coville has an amazing series on 2001 as well... Check it out!!

[@stubbler1969]

Robert Warren Robertson Jr , yes same here.

[@Android3DZ]

Rachael Regier I will!

[@Phankil]

A complete masterpiece, this movie is beyond human consciousness to absorb. Mr. Kubrick lets you create your own ending of the movie, what a brilliant man.

[@Gaby-bx3cv]

I was just reading Roger Ebert’s review on 2001 from 50 years ago and this is spectacular. Love the work you guys are putting out!

[@tylsimys67]

Ebert got it right this time. Then again he did praise some serious turds like "Panic" (2000).

[@seththomas9105]

I read "Slaughterhouse 5" and "2001" in jr. high(6th and 7th grade). Around the time I got into listening to RUSH. (This was circa 1981/82) I think my teachers thought I was on drugs. Too bad they had me pegged all wrong. I was a boy scout who also read about Neitzsche and enjoyed HOT ROD magazine, and riding horses and motorcycles. In 7th grade a science teacher was giving us some philosophy and talked about the "well rounded human" and being interested in the whole world around us. Changed my life, just like 2001 the book and movie Thank you Mr. Clarke and Mr. Lehrin

[@Something-pp4lk]

Not everything can be understood, somethings can be just felt.

[@yasminelucman4827]

I quote Tenet: Do not understand it, feel it.”

[@BEE-mp9vk]

I always thought the monolith was some kind of all knowing being and Dave becomes so lost in time and space that he experiences "life" in an instant and is returned home to Earth as a new, fresh soul and as a new and improved version of the human race. Dave is enlightened and all knowing of the secrets of the universe and comes home as a godly fetus basically.

[@sambelld1]

The monolith’s impact on the apes is intriguing. Their inspection of this incredibly foreign and obtuse (edit: abstruse is a better word) object, perhaps, ignites their imagination (edit: a paranoia) about not being alone and motivates them towards violence as a survival strategy for their community and species.

[@nobodyburgen4594]

I watched this in a movie theater. It was late at night, and i kept half nodding off during the trippy sequences. I really FELT like I was a part of the story. It was an ascending experience, and the only time where not fully being able to focus on a film IMPROVED my experience with it. Fucking brilliant film.

[@HaydenofEverything]

I don't know if anybody else has thought this, but the fact that Also sprach zarathustra both begins and ends the movie in terms of shots near Earth leads me to believe that the opening shot of the film is being shown from the perspective of the Starchild while the closing shot is essentially filming the camera.

[@ernestbuckley8671]

Interesting... never thought of it that way but it makes perfect sense. Dave dies and is re-born and returns to earth only to evolve again consciously... this is "mans " continuous journey towards God realization represented as the monolith...

[@olr917]

A lot of it is explained very well in the book. I love the book ending, I think it's more grand than the movie (which says something). Should be noted that I read the boo first, so I'm probably biased

[@nathanslay6342]

This film really is a masterpiece! It was soo ahead of its time, and the special effects still look amazing today! This film provokes such thoughts and the visuals and cinematography are incredible, too! I love the mystery and ambiguity to it! It’s now one of my favorite movies ever!

[@tyronewifestealer2385]

I just said "what just happened?" When it ended

[@jackward3799]

I saw the movie back in 68 when it was released. It moved me then and still does to this day, especially the pairing of classical music with space travel. Beautifly done!

[@shanmukanalli]

A clear and comprehensive study about a multi layered evergreen movie experience

[@frankmaclow2709]

Unfortunately, the people who made this video didn't bother reading the book by Arthur c Clarke WHO WROTE THE SCRIPT. Everything is explained in the book. Nothing is mentioned about Clarke in this video !!!

[@lukedabford1825]

Frank Maclow The book has a slightly different ending, and I think Kubrick meant for the ending in the film to be ambiguous.

[@MellowMikesMind]

If you've done DMT before watching this movie it may send you back to that realm of thought. A lot of people seem to be confused about the movie, but I felt like I understood it perfectly and it shook me at my core. Amazing movie. The experience of watching it for the 1st time was unforgettable.

[@dakotan.2610]

when i did dmt i went through the same gate. i watched the movie last night and gasped so loud at seeing the sight again.

[@TheDayd111returns]

@@dakotan.2610 Was that Bardo he reached?

[@cothinker680]

Tell me Bro what did u understand

[@brianarbenz7206]

How come when I accidently knock a glass off the table, all that happens is, I go get a dustpan and broom and sweep up the broken glass, then life goes on in its mundanity?

[@tylsimys67]

Maybe you subconsciously learn at one time how NOT to knock a glass off the table?

[@brianarbenz7206]

@@tylsimys67 In other words, I can make my own Beyond the Infinite!

[@Brent.Laycock]

Best description/explanation of 2001 I have ever seen. Thank you!

[@JIEON.C]

When i did poster of space odyssey in my graphic design class, professor asked me to do a impression of hal900 so I said “ I’m sorry sir. I’m afraid I can’t do that” unfortunately only couple in class understand and fortunately professors was one of them haha

[@cypher1133]

i dont understand

[@hotmagmagt9588]

@@cypher1133 Bcuz in 2001 Dave tells Hal 9000 to open to door for the Eva pod to enter, and then Hal replied with -

[@Bleckman666]

If you want to find out what the movie is all about, start by reading the short story "The Sentinel" written by Arthur C. Clarke in 1948. He then expanded and reworked that story into the novel "2001 a space odyssey", which he wrote and simultaneously adapted to a screenplay together with Kubrick. (Read the book "The lost worlds of 2001" for more on this) In the novel the Discovery goes to Saturn, not Jupiter (the rings proved to hard to visualize with practical effects), with the larger Monolith located near the moon Japetus. In the novel, Clarke describes the Engineers, explaining both them and the Monolith, as well as a more detailed version of Bowman's journey through the Stargate. When Clarke saw the film, (and later the photos from the Voyager missions) he was so fascinated by them that he changed the sequel "2010 odyssey two" setting from Saturn to the Jovian system. The two following novels (2061 and 3001) are best left alone...

[@dripxloading]

Emil .Beckman why should those novels be left alone?

[@keithfsilas6796]

2001 also has a strong similarity to Clarke's "Childhoods End" (1953), with the alien super-intelligence absorbing mankind.

[@sparrowlt]

I tink Clarke was quite annoyed at people saying "the book that 2001 is based on" acording to Wikipedia...

[@GraysonJStedmanjr]

I read and enjoyed 2061 and 3001.

[@Stli]

Arty and hollywood anaysis; the monlith creates humanity, it alters primate to a 'sapiens' all through these errors. in this commentary. good ; but wrong and shallow. the memories of bowman and the monolith are the 'starchild'''''''''''''''''' it is superficial understanding - good at this low level. even Clarke changed his ideas from 1950s- till his death.

[@diopartaeteru]

After the second viewing of this film (sober btw). It made me think that each of us is just one tiny spec in this vast universe. I also had that sombre feeling during the scene when he is laying down in bed watching his life pass by, made me realize at this point of life, since we were born, growing up get old and die, who are we? This movie in essence makes me sad, scared and happy at the same time. It is inexplicable. Amazing stanley kubrick and by far my favorite work of his.

[@ryokan9120]

Yeah, It definitely puts into perspective the fear and panic coming from people that planet earth is coming to an end from man-made global warming and humans will become extinct. If only they knew that we're just a tiny spec in this vast universe and in the grander picture we're just not very significant. Try telling Greta Thunberg.

[@lilHefty]

This movie looks like a 2019 movie Edit : Thanks for the likes 😀

[@Gadget-Walkmen]

it looks fantastic to this day!

[@Gadget-Walkmen]

Justin Case I mean there are visually better looking movies than 2001 nowadays because people keep on trying to improve on the Medium which they have achieved. I feel as if you’re downplaying some of the best looking movies of this generation like the revenant, blade runner 2049, arrival, interstaller, and even birdman

[@DevouredByADream]

@@Gadget-Walkmen Prometheus looked fantastic.

[@Gadget-Walkmen]

Justin Case that I can agree with and that’s a fair assessment

[@reggieherod8678]

They don’t make movies like this anymore

[@mrbobcr]

This is one of my favorite analysis of this movie so far! I wish you had included the intended symbolism of the paintings in the room of Bowman's death scene. We all know they aren't there by chance but probably reinforcing some of your own interpretations. I love this channel. Keep up the amazing work.

[@2flowers116]

One part about the ending i find interesting is that when bowman looks in the mirror theres a shot that shows him looking out from the other side of the mirror, as if hes in the mirror, which ties into some of the themes very well. Anyway great video i havent even seen you guys make a bad one i appreciate the love and care that goes into these

[@ScoreMagnet]

Well actually, the ending is quite clearly explained, when you read the books :) The crazy things in the movie, are there clearly explained and much better.

[@2flowers116]

Score Magnet different things

[@ScoreMagnet]

Nope the same.

[@2flowers116]

Score Magnet the book was considered by kubrick to be an interpretation by the author apart from the movie. Not that thats bad or wouldnt provide its own interesting narrative qualities, i havent read it. But if its regarded by the artist of the movie as a different thing i side with him. Like i said im not belittling what the book has to say, it just doesnt express what the movies expressing in a cut and dry way like that. I might give it a read some time though ill take this as a recommendation:)

[@ScoreMagnet]

You know the book was first and Kubrick worked with the author, right? So, if it´s not the same, the book is right

[@Adam195IL]

Kubrick would be amazed to see such explanation of this film. Thank you for the best explanation online!

[@pcti9563]

I like how Hal is happy to endlessly drift through space with some preserved corpses on board I thought the ending was evolution too

[@Goonie02]

For 1968 this movie holds up!! Ahead of its time, I was amazed by the story an when I left the classic filmfest theater I had many questions about humanity, religion, an why we are here an where we are going. Just blown away

[@TheGeorgeD13]

The guy who played Bowman went to High School with my grandfather, actually. Never met him, but my grandfather and he have been friends for many years.

[@aazz0099503]

Yeah and I’m Jerry Rice

[@pts5217]

Nobody cares

[@DickWildgoose]

I like the blue room

[@Jerminite]

DickWildgoose this room is green. I wanna go back to the blue room. -Kazan This turned into a cube reference.

[@hubflower5433]

Funny

[@jubas8273]

I saw this movie for the first time as an 8-year-old child. Then, at the end, I felt it... ending felt so real and familiar. Strange story, how was the child supposed to know about all these symbols and stuff? Maybe there IS something more...

[@stischer47]

I was an elementary school teacher at the time and I took a group of my top 5th grade students to see the film. Afterwards, I asked if they had any questions. When they said they didn't, I asked "Then what is the monolith?" The top student said, "It's obvious. It represents God Who intervenes at critical stages in our evolution." I didn't ask any other questions.

[@geminibaby47]

This comment gives me hope for the next generation.

[@unknown_individual7050]

That’s one way to interpret it

[@Yolduranduran]

Hahahaha. That sounds just like something my 11 year old granddaughter would say.

[@fajita2]

Wow, your *elementary school* student said that? That's impressive. I didn't even think kids that age understood the concept of evolution.

[@kirandeepchakraborty7921]

I love how this channel explains the movie in a compelling and wonderful way. Amazing insights.

[@ryokan9120]

For me, the Nietzschean themes of The Eternal Recurrence of the Same and The Superman were always blatantly obvious every time I watched the movie. I'm really glad these were mentioned in this video. Well done! Definitely one of the best commentaries on KZbin.

[@moviesmagicandmore12]

Just saw it in 70mm, and holy shit this film is amazing.

[@Teezythadon]

EVERY film should be shot in 70mm!

[@TheMinarus]

My interpretation is the cycle of the evolution ending with Dave and coming again, as such he brings to Earth the first Monolith, initiating the evolution of man kind and restarting the cycle which progresses and starts again at his death.

[@katkatkatkat463]

That’s exactly how I interpreted it too

[@mafarmerga]

An outstanding interpretation of the film. Well done!!

[@billjamison2877]

I saw this movie when it first came out. I was a 16 year old and it definitely had an impact on my life. Thought provoking and magnificent all at the same time. You might need to be a Baby Boomer to understand that.

[@hannabaal150]

I saw 2001 in 1968 when I was 15, and it made me a life long Kubrick fan. Even more so, the author of 2001, who also wrote Childhood's End as well as the Foundation Series and I Robot. Arthur C. Clarke was a true visionary and Kubrick brought him to the screen in an amazing movie.

[@waltciii3]

Foundation and I Robot was Isaac Asimov.

[@geekay1349]

man's evolution of becoming a star-child is in serious jeopardy these days, wouldn't you say?

[@ufopilotFPV]

Well our entire understanding of 'space' has been provided by known liars so what choice do we have but to recoil back into ignorance and start asking the basic questions again, like " what are those lights in the night sky ". I dont think we have reached an acceptable answer yet.

[@South4153]

UFO Pilot it seems like you‘re angry about the fact that you are not capable of understanding the answer(s).

[@hdbuckets8154]

James Gallagher it’s called $$$ if NASA budget was more than 17 billion maybe we would be beyond mars by now

[@lithominium9955]

this was one year ago why must you curse us with your prophecies

[@VallinSFAS]

BEAM ME UP, ALIENS!!!

[@sammythehero]

Love this channels videos. The analysis and voice is great. When I see a notification from SP I get excited. :)

[@ridl8006]

I believe Kant would say that the starchild represents the noumenal experience... that we can only understand phenomenally.....

[@VallinSFAS]

Arthur C. Clarke's novelization explains much. It was the first novel where I read the text. I was 6 years old. I'm much of who I am 53 years on because of those months of 1968-69. Thanks, Mom!

[@JonnoPlays]

This was a good explanation in many ways. Thank you very much. I still wonder what the team of scientists was supposed to do when they got to Jupiter.

[@whatsina1]

I saw 2001 in 2 X Cineramas/ Auckland and London in the 60s/70s. Both had fantastic sound and the Monolith piecing signal nearly blew my eardrums as it did to the scientists. Mind you I did have much better hearing back then. I love this movie like no other. It speaks to me. And this explanation site was very well done. Tks.

[@robertomaldonado7397]

Honestly I don’t care what the ending means or that I don’t really understand the movie. It’s still one of my favorites, the cinematography and the events are just so mesmerizing!

[@yingkouzen]

This analysis is great and cannot wait for part 2!! 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏽👍🏾👍🏿

[@juliec5151]

HELL YES HELL YES!! I haven't even watched the video yet but I _know_ it's gonna be great!!!! Edit: It was great AND THERE'S GONNA BE A SECOND!!!!

[@Jbonz7]

Julie C I thought they are re doing it on 70mm film but same movie

[@1000000man1]

Jbonz2021 There's a "new print" which is the same cut but looks a bit different. The colour grading is noticeably altered which I think should've been left alone. Remastering for better quality is fine, but they shouldn't mess with the director's vision.

[@matteli539]

This was an absolutly brilliant explanation. Well done! Im sorry for HAL, sounded like such a tragic death. May robot god have mercy on his robotic soul.

[@MrGregory777]

He is a computer. They turned him back on in the sequel

[@oliviadcafango8401]

Isn't it great that many people are STILL talking about this film? Many parts of this beautiful film can be explained but not without taking consideration of the film in its entirety. Everything that you see, as intentionally designed by Kubrick, is a comment about what you've seen, and what you are about to see... There are MANY themes and motifs embedded in the film and hidden in plain sight. It is an exercise to see if one is paying attention. Once you really connect with what the film is conveying, you REALLY connect to it. Kubrick was a master Chess player.

[@ALSeth-Storyteller]

The old 'if you can't convince them, confuse them' ending slight-of-hand.

[@shushant5045]

Very nice explanation. I thought the movie as a evolution of humankind.

[@ScoreMagnet]

In the books, the ending is really clear and understandable :)

[@inkevinsworld]

@@ScoreMagnet what is it

[@Kaizoku-o_PirateKing]

Same. I though it was about evolution and the power that comes with intelligence and knwoledge.

[@TheVinylBroadcaster]

@@ScoreMagnet Yep--and Starchild does NOT come in peace. Initially.

[@eyezack2778]

@@ScoreMagnet My guy, we get it, your love for the book reaches beyond the stars, but there's no need to get it all out on a comment section about the movie

[@danieljakubik3428]

A satisfying analysis of the mysterious, abstract ending of Stanley Kubrick's 1968 masterpiece. Indeed a thought provoking, philosophical and profound film. I've seen "2001 A space odyssey" several times, including a 2017 restored release.

[@RajeshKumar-vh6ft]

At 11:00 the cyclical repetition, 'a nietzschean idea', has existed in Hindu and Buddhist philosophy for millenniums. The transmigration of soul going through birth and death again and again is also a part of that philosophy, where the soul moves out of this planet after death only to return and be born again. Nietzsche never read Buddhist or Hindu philosophies, but these ideas were surely not being forwarded for the first time. Perhaps that reflects the influence of Schopenhauer on him, who actually had studied Eastern philosophies.

[@roberttg5108]

So many great quotes in this movie. As I have aged, I have related to HAL when he says...” My mind is going, I can feel it” . We can all dream that we are the immortal Dave, but in reality we are HAL about to be turned off.

[@thetavibes9021]

That's not for certain. And we haven't been able to prove otherwise in either case.

[@RickaramaTrama-lc1ys]

Great video~! Enjoyed it greatly. Thanks.

[@username4570]

One of the beautiful and audacious things about this interpretation is that Kubrick positions himself alongside the ascended beings, as the entire film is his observation of humanity and the ending his way of representing in his film, what he is doing to his audience. A more cynical mind might call this pretentious, but the fact that it ends the way it does, feels less like him sticking his nose up and more like he is being purely honest and inviting the rest of us to join in. He is at the point where he can't articulate an answer that he whole-heartedly believes and while traditional narrative thinking calls for one, he cares to much to lie for the sake of making people happy. As a result of his honesty and bravery he created a film that nearly all great filmmakers since cite as a pivotal point of inspiration. It's a monolith that altered the course of art, culture, and technology

[@ScoreMagnet]

Well actually, the movie is only that good, because the author of the book anthology, Arthur C. Clarke, worked with Kubrick on the movie while writing the book parallel :)

[@antihinduismisbased]

Score Magnet ok, we get it. You like the book better. Stop annoying us!

[@Narusasu98]

I know right? This guy has nothing else to do with his life

[@ScoreMagnet]

Duckie More than you, it seems^^ You just commented something on a month old comment, which was basically already said before.

[@stefanschleps8758]

Cool. I read this work when it was first published. And saw it in the theatre when it was first released. And consider it to be one of three great science fiction works written. But the movie does not, in it's entirety, reflect the book in one minor, yet very important detail. And that is that the ''Star Child'' returns to Earth at the outset of nuclear armeggedon. The movie ignores this point. And so, in the book Arthur C. Clark, leads us to the point where man, as the Star Child, come fase to face with destiney or free choice. And must choose between this duality. As opposed to complete transcendence of it in the movie. Which is the difference between the book and the cinema. In this case I prefer the cinamatic interpretation. Thanks for sharing.

[@lukepedersen2899]

What are the other two?

[@drimblewedge2789]

Some side humor: If any of you remember the old David Letterman show back in the 80's, you might recall Letterman occasionally talking to Hal (the show's director who would be sitting in the control booth talking on the studio's intercom) during the show. Letterman would ask, "Hal," and Hal would respond, "Yes, Dave," followed by Letterman asking Hal about some detail about the show. I'm not sure if that joke was intentional or coincidental but it was damn clever.