It was explained much better in the book, they should have just followed that.

I agree the Monolith was testing, even teaching, to see if they were capable of skills, but not pushing "intelligence"! upon them. If they survived long enough (their numbers were low as they got hunted to near extinction IIRC) they would have learned the skills regardless.

On the Bowman thing, I think it was overdone too. Kubric including something "trippy" due to the times IMO. Possibly because doing it right and by the book would have added too much time to the movie, so he chose to be enigmatic. I suspect he wanted to be vague so it would get talked about while keeping him from having to recreate that part and lengthening the movie.

Some directors like Kubrick and Lynch try to stay away from providing concrete answers or too much explanation for things and instead leaving it up to the viewer to contemplate. Of course some viewers like that and some don't just like with anything else.

In this specific case however my argument is that Kubrick is about as explicit as it gets without a voice-over. He shows the state of humanity before the arrival of the monolith (hunted by animals, on the edge of starvation, pressed from the waterhole by a competing tribe). They meet the monolith with a series of countershots (just like how you would shoot a dialog between two characters), and afterwards they start inventing, leading to the club as the first tool, allowing them to hunt for meat and to defeat the other tribe in the fight for the waterhole.

Technology guarantees not only survival but raising to become the dominant species as is symbolized with the transformation of the club bone thrown in triumph as it changes into the spaceship docking with the station.

The way how the movie is cut leaves very little room for alternative interpretation to the conclusion that what changed the fate of the tribe was the encounter with the monolith, and that becoming inventive is the driving transformation of the tribe members. As far as movie language goes, this isn't the least bit obscure. It's literally right before our eyes as we watch it.

lol

I'd planned on watching this before this thread came up and got around to it tonight. I first saw it at the cinema around 1981,I didn't understand it then and I still don't understand it now but it's an enjoyable movie nonetheless.I forgot that Leonard Rossiter was in it.

He was also in "Barry Lyndon" which was another Kubrick film.

I'm sure I've seen the follow up (2010),is it worth a re-watch I wonder?

I think it is even though it's certainly not on the same level of quality as 2001. It's also nice getting to see Dave Bowman again.

Thanks Panzer.I'll give it a go. I hadn't watch 2001 for many many years and I was waiting for a clip where a probe is lost as it explores Io.That must have been in 2010 or am I thinking of another film?

2010 was a huge disappointment at pretty much every level except for the space walk FX.

Yes, if you mean "Europa" by writing "Io".

My bad,stupid memory

2010 was a standard SF film. It's good, but not in comparison to 2001. It's still better than most SF today, though.
It was REAL SF, not an action film with an SF veneer.

I don't think the technology in 1968 could've made the Star Gate journey as it was written in the book, though. Now had Kubrick made 2001 in 1978 the tech could've done it, as Star Wars showed.

Of course, what Star Wars accomplished was based heavily on investments made for 2001, so we have a chicken and egg scenario.

And there was never a chance of Kubrick making a "2001 Special Edition" with redone Star Gate sequence "the way I always meant it to look."



The Jedi Master

LOL Yeah. Lucas has stated publicly that he admires Kubrick. I'm not so sure that admiration goes the other way though.

I just finished 2010. Yes not really a patch on 2001 as Jedi says but much better than most modern SF offerings.

And what about Hellen Mirren? Totally forgot she was in it,playing a very sexy Russian astronaut.

I'm waiting for your next movie recommendation Panzer.....

The Angelina Jolie looking chick was a popular Russian singer IIRC, but died a few years back.
The shift to following Floyd was a little odd. Sure he was in 2001, but to make him the main character from 2010 on just wasn't as interesting.
Scheider did a good job of it though.

My wife and I are going through all of the Castle episodes. Keir Dullea was in the pilot, still very recognizable at 78.

One of the things I remember thinking when I was watching 2001 when I was 12 was, "hey, that Bowman guy, he'd be about my age right now, and that could be me in 2001!"

Have you seen Gattaca or Dark City? I highly recommend those.

As for Helen Mirren, she did look good in 2010. I read somewhere online that her parents were actually Russian and emigrated to the UK sometime before WWII. Apparently the Russian she speaks in 2010 is genuine.

I've seen Dark City,I'll put Gattaca on my list,thanks.

You know what,I thought she spoke the Russian well,not that I understand a word of it.It just sounded right.