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

[KBA]

Well wait, when I made my reply to Darklord Dave I was under the impression we were talking about movie endings. Not about entire movies.. because if that's the case yeah there will ALWAYS be things that go unexplained because given the normal time frame of a movie, you couldn't possibly explain every single detail. And like you said, even trying to do that would be boring. But that's not what I was originally talking about. I was talking about writers who purposely leave their endings unclear and "up for interpretation".

The reason they do that has nothing to do with art or artistic choice, it's because they wanna please everyone and they're scared to disappoint certain viewers. And that's BS. That's like contest with little kids involved where instead of awarding a winner or winners (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) it's just "everyone is a winner. YAY!!!".

There's a big difference between having a set idea, presenting it, and THEN letting people interpret it as they see fit (even if it strays from the original idea) and NOT having a set idea, being scared to disappoint anyone and then pretending you purposely left things ambiguous to let people decide for themselves what happened.

Okay, I see what you were getting at now. Agreed 100%

 

[Shatterer of Dreams]

so anyone ever notice how similar 2010 and Event Horizon are? i watched 2010 the other night and started noticing that the basic premise is the same.

 

[Mikey2Bullets]

so anyone ever notice how similar 2010 and Event Horizon are? i watched 2010 the other night and started noticing that the basic premise is the same.

not really, but, please, elaborate.

 

[Shatterer of Dreams]

so you got a ship stuck out in the middle of nowhere for a long amount of time. a rescue crew is sent to hopefully retrieve secrets from the long dormate ship. Even the "missing" ships have the same structure.

I realize it's not the same movie but that basic concept is almost exactly the same and again look at the ships they're almost exactly the same.

 

[Devil_666]

Kind of a stretch. Technically ALL outerspace movies are just as similar: they all have ships, that fly. They have people on the ships. Some of those people don't get along. Some of those people are sleeping with each other or have some sexual tension between them. They have a mission. Something goes wrong. People die. People float around. More people die. And float.

 

[Shatterer of Dreams]

come on now i wasn't being that general......

 

[Mikey2Bullets]

ooh ohh fun fact: the EH was based on notre dame cathedral.

i gotta go with devil on this one to an extent. the basic premise of a ship of secrets and a supernatural force is the same, but the rest is waaaayyyy different.

the astronauts in 2010 were never really in any peril until jupiter started going critical. nor were they stranded by anything out of their control. they could have left anytime. the mysterious force in 2010 was benevolent as well and any deaths were accidental.

in EH, the clark gets damaged nearly immediately upon arrival, then blown up by crazy weir. people die, blood abound, float around, no sex though (except that video of the old crew). the mysterious force is evil. EH pretty much follows the haunted house in space model. don't get me wrong it's one of my favorite movies. hope to see some cutting room floor footage in my life time.......

 

[DinoLast]

I always thought the horrible mission to Mars was like 2001.
I think Stanley Kubrick liked to have endings that left it up to the viewers interpretations. Take the Shining, with Jack in the black and white photo.

 

[Devil_666]

"F this ship"..

 

[Mikey2Bullets]

I always thought the horrible mission to Mars was like 2001.
I think Stanley Kubrick liked to have endings that left it up to the viewers interpretations. Take the Shining, with Jack in the black and white photo.

i thought the same thing about mission to mars.

what did you take away from the ballroom photo?

 

[DinoLast]

i thought the same thing about mission to mars.

what did you take away from the ballroom photo?

That Jack Torrance's spirit had been absorbed by the Hotel just like the caretaker who killed his family, who has assumed the role of a butler.
The photo's an apparition, and any future unfortunate that stays at the hotel alone will most likely meet Mr Torrance in his new role.

 

[Mikey2Bullets]

That Jack Torrance's spirit had been absorbed by the Hotel just like the caretaker who killed his family, who has assumed the role of a butler.
The photo's an apparition, and any future unfortunate that stays at the hotel alone will most likely meet Mr Torrance in his new role.

that's my take as well. i heard a weird one the other day, a little too complex though

jack's soul previously escaped the overlook and was reborn . the objective of the hotel was to reclaim jack as well as absorb danny for his abilities.

 

[Spartan Rex]

Don't feel bad...I bought Log™!

But in all fairness...it was better than bad. It's good!

She's definitely promoting wood.

 

[LordAzrael]

Its called the "Theory" of Evolution.
Not the Law of Evolution.
Theres a scientific grand canyon between the two titles.

That shows a woeful understanding of scientific terminology. Its also straight out of the intelligent design handbook.

The current consensus among philosophers of science seems to be this:

* Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.

* Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.

William McComus lists gravity as a modern example of a well-established law for which no really satisfying theory is available. We can use the Law of Gravity, and even correct it for the effects of relativity (General Relativity), but we don't have any consensus notion of how it functions! Is it geometry or gravitons?

A theory cannot logically be proven - it can only be disproved. It goes back to basic science and statistics - you don't prove something - you just prove to within a given degree of confidence that it is not wrong.

Even the pope doesn't say evolution is inconsistent with belief in god.