What is the meaning at the end of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: Space Odyssey?

[Studio49]

Bible? Yeah so? The bible has even more fiction than the theory of evolution itself.

So you aren't a christian? I guess I was confused because you seemed to excel at being judgmental.

 

[Batty]

This thread =

 

[FQRizzo]

Maybe we can continue talking about the details of this movie instead of whose religion/belief system is superior?

 

[Studio49]

Maybe we can continue talking about the details of this movie instead of who's religion/belief system is superior?

We can, but it won't be as much fun.

I hate when a writer/director refuses to explain what their intended message is. I think it is the grand cop-out to say the viewer is free to draw their own conclusion. It makes the creator sound intellectually impotent. By creating something, you have created a message whether you admit it or not.

On the other side of that coin, the creator could give an absolutely ridiculous explanation that doesn't really amount to anything. Modern art fine art painters are experts at this technique.

 

[FQRizzo]

We can, but it won't be as much fun.

I hate when a writer/director refuses to explain what their intended message is. I think it is the grand cop-out to say the viewer is free to draw their own conclusion. It makes the creator sound intellectually impotent.

On the other side of that coin, the creator could give an absolutely ridiculous explanation that doesn't really amount to anything. Modern art fine art painters are experts at this technique.

I just recently watched 2001 and endings such as this leave me...unsatisfied. It reminded me of the original ending to Neon Genesis Evangelion.

 

[OSCORP]

in before the lock

 

[FQRizzo]

in before the lock

We're good now.

 

[Voorhees27]

We can, but it won't be as much fun.

I hate when a writer/director refuses to explain what their intended message is. I think it is the grand cop-out to say the viewer is free to draw their own conclusion. It makes the creator sound intellectually impotent. By creating something, you have created a message whether you admit it or not.

On the other side of that coin, the creator could give an absolutely ridiculous explanation that doesn't really amount to anything. Modern art fine art painters are experts at this technique.

I think the unexplained in film is somewhat brilliant, it leaves things up for discussion or debate. I see it similar to Hitchcock's style of leaving the true terror within the viewers imagination.

 

[KBA]

I just recently watched 2001 and endings such as this leave me...unsatisfied. It reminded me of the original ending to Neon Genesis Evangelion.

And End of Evangelion left you satisfied?

 

[FQRizzo]

And End of Evangelion left you satisfied?

Slightly more.

 

[plasmid303]

And End of Evangelion left you satisfied?

Don't you mean the ending of the Eva tv series? The final two episodes were more obtuse than The End of Evangelion movie.

 

[KBA]

Don't you mean the ending of the Eva tv series? The final two episodes were more obtuse than The End of Evangelion movie.

No I didn't.

FQRizzo mentioned how the ending of the TV series left him feeling unsatisfied. And as the End of Evangelion movie that was released later on as a direct band aid to those who felt exactly like FQRizzo about the original ending, it didn't really do any better than the original tv series ending (in my opinion anyway, but I loved the TV series ending in the first place)

 

[Darth Caedus]

 

[plasmid303]

No I didn't.

FQRizzo mentioned how the ending of the TV series left him feeling unsatisfied. And as the End of Evangelion movie that was released later on as a direct band aid to those who felt exactly like FQRizzo about the original ending, it didn't really do any better than the original tv series ending (in my opinion anyway, but I loved the TV series ending in the first place)

Woops I missed that post. I disliked both endings, so I was unsatisfied either way, a feeling I think is shared by many fans.

 

[KBA]

a feeling I think is shared by many fans.

Very true, but I thought the TV series ending was exactly what it should have been. With Anno dealing with depression, and that leaking into the themes and characters of the show, progressively abandoning traditional narrative as it went on, it came to the perfect point taking place in Shinji's (and more importantly Anno's) mind.

 

[plasmid303]

Very true, but I thought the TV series ending was exactly what it should have been. With Anno dealing with depression, and that leaking into the themes and characters of the show, progressively abandoning traditional narrative as it went on, it came to the perfect point taking place in Shinji's (and more importantly Anno's) mind.

Your idea of avant garde storytelling is my my idea of pretentious wankery. I will admit, however, that I thought the tv series ending was more unique no matter how abstract it was. The movie just seemed like a superfluous (and violent) way for Anno to flip off the diehard fans who sent him death thread emails.

On the bright side, the new Rebuild of Eva movie quadrilogy might address the "shortcomings" of the movie and tv endings all the while selling more merchandise.

 

[Spartan Rex]

2010, and the books for that matter don't really count in Kubricks 2001. His film and Clarks book really go in different directions. And 2010 the movie is a steaming pile of crap.

Have you read 2001 by Clarke?
There is no difference,Kubrick is just more ambiguous.
If you want the original authors insight read the book.
If you want Kubricks then its what ever you assign to the symbolism.
He went artsey fartsey and left it to the viewer.

Re:2010. You forgot to add imo.

 

[Devil_666]

Here's what I got out of the two films 2001 and 2010, for what it's worth. At random:

HAL malfunctioned because he was instructed to lie to Bowman and Poole about the specifics of their mission. HAL didn't know HOW to lie because hiding information went against HAL's programming to be helpful to humans.

The end of 2001 seems weird because you never actually see Bowman going into the Monolith. But that's what happens and that's the meaning behind his last transmission "My God, it's full of stars". Bowman sees everything the Monolith(s) have created in the universe. He sees himself existing simultaneously in different states of life (Old, Very Old, Young, Fetus) and he sees that to the Monolith which has existed since the beginning, the human cycle of life (which to us can seem long) is merely a blink of an eye.

Everything was created by the Monolith(s). Every planet in every galaxy has a Monolith on it.

Humans haven't evolved much. Our Technology has. But physcially, we haven't. Take away our Technology and we revert back to a primitive state of being. We depend on Technology to be superior to other life on Earth and Beyond. When we encounter Superior Technology or when our Technology fails/doesn't matter we exhibit the same fear, confusion, anxiety and paranoia as the apes in the beginning of the film before their encounter with the Monolith.

When HAL malfunctions, he exhibits the same fear, confusion, anxiety and paranoia as Bowman who, when HAL malfunctions, exhibits the same fear, confusion, anxiety and paranoia as the apes in the beginning of the film before their encounter with the Monolith.

 

[Darklord Dave]

We can, but it won't be as much fun.

I hate when a writer/director refuses to explain what their intended message is. I think it is the grand cop-out to say the viewer is free to draw their own conclusion. It makes the creator sound intellectually impotent. By creating something, you have created a message whether you admit it or not.

On the other side of that coin, the creator could give an absolutely ridiculous explanation that doesn't really amount to anything. Modern art fine art painters are experts at this technique.

Any piece of art is much richer when you form your own meaning and connection to it. If a filmmaker or artist explains his vision about the piece to you, then you're locked into seeing just that interpretation and the art is diminished for you. If you bring your own interpretation to it, it means much more to you and it is much more likely to resonate with your own experiences, beliefs, and worldview.

 

[A-1188]

Kubrick wanted viewers to see the film and interpret it's meaning on their own. There's no concrete accepted interpretation of the film.

My idea is that the black monolith is a manifestation of a higher power, divine or otherwise, that elevates the human experience - through what we consider evolution - to an existence we don't yet understand. That's why the final 1/4 of the film is so confusing. It reflects sights, ideas, and a reality our human minds cannot possibly comprehend...yet. By the end of the film Dave has become a being so far advanced from what we humans know that there is no precedent of comparison. I do think that the jump in evolution is a bit too far, considering that the Apes that touched the monolith in the beginning of the film only advanced as far as us before we met the monolith again.

That's just one theory. Another could be mutation or devolution, who knows? I haven't read many interviews of Kubrick on the meaning of 2001, but from what I've read he has often refused to explain it.

"You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film" -Kubrick

I recommend watching this flash short movie called "2001 explained", it's fun and interactive and informative: https://www.kubrick2001.com/

Oh wow, thanks for the illumination. I've gone on the link you gave me, that really cleared it out for me.