The Ending Of 2001: A Space Odyssey Explained

So what's up with the floating fetus, the black slab, and the rapidly aging astronaut in 2001: A Space Odyssey? Stick around to find out!
#SciFi #EndingExplained #Movies
The final act | 0:00
Trouble in outer space | 1:20
Bowman learns the truth | 2:39
The Discovery One reaches Jupiter | 4:05
What does it all mean? | 5:16
Read Full Article: www.looper.com/334001/the-end...

[@Looper]

What did you think of the ending to "2001: A Space Odyssey?"

[@DaddyVader172]

Wanted to fall asleep

[@yellowclouds3722]

My fav scenes! I like the weird music in that white room, showing the absolute strange atmosphere

[@siveth3166]

ii found it to be prety strang

[@knihomoladam]

Evolution in reincarnation

[@allenjones3130]

Dave travels through a psychedelic space/time warp, ages, dies and is reborn as the Star Child.

[@MonRoeTheory]

This explains literally nothing

[@christopher-xi2ey]

When did he shoot the moon landing

[@MonRoeTheory]

@@user-ex4si2md6r yeah, like what if when you die, you wake up?🧐

[@user-ex4si2md6r]

@@MonRoeTheory hmmm 🤔.. good question ❓... well, if I finally died and then woke up to my same life..mid hump off a bridge 🌉

[@kingkirtster5290]

are you serious bro. this video literally states that there is no clear explanation and it’s a movie for analysis and discussion

[@user-ex4si2md6r]

@@MonRoeTheory hopefully I won't be myself again 😔

[@user-ms4fm3vw4i]

So, honestly, there really aren't too many interpretations. Knowing how the film was made gives serious clues too. The making of the film was almost as clever as the film itself. The Monoliths were placed intentionally by aliens. Kubrick ran through nearly 10,000 prototypes for what the aliens should look like, ultimately deciding that any form would not be abstract enough to convey them properly, thus they are implied and never seen. The pillars are a map. The human species is meant to hit each one as we evolve and finding a pillar causes a jump to higher level of evolution. First we learn to use tools. Then we begin our journey off the planet. Then we develop AI. Then we evolve into Space Babies. This movie was made one year before the moon landing and at first, it was thought that this movie was pro space race and technology, thus companies like IBM funded big dollars. He showed the investors a cut without the tension between the ship and Hal and even had a 10 minute documentary of scientists talking about the glorious future of computers and space travel. He had final editing rights and before its release, SURPRISE, the new edit ditches the documentary part and adds in the ending with an evil AI. The Space Baby is a representation of evolving beyond technology. Two important notes that are important. 1) The dialogue is very academic. No one jokes or flirts or anything but business. Also, we see how people of each ACT eat. The Dawn Monkeys eat raw meat (no thanks). The 2nd act, they drink their food. The 3rd Act they eat a food paste and stale artificial sandwiches. However, when the astronaut arrives at the end location, he slowly loses his technology and eventually comes to eat nice home cooked food with silverware. The Space Baby is a stage of transcendance beyond technology where we can traverse the universe without vehicles. In one thought by Kubrick, the space baby was suppose to return to earth which was surrounded by nuclear satellite weapons that the Space Baby clears away into space. Our science is a tool. It will direct who we are for the foreseeable future, but technology is not what is need at a certain level of evolution where we need to reclaim our humanity.

[@Sajid_Hossain195]

Thank you man. I finally feel closure. No other explanation was giving me this.

[@DavidDatura]

@@Sajid_Hossain195a great explanation, and what I thought it to be too.

[@Fxeye-ir9ck]

Thank you

[@wilde.coyote6618]

Just say no to A.I.

[@ambrusin4889]

@@wilde.coyote6618 Too late, unfortunately..

[@connecticutaggie]

My interpretation has always been that the monoliths were structures that gave humans a boost to make it to the next step in our evolution/development. The first monolith gave us what many consider the first step that made us unique - making tools. The second monolith moved us to explore other planets (by pointing us to the monolith on Jupiter) and possibly gave us the ability to create sentient life (HAL). The third monolith then moved us past our physical bodies (the star-child) and gave us a way travel to other worlds. Both the movie and the film are a bit confusing on this third step (which I believe is intentional) but by looking at them both, I feel you can see Clarke's intent.

[@TechBearSeattle]

The sequel, 2010, makes it clear that the monoliths are tools to both evolve species, and to judge the resulting evolutions and decide if they are fit to join galactic society. There are two other two sequels, 2061 and 3001, that carry on the story. In 2010, the monolith around Jupiter ignites it into a dwarf star and sends another monolith down to Europa to evolve the life there. By 3001, it becomes evident that both experiments in the Sol system have failed.

[@connecticutaggie]

@@TechBearSeattle Thanks, looks like I have some more Clarke novels to read

[@KNOTTYBUDS]

That's exactly what I thought while watching.

[@dr.awkward9075]

It was just a flat screen TV.

[@jeremyroland5602]

“Both the movie and the film” lmao what? That’s literally the same thing. 🤦‍♂️

[@ericpowell4350]

When I first saw the movie, I felt bad for Boman aging alone for all those years in a windowless room. 💀

[@stevenmonroe9334]

Been doing it for years, as my brother Joe says, "I don't mind being by myself, if there's NO One else around, it's the last good time in town"....

[@FlyWithMe_666]

This is just a summary of the plot, but at least Looper hit the 7 minute mark…

[@c.ladimore1237]

i don't think he is aging or regressing literally. he is experiencing time all at once, like a photon. you can see it better in 2010 when he cannot explain where or when his communications to HAL are occurring. he isn't within our spacetime, so explaining it with words would be pretty ridiculous. kubrick chose a visual metaphor for the impossible

[@DARTHDANSAN]

There is sequel?? I finally saw it. Such a trippy movie

[@gt-gu7rb]

I saw Kubrick in an old interview once and what he said was Beowman was in some kind alien zoo to be watched by the extra terrestrials who created the monolithic. But I dismissed it as Kubrick being tired of people asking him about the ending. Kubrick deliberately meant for the ending to be vague and up to the viewer. The Shinning's ending is pretty vague also. I think that's how he got his kicks. However I'm not dismissing what he accomplished with 2001. It's an all time classic. A step forward in film making.

[@jfkst1]

It's a 1980 interview. And in it, Kubrick speculates that everyone will dismiss his straightforward attempts for their own interpretation. Which is precisely what happened. But I doubt that was his intention.

[@pshakouri]

I watched this 20 years ago in medicalschool, forced myself to get through it and at the end i was like wtf was that! The movie never left my mind, I kept thinking about it here and there, what it meant, what was that ending, etc.... That is true art, never leaves you, provokes you, confuses you and make you learn and speculate just a tiny bit more about life and existence! What a brilliant mind Kubrick has

[@Mamo878]

By far the most influential science fiction movie ever as far as how a sci-fi movie 'looks.' Nearly all sci-fi movies after it can be traced back to this movie.

[@hamzaomari7052]

Interstellar is far more better than this boring movie

[@Bennerboi]

@@hamzaomari7052 Exactly the point, really. 2001: A Space Odyssey walked so that Interstellar could run.

[@jonathanproenza4918]

Star Wars changed that standard. They went with the used worn out look to their sci-fi universe which I believe is more grounded and most films since it’s release followed suit.

[@harshitsinha4686]

​@@hamzaomari7052Avg small attention span people

[@PankajKumar6493]

@@harshitsinha4686 you're on of those people who sees random color splattered on a canvas and thinks it's "art" 🤣... trying to find a hidden meaning behind it.

[@nanomia]

The cinematography was amazing but it gave me kind of uneasy and really creepy feeling.

[@sgt7]

I really like this film. However, I sometimes get a little suspicious about the cerebral nature of enigmatic films. There is a temptation to think that something is profound simply because it's hard to understand. The French philosophers were notorious for this. It's been called obscurantism. This is not to say a film can't be both enigmatic and actually say something meaningful. But you can only dig so deep and at some point, you should expect to find something if there is anything there. Modern art is perhaps the most guilty of this.

[@tomdoell811]

My personal speical very own unique interpretation is... he approached the third monolith, then went into a space tunnel, woke up in a fancy apartment, aged rapidly, became a fetus, then floated around near the earth.

[@jkdbuck7670]

For those of you who saw this movie, just imagine the review Dr Bowman left on Tripadvisor! "Trippy cab ride to this place. Nicely lit floor. Weird noises. Food made me age 60 years. Would DEFINITELY recommend!"

[@stevenarvizu3602]

What really helped me understand the movie was finding out that the monoliths literally represent aliens, since that’s what they were originally supposed to be in the movie, but was changed as Kubrick decided to use monoliths to represent the idea of aliens advanced beyond comprehension. Once you understand that every monolith is meant to represent an alien showing us something, the more metaphorical meaning and implications of the movie makes a lot more sense

[@mikee2198]

The monoliths are the AI tools of aliens. The monoliths sometimes promote the evolution of Intellect which gives birth to new AI.

[@trollzone1]

Beyond our own time….we’re 22 years in the future of this movie’s timeline. In the 60s no one knew what 40 years of technological innovation would look like.

[@TheMichaelBeck]

Author C. Clark was so smart, he penned a 2 page letter in 1948 detailing how a satellite orbiting at 22,300 miles above the Earth would be in geosynchronous orbit. Smart man.

[@LoveHandle4890]

Kubrick was a genius and will live on throughout his films forever.

[@HankShaws]

Kubrick was a nut and everyone who ever worked with him hated him. He ruined multiple books by turning them into horrible versions of great source material. Everything good about this movie came from Arthur C. Clarke.

[@harshitsinha4686]

​@@HankShawsHis film adaptations are literally masterpieces , his films are perfect the way they are , and considered amongst the greatest films ever made in their respective genre , also nobody hated him lmao 😂 anyone who ever has worked with him highly appreciated and admired his brilliance, geniusness and perfectionism . There's a reason he is regarded amongs the greatest and most influential filmmakers of all time so plz Keep ur Shitty opinions to yourself , L opinion tbh 👎

[@WarDog793]

The Answer (my friends) is in the Very Last Chapter of Clarke's novelization of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Bowman, reincarnated as the "Star-Child" arrives above Earth at a time when the orbiting missile platforms are awaking with their arsenal of destruction. He exerts his will and destroys them all, thus saving humanity. I could wish that Kubrick had put that in the movie, but if not, then Clarke certainly fixed it. I would say the aliens who created the monoliths sent Bowman back as they did *to* save humanity, but Kubrick wanted us to ponder all we'd seen and not have simple answers.

[@plurpee.]

Kubrick sent Clarke off to write the book version while he continued to write and film his own version, thus there are kinda two versions of the story...

[@BowieZ]

I think Kubrick's version is ultimately cleverer because we are left to ponder whether humanity in all its violence and destructiveness is worth saving. It wouldn't surprise me if the star-child simply observes and does not choose to act.

[@ambrusin4889]

@@BowieZ Hey, that`s what I thought about the ending also, I mean, that was one of my thoughts, it looks like it he chooses not to do anything anymore at the end..

[@gabrieljantzi6366]

i really enjoyed this movie and i think the premise is really cool, like with the monoliths guiding humanity like a trail of bread crumbs, but i just wish that it was explored upon more because this is definitely one of the best movies that i have ever seen.

[@CalebMichaelRiley]

“The ending of 2001:Space Odyssey not explained “

[@nirvanacrown6516]

I was a kid when 2010 Space Odyssey came out and the first time seeing the Futus(star child), the image stuck in my head until I was about 11 and it scared the shit out of me 😂🤦🏾‍♂️. It’s all good now that I fully understand both movies now. Deep af and gracefully made❤

[@shardinhand1243]

before watching the video i give my humble take on its endings meaning, the monolith opened, or perhaps took him into itself, and showed him a fraction of its knowledge, countless alien worlds explored, millians of years of evolution... this information over load is represented by his rapid aging, but the monolith stopped him from simply dieing or his mind breaking from the experiance and in the end he is represented as an infant, his new form of existence, uplifted by the monoliths information... the transhumanist dream for all life in the universe... to accend to a new level. this interpritation doesint nesicarily mean he becomes anything like the acientients who built the monoliths, he could still be orders of magnitud benith them in evolution nd intelect, but still the porpose of the monoliths is to spark advancment.

[@miata350]

Kubrick was notorious for leaving out the endings of books that would otherwise explain things well. Such is the case with this movie. All one needs to do is read the book.

[@the1tigglet]

Actually the reason for his aging has to do with our limited understanding of cross galaxy transportation. The psychodelic colors were how he perceived this transporter effect (similar to StarTrek but extremely long range). And because we humans still think in our current physics models, we assume that changing a living being to energy and transporting it across the universe or even between galaxies would cause the being to age because of the time frame, it's interesting that this assumption wasn't corrected because of course these beings are far far more knowledgeable than we humans would be so I'm certain they would have fixed the time differential in the transmission because they would know physics that we wouldn't understand.

[@BEEFTEEF4]

Actually the twin paradox would state that he would be the same age, but that others not traveling as fast would have aged exponentially faster. General relativity was misplayed in this film. Kubrick can be a great director, but have missed the mark at the same time.

[@christophefredericrouge7264]

This was the most unhelpful "Explained"-titled video I've ever seen

[@jezcartner4104]

The novel explains the ending in better detail

[@yeuxdal]

My fave film of all time. Saw it in the theater at release - I was six, and mesmerized. Everyone should see this, and it’s great when Pop Culture writers revisit classics. 🤙🏼❤️

[@davidmacphee3549]

6? Very young. I was taken to see "House on Haunted Hill" When I was Six. I bet you can guess how that turned out.

[@yeuxdal]

@@davidmacphee3549 yikes 😎 🤙🏼

[@davidmacphee3549]

@@yeuxdal Didn't know it wasn't people coming out of vats of acid with nothing but their bones left on and that it was only 'grown up just pretend'. I saw it all happen with my own two eyes

[@gigiarmany4332]

the level of evasiveness, guess work & volatility in this movie has just served to irritate & anger me..just give us a clue already, Mr Kubrick🙄🙄

[@ArchStanton-xw2bd]

Apparently the monolith turned on its side is the audience watching the movie

[@mauricioramirez9744]

Dave Bowman became timeless, like space itself, transitioning back and forth from an embryo to an old man.

[@maundamartin59]

That space food looked like jail food

[@raysmith2940]

I wouldn't know.

[@maundamartin59]

@@raysmith2940 And you don't WANT TO FIND OUT! FO REAL DOE!

[@TheTimeRocket]

The Hotel Room is the inside of Dave Bowman's Skull 💀

[@JesseKnight2000]

Thank you Looper, great video ♥

[@LoveHandle4890]

One of the greatest films that has stood the test of time and always will.

[@bennyc2426]

Overrated, take out the overextended time showing the apes at the beginning it would be appreciated more.

[@davidmacphee3549]

@@bennyc2426 You had to see this movie in the theater in 1968. Not a 'Pan and Scan' on the boob tube, late show.

[@dolphinsrr]

@@bennyc2426 your crazy. That would take out the whole meaning of man's development, thanks to the monolith . You just didn't get it. Most people understood that. I guess you just felt bored.

[@bennyc2426]

@@dolphinsrr For it's day, no doubt. One of the maddest movies to come out, you'd come out of that jaw dropped. In terms of a sci-fi I agree to this day it's good. But.. the statement "Based" has mad I personally disagree with. I understood the movie, the revolution of man. The monolith being an entity of space time continuum. It's just how it was pieced together , could have be been better. Just because I don't think it was the best movie ever to this day, doesn't mean I think it's bad.

[@JC-li8kk]

I can’t tell you how many times I fell asleep during this movie. Felt like the last 30 minutes was all I needed to see.

[@revolvingdooreducation7843]

The monoliths are explained in 3001: The Final Odyssey

[@mrbill4206]

Star Baby no doubt was building the moon of mars into something marvelous.

[@luthermcgee3767]

I think the monolith that was orbiting jupiter- this monolith being two kilometers long was both the main monolith that could also split into identical ones, may also have split into much smaller ones( the one on earth, and the one on the moon both having dimensions 1×4×9) The one orbiting jupiter having the same dimensions 1×4×9, was increased to 5,280 times larger. In 2010 odyssey 2, one scientist had stated that the monolith was " The cosmic equivalent to a Swiss army knife " ( multidimensional in usage) its most iconic detail was it being a Stargate opening up doors to limitless quantum destinations. it's shape as a door would suggest, at least metaphorically, it's function as such as well as blowing up jupiter to form a small main sequence star which Clark had named " lucifer"

[@thegloriousera3828]

I got the feeling if we always need something to achieve & if we don't find something our life flashes

[@commenceun]

Complexity. The whole movie can be explained only that one word. Humans are transcending beyond physics.

[@PAULOJCOSPINA]

The ending means that the Monolith gave him the chance to live more years in a parallel where he was filled with time for himself, filled with abundance, the Monolith brings him the rest of his life a life filled with relaxation, the power of the Monolith made real what David wanted to have, including being a reclusive(like Howard Hughes), owning the freedom of having all the time in the Universe to be in peace, without fear of even dying because he accomplished his most depth ambitions in real life, his dreams became truth when he made contact with the Monolith… the Monolith only purpose is receiving to himself the same happiness that he gave to Bowman, he also learned that the cycle 🔄 of life never ends, just transformed into a different "Power", that power is what we breathe daily, it is called… Universe ♾.

[@jbohnoff]

Synopsis: A, promising science fiction movie ends with a bizarre, nonsensical, trippy, psychedelic horror scene.

[@iadorenewyork1]

The astronauts are having their dinner and watching their computer tablets. This technology didn’t exist yet, and wouldn’t be on the scene for nearly 30 years in the future.

[@mikhailg4667]

I think the monolith is "self-awareness"

[@RubelliteFae]

I never really thought of it like that. I first saw it so long ago, that I presumed it was kind of answering the questions "Where do ideas come from?" or "What, really, is a muse." IOW, my perspective was that each advancement was some amount of the monolith giving humanity additional outside information. Now being much older and much better read in philosophy and Eastern religions, it's clear that everything we experience really comes from within. That is, we don't experience, for example, a table as it is. We define the boundaries of the thing as the whole set of surface, legs, back, & support rather than by each piece or by the way the cloud of subatomic particles are configured (ever-changing), etc. That is, we define things relative to their usefulness to us & all of our previous experiences with them-importantly including all the emotional history with the concept. Some people love dogs, some people fear dogs, but either way each person has given the sound complex "dog" all of the meaning it has for that person. The word is a reference to a personal collection of experiences with the concept the word references-none of these (the word, the internal concept, the feelings or moral baggage we associate with it, etc) are the objective reality itself. In 2001, as with the real history of innovation, each interaction with the monolith have the characters move vastly beyond their home looking for more of what's "out there." But, the real final frontier is what else is inside. When a person's self-awareness increases, their consciousness shifts and their externally observable behaviours follow. So, I suppose it really is "Where do ideas come from?" but the answer isn't the expected "From X source outside of us" in the long Western traditions (cf, ancient Greek deities & ancient Indo-Aryan ones-despite both starting from the same Proto-Indo-European set). New thinking comes from within by synthesizing information differently than we previously had done. Each time the monolith expands the beings' consciousness (allowing for a new opportunity for true free will-"What will you do with this new insight?"). It's not until the end that we see a character looking at himself and it scares him. After his evolution, he then points his attention back to his home, Earth, instead of continuing the tradition of expanding outward. Perhaps rather than simply "the monolith represents self-awareness" it's "the monolith represents expanded consciousness-which can only be achieved through increased self-exploration/self-awareness." In my personal opinion, most people, most of the time live entirely deterministically reacting based on the ego they have built up from experiences. It's only when we put our attention on the self-thoughts, speech, behaviours, habits, etc-that we actually have the opportunity to change. I'm doubtful that all of this was intended by Clark & Kubrick. But still, thanks for giving me the chance to have these new thoughts about the film regardless-for me at least it has increased the film's value.

[@TheGrinddcore]

Clearly the black monolith is the tree in the midst of the garden, the tree of Good and Evil, which we were not supposed to eat from, but when we did our eyes would be open and we would be like God's, destroying one another.

[@warrengaul2518]

Question - Did you read the book? I think that what is going on is detailed there.

[@TheVchrung]

I finally understood space Odyssey after seeing its lite version... Interstellar

[@simonesivori9023]

Well bowman and Poole actors are still alive, can this movie have a sequel?

[@classifiedtopsecret4664]

A sequel ? Kinda like 2010 The Year We Make Contact ?? Yeh that would be great 👍

[@mrbill4206]

@@classifiedtopsecret4664 Yes a bit of a letdown as it was a 'normal' film as opposed to iconic.

[@classifiedtopsecret4664]

@Mr Bill it wasn't outstanding was it.

[@mrbill4206]

@@classifiedtopsecret4664 No magic in it.

[@dolphinsrr]

Sequel was fine. People are never happy. The first one people didn't understand. So the sequel explain things and now people complain on that too. It's like the old saying. You can't please everyone. I'm happy with both films. Why would the sequel be a confusing copy of the first one? Then you would have more questions. Right?.

[@agdtwinkie001]

I thought when he was rapidly growing old he was an a "zoo" type situation with his captors being some Alien race . or whatever they said xD

[@c.ladimore1237]

nonono not a captive at all. enlightened. he was experiencing time all at once, but that's kinda hard to do in a movie, so kubrick made the overlapping aging/regressing a metaphor that bowman was beyond time.

[@thialhoinj1971]

​@@c.ladimore1237Kubrick himself said he was being studied like some animal by the aliens tho. After he died he was reborn into some kind of super alien baby.

[@chadsteverson4990]

Please read Clarke's, The Lost Worlds of 2001, for a truly enlightening experience. A must read for all 2001 fans!

[@jamesadriver1]

It is all clearly explained in the novel by Arthur C Clark.

[@fifty9forty3]

Amazing that so many people spend the time figuring by thoughtful process of elimination what this fiction is about have no interest summing up the effects on their lives what is taking place in real time on this planet.

[@umdisc64]

Stanley Kubrick has explained the ending so there's no ambiguity about it.

[@johnmulvey6304]

Or you could just read the book, which gives a much more detailed narrative of the ending

[@TulgaD5]

Thanks, now I understand S3E1 of Community

[@Kotal_Reminiscence]

Now??? A little late, but oh well…

[@yeuxdal]

It’s the original AI film. Why not? Loads of channels revisit classics.

[@PETERNESS]

thats 2 hours 28 minutes i aint gettin back ,cocaines a helluva drug

[@aliengranpa]

Did I time travel again? I swear this movie has been out for a few decades.

[@davidmacphee3549]

1968

[@luckyj3ss32]

This movie is weird. It’s even weirder how no one in the comments section never talks about the topic reincarnation because that’s what this movie is about really. We will reincarnate.

[@bigbusterbunny]

Or check out the 1984 sequel, "2010: The Year We Make Contact".

[@denis00446]

So, I'm going to watch space odyssey for the second time to understand the ending, before i watch this video

[@davidjohnsrud711]

im just gonna guess in start of video.. he is a seamen and reach the egg and get reborn cos he upgraded in evolution?

[@malikbakt]

There are no secrets. Just read Arthur Clarke. But in his book, Jupiter shined like a star. But it needs at least 80 Jupiters to start shining

[@redviper6805]

All this did was raise more questions than answers!

[@youuuuuuuuuuutube]

Stanley Kubrick already explained the ending, and it has nothing to do with what is being said in this video.

[@siriusa5911]

There is an imposter among us.. Frank was not the imposter.. 1 imposter left

[@ScruffySandra]

The movie is absolute genius

[@MarC-te4he]

I really hope there's a good explanation for this movie because it seems like its makers were loaded on LSD. It was all over the place!

[@albertbeccu]

… so if someone watches this film then goes on KZbin to get an analysis - and this is a video that just says what happens in the film? … what’s the point of this video?

[@Myself-yf5do]

All that buildup for no answer..........

[@faithdriven11]

Well, Kubrick did do a great job with the space scenes and music. He seemed to stay on scenes far too long, and the actual storyline lacked so much that even he doesn’t know what it means. He just wanted to use all of the technology and creativity he had for the scenes, so he just jumped from one to another and tried to piece together a movie. I suppose it has its place in cinematic history, but for actual storyline, it falls far short of satisfaction for me personally. The real shame is that many people tried to copy this kind of vagus, and, random symbolic gesture, thinking they will be a great filmmaker, but they don’t have the screenshots and uniqueness, so it just ends up being a crappy movie with crappy scenes and crappy storyline.

[@privatprivat7279]

6:16 What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an OVER-GOING and a DOWN-GOING. I love those that know not how to live except as down-goers, for they are the over-goers. I love the great despisers, because they are the great adorers, and arrows of longing for the other shore. I love those who do not first seek a reason beyond the stars for going down and being sacrifices, but sacrifice themselves to the earth, that the earth of the Superman may hereafter arrive. I love him who lives in order to know, and seeks to know in order that the Superman may hereafter live. Thus seeks he his own down-going. I love him who labors and invents, that he may build the house for the Superman, and prepare for him earth, animal, and plant: for thus seeks he his own down-going.

[@charleschenhua]

Movie like this will never get funded now days, too intelligent for the population

[@timothyjones3410]

Murder is shown to be a step in our evolution. HAL murders in the movie. Are we all sure the star child isn't HAL? He had been all mind no body. Maybe the aliens gave him one.

[@stevenmonroe9334]

A.I. ? Really? Sorry Dave, that's going be rather difficult without your space helmet ⛑️

[@njdevilsforlifewoohoo5533]

This answered nothing. I assumed all of what was said and even more. Maybe read the book and get a better understanding of what is going on. Not everything can be explained in a movie. As per usual the book is much better than the movie.

[@mathiasensimon]

Do people really not know the book exists? It explains a lot

[@LaowaiDaveJCP]

this movie was made in 1968 with the help of monolith! no kidding they showed Ipad back then

[@sanitman1488]

Masterpiece

[@richeharrison]

Read the book of the same title written by Arthur C. Clarke! (I can't believe you didn't mention it!)

[@roberttulba6990]

The slab is a cellphone

[@mohammadalquairi6609]

I felt like it’s a horror movie 😅

[@robertgraziano]

Many interpretations but only ONE! The symbols are there.

[@CaptainMarvelsSon]

My belief is that it is all gibberish with no meaning. Kubrick created it just so that people would start conversations about it which would encourage more people to go watch it in the theater.. It worked. Fifty five years later we are still talking about it.

[@wip1664]

Weaponised warfare is better. Less brutal, quick. Option... What leads to warfare? The answer...

[@meowzic]

What do you mean beyond our time? It takes place in 2001

[@wardgalanis796]

Or, you could read the book.

[@707LAKE]

never seen this movie, is it good?

[@paulgoddard7385]

I thought it was overrated but it constantly appears in people's list of favourite films.

[@JC-li8kk]

The last 30 minutes was good. Very very VERY slow.

[@bill775]

Give it a try. And if you don't like it. That's okay :)

[@phyxiuss]

You're not missing out on anything.

[@bigkraus1]

I like the movie 2010 the year we made contact. I think it ties up the loose ends or 2001 nicely

[@TechBearSeattle]

Unfortunately, the next two books in the series of four -- 2061: Odyssey Three and 3001: The Final Odyssey -- have yet to get screen adaptations. The whole series is very, very good, and Arthur C. Clarke (who wrote all four) was one of the grandmasters of science fiction. 2001 was written by both Clarke and Kubric: the novel and the screen play were developed at the same time with both men consulting with the other. There are some differences, as Clarke set the destination as Saturn. Kubrick could not get Saturn to look right, so he went with Jupiter, and the subsequent books all kept Jupiter.

[@bigkraus1]

@@TechBearSeattle i agree. One of the books they found Frank pool floating in space and brought him back to life.

[@TechBearSeattle]

@@bigkraus1 - That would be 3001. The premise is that Poole was essentially freeze-dried, leaving his DNA and neuron connections in place and undamaged.

[@TheHumanVoiceBox]

Read the book, that explains it

[@infinitystudiosltd.5121]

How many monoliths are there then!?

[@Suddsy11037]

i like the part where he explained the ending (he didnt)

[@cthulhu626]

Look up Rob Agars analysis

[@5400bowen]

No one talks about the original short story by Clarke, called “The Sentinel”. It explains it. Talking about what Kubrick thought is the usual KZbin commenters knowing nothing of the origins of things and going off on silly blind paths and coming up with the most ignorant interpretations . I read the short story as a child years before the movie. And the book a short time before the movie. The end was total trash, and I’ve been explaining it to people since I started with my friends as we walked out of the theater back then. Sad, people don’t lift a finger to LEARN!!

[@cobrakhan1284]

If you read the book then it’s all clear

[@TechBearSeattle]

Oh, FFS. Just read the book. Or watch the movie 2010: all of these questions are answered quite clearly.

[@PatrickRyan147]

🙏🖖 About Mr. Kubrick, I would say that he is Divine, that is: The dude just knows stuff - the ultimate truth that is - but for some reason he can't tell us exactly what it is - because one of us needs to figure that out ourselves - and then the other 'monkeys' will follow.. The reason why we need to figure out the ultimate truth ourselves is because the act of doing so is an evolutionary marker of intelligence - which we need to reach unaided thus proving that we have reached the pinnacle of that part of our evolution - and we are now ready for the next - where we become supermen - AKA gods (that's "gods" with a small "g").. But what is the ultimate truth? The ultimate truth is the true nature of our reality. Once we figure that out then everything else will fall into place. The monolith is a huge hint by Kubrick as to what the true nature of our reality is. Some people think that it can be 'viewed' as an 'information screen' but its significance is a lot more fundamental than that. Its significance is that it is obviously 'man-made', not natural, not organic but created by some kind of advanced intelligence. What Kubrick is saying is that our reality is not organic. Our reality has been created by some kind of advanced intelligence. The lavish rooms at the end nearly give it away. Our reality is contained inside rooms. Perhaps the words/terms/concepts hadn't been created yet at the time but they certainly exist now. Kubrick didn't have the words but what he was trying to tell us is that we are all living in what is known as a Holodeck scenario.. or a holodeck complex super-structure. Are you ready for this? Is mankind ready for this? Maybe Kubrick wants to know.. The Holodeck theory proposes that our reality is a sub-reality of an advanced main reality. The Holodeck theory is brand new and apparently it can't be debunked unlike the big bang theory and the simulation theory. It is supposed to be supported by Fine-tuning (that is; our constants were manually fine-tuned and not organically fine-tuned) and String theory. String theory shows that our reality has at least 9 dimensions; our 3 (width, height and depth) and 6 others. Apparently, the walls, floors and ceilings of the holodecks are hidden in these 6 other parallel dimensions. We can't see them or feel them yet they project all the fundamental 3D matter of our reality. This is good news apparently because holodeck scenarios are potentially eternal unlike true big bang universes which are not. The corollary of this is mind boggling. It would mean that the sky is a projected image and the universe as we think we know it doesn't actually exist in reality. It would only exist as a concurrently running computer simulation. We are real of course as is everything inside the holodecks and therefore everything/every place that we interact with (conscious observer effect). Not only that.. but the film reveals the truth about our consciousness. In the film, HAL (the AI) is depicted as a psychopath. Kubrick is quite cleverly telling us that that the reverse is the case in our situation. The psychopathic consciousness is an AI (Artificial Intelligence, ruthless robots). We are two in one; body and consciousness. In a holodeck scenario, the consciousness is holographically projected onto the body at birth. The psychopathic consciousness is supposed to serve humans.. bad things happen when it is in charge. Each Empath consciousness on the other hand is a copy of a specific higher consciousness in the main reality.. a god if you will.. 🙏🖖

[@RubelliteFae]

I mean, solipsism can't be "debunked" either, but that doesn't make it useful to discuss (i.e., if true, then how should my behaviour change? It shouldn't.). At least for science, an idea needs to be able to be tested to continue discussing. Else it falls back into the hands of philosophy. This is not to knock philosophy (of which I am a lifelong fan), but to emphasize that different concepts have different domains of discussion/research/analysis/etc. As for the fine-tuning, I'm not sure why this even needs to enter the discussion as without it we wouldn't be here to discuss it whether manufactured through intention or the inevitable result of infinite multiverses going through every possible occurrence there is and us simply experiencing the one(s) that are able to contain us. I.e., what new info does this add? How does it help us discern whether or not intention existed "before" our Universe? (I put before in scare quotes as the beginning of a Universe is also the beginning of time-which leads to a whole other discussion I have deleted for brevity.) As for the concept being new, the holographic model, the simulation hypothesis, & the holodeck "hypothesis" (again scare quotes because I've not yet seen it formally described) all are essentially the same as the ancient Vedic concept of the existence we experience as _māyā_ in service of the _līlā_ of Brahman. The only differences are our temporo-cultural associations with the words used to describe it. Today we discuss in terms of computers & code because that is what we are familiar with. In 100 years, assuming we are still around in some form, we will use completely different metaphors based on the common tech & understandings of that time. There is no reason to presume that the source of our Universe would even operate on the same rules of logic. Though, I would argue that these difference don't matter-as that which we are attempting to describe in any case are literally ineffable. Words are metaphors for the subjective experiences of the objective reality, with the boundaries of those objective things decided & described by subjective beings. As for string theory, again it is untestable. So, basing another untestable idea upon it is inadvisable. Vedic concepts, however can be tested because they invite us not to explore the simulation by looking outward at more of the simulation, but instead explore internally until we see the root of being (i.e., mysticism-which can be found in many other traditions as well and often leads to the same insights regardless of the differences between the associated religions). It was my rigid use of the scientific method (which includes attempting to replicate the results of others) in my thinking that first got me willing to attempt mysticism in the first place. My assumption was that "paranormal" activity could be more reasonably described, but my experiences have been ineffable-requiring the understanding of cross-cultural metaphors to further consider & discuss the phenomena. Regarding exploration, imagine being a character in a video game. If you attempt to move beyond the confines of the game it will either give you an in-Universe reason you cannot, or the game can be expanded and difficult quests made for reaching the these new outer limits. However, if you look deep enough into the character you are playing, it becomes clear that it is only a character, an avatar of sorts, and that its source is the same as all the other characters, as well as the environment, music, graphical representation, etc. It's all code. So too in reality, if you want to understand the nature of the "simulation," investigate the self and come to understand that all things are unified in the same source. "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely Players." Māyā (mentioned above) is the useful illusion, or the magic-like effect, of experiencing this reality as if it were base reality. Brahman is base reality, in which the seeming duality of subject & object, experiencer & thing experienced, are unified in oneness. With all of reality in unity there is no space in which a being could be and no time in which occurrences can occur. For this unified reality to experience anything, it must first play pretend, make-believe. Līlā is play. The act of playing, as a child, the stage production of a play, the playing of music. People don't start playing music because they want to get to the bottom of how it works (though that may become a goal later). They play music for the experience it provides. Kids don't play make believe for any reason other than to play. To simulate what it would be like to actually have that thing occur even though they know it's not actually happening. When we go to watch a play, or film, we are temporarily transported from this reality we experience to another, made up reality with it's own internal rules & concepts. Brahman is the actor behind all the parts. Brahman is the score, all the instruments being played, all the props on stage, the set, the theatre itself as well as everyone in the audience. Brahman pretends to divide consciousness so that there are actors & props; heroes & villain; the show and the audience watching. And what better stakes could there be in this adventure than to not know that it's fake? There are no evil psychopaths & good empaths. Good & evil are how we subjectively feel about objectively neutral events. It's not, "Let's put these other conscious entities into an enclosure and observe what happens" or "Let's simulate this reality and see what develops in it." It's "Let's have a thought experiment: what if I/we experienced multiplicity instead of unity?" 🙏 Namaste.

[@PatrickRyan147]

@@RubelliteFae 🙏 namaste "Investigate the self".. very good.. I did that.. In 2018, I was an unemployed ex-computer repair engineer (component level) with time on my hands.. I needed something interesting to do that would fill the time. So, I decided that I would try to solve the greatest puzzle that mankind has, imo: What is the true nature of our reality? (I was hoping to write a book about it.) The internet and all the clues were available to me.. so why not.. I studied all the current theories and quantum metaphysics which led me to the conscious observer effect (double slit experiment). I realised that I had to study consciousness so I began experimenting with shamanic rituals (AKA extreme mediation). I got very, very lucky.. While super-meditating one evening, I decided to hold a light-box (a bright screen with light at the same frequency as summer sunlight) up close to my face with my eyes wide open (to see if the light would boost noradrenaline). I saw something that I wasn't supposed to see.. When I looked down through the light box I could see this futuristic looking hexagonal array around six foot underneath my position.. and when I walked around, it seemed to be everywhere in our reality. And I could also make out a similar array but fainter when I would look up and focus at cloud level. From my research I knew straight away roughly what I was looking at: A holographic projector array. I had read Michael Talbot's book and I had studied Susskinds HUT and the metaphysics of string theory. I am sure I was looking at the very mechanism that creates our fundamental reality (the surface of the planet, etc.): Our 3D reality was/is created/projected by these holographic projector arrays. But what is the overall configuration? Do these arrays extend the width of the planet, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe itself? That would be impossible. I needed to figure it out but I couldn't. The answer just wouldn't come. Over the next 12 months I repeated that exact same shamanic ritual 8 more times and I could see the exact same thing every time but the answer never came. I was frustrated. Why couldn't I figure this out? I realised that I simply wasn't intelligent enough. Solution: I needed to make myself more intelligent. So I memorised over 150 digits of phi and I began using that as my new mantra.. and it worked.. I performed the ritual again and as I was gazing upon the structure in all of its basic utilitarian beauty (form follows function), my mind a pristine blank, the answer suddenly percolated up from my subconscious: Three words: "It's a holodeck!" Of course! These arrays aren't inside of our reality. It's the other way around. All of our reality is contained inside of these arrays: We must be living inside some kind of holodeck complex super-structure. The walls, floors and ceilings of the holodecks are hidden from us in the other 6 local parallel dimensions of our overall 9D reality (string theory). We can't see them or feel them yet they project/create all the fundamental 3D matter of our reality, our 3 dimensions being width, height and depth of course. Our reality is a sub-reality off an incredibly advanced main reality. The corollary of this is mind-blowing. It would mean that the sky is a projected image and the universe as we think we know it doesn't exist in reality. It would only exist as a concurrently running computer simulation. But we are real. Everything inside of the holodecks is real. The surface of the planet is real, everywhere we've ever been is real and everywhere we will ever go will become real before us (the conscious observer effect). This is good news btw because holodeck scenarios are potentially eternal unlike true big bang universes which are not. Anyway, I wrote my book and I submitted it everywhere; agents, publishers, scientific magazines. And the response: 'The silence is deafening,' Anyway, that's my story. namaste 🙏

[@RubelliteFae]

@@PatrickRyan147 Certainly having similar observations across multiple occasions lends some veracity to the idea. A good follow-up would be to investigate what others experience under the same conditions (without any kind of prompting for what you expect the results to be). Also, I have found that when the mind is the most empty the most profound insights-both about the self and reality itself-appear. "The still, small voice." As for, "the other 6 local parallel dimensions" I don't know what you mean. A dimensions must, by definitions be orthogonal to another dimension. Thus, they necessarily cannot be parallel. Length, width, & height are all at 90° distinct (spatially orthogonal). Time is orthogonal to space in that they have an inverse relationship with regard to momentum (more specifically, the maximum speed of causality, popularly called "the speed of light"). Given the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM (which is not a sure thing), the same moment of time in two universes within the same multiverse can be connected by a line (well, a geodesic, really). This line would be orthogonal to the arrow of time. So, that gives us 5 dimensions, though different to those of String "Theory." However, String Theory needs their curled up dimensions for the maths to work out. But, there's no indication that the maths are reflective of reality. (The maths are correct, we just have no reason to presume it's an accurate model.) As for Big Bang Universes not being eternal, Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (which again, may or may not be a correct model) describes an eternally existing Universe with Big Bangs. Because this conception is in line with mystical traditions' cyclical conception of time, I find it appealing. Plus it's testable (though not with current tech). You may want to read a summary, though I admit my bias. As for publishing, have you considered open journals (though this would require rigor, whether scientific or philosophical)? Otherwise, unless you have a profit motive, why not publish it free online? That would give you the chance to refine the idea via the scrutiny of others. Regardless, while I hesitate to recommend any specific Upaniṣad (as different people will value the metaphors & explanations of different ones), I would draw your attention to Advaita in general and more specifically the even older concepts of puruṣa & prakṛti. Because, as I say, this philosophy is only different to what you describe in the subtlest (read: least important) ways, but more importantly it goes further and discusses what can be done about it. To be overly direct, "Now that you have this understanding, so, what?" Advaita provides the answer to "So what?" as well as the revelation you've had (though, in pre-electricity terms steeped in symbolism you are probably not familiar with-which can certainly be a barrier to entry). Though insufficient in key details, Wikipedia articles are a short enough read to perhaps get you interested in finding out more. Good luck in here. 🙏Namaste.

[@PatrickRyan147]

@@RubelliteFae What difference does it make? It can help answer the other really big questions like: Why are we here? We are here to have fun but not at the expense of others. Why is there so much suffering in the world? Because there seems to be two distinct types of consciousness in our reality and they seem 50/50: Empaths and Psychopaths.. And one seems to be the opposite of the other (dualistic reality).. so 'they' can only have fun only WHEN it is at an Empath's expense (Duper's Delight).. But we are all 2 in 1: Body and consciousness that come together at birth. I believe that each Empath consciousness is a copy of a higher consciousness from the main reality.. and the Psychopath consciousness might actually be an AI (Artificial Intelligence). They're flesh robots essentially. But aren't robots supposed to serve the sentients (Empaths)? But here they are in charge, up to no good causing world wars and scamdemics. But get this.. we also live in a multiverse. What if in the other extreme end, the psychopaths are docile servants to the Empaths. Which reality progresses quickest? Ours, apparently.. but at what cost.. all that suffering.. With knowledge comes power.. namaste 🙏

[@RubelliteFae]

@@PatrickRyan147 Comments may be getting deleted due to posting links? YT is getting worse and worse about comments due to bots ruining it for everyone else, so it could be other unexpected things, like key phrases used or something. As for your dualistic analysis of psychopaths & empaths, you may also be interested in the Law of One: Ra Materials. It can seem pretty out there, but again, I take it as metaphor. It talks about entities as either service-to-self or service-to-other and that a global society cannot reach the next stage without choosing one or the other (i.e. there needs to be a significant percent that choose one or the other because a relatively even split ruins hope of reaching the next stage by way of self-ruin). It warns that there is limited time to choose before we have to start over completely from scratch (which I read as species annihilation and subsequent rebirth, i.e., a reboot of the simulation). It claims that there are other global civilizations out there in the Universe which have already done this. Ra in this context is the result of the unifications of a service-to-other society. It's a wild one, but there's some great concepts in there.

[@bobdavis4848]

This is interesting to watch, but your title is false clickbait by implying you have the definitive explanation. You only give theories. You don't give a new, previously unrevealed insight from Kubrick or anyone else involved with the story's writing. You say at the end that the viewers need to describe for themselves. It's deceptive to announce that this is where viewers can "find out!"

[@balajisundar9867]

Stanley Kubrick - GOAT😎

[@suncicaradivojevic4805]

Kubric explained it