|
|
Post by Quorthon on Apr 19, 2005 0:07:34 GMT -5
Okay, I finally saw 2001: A Space Odyssey.
And the ending totally confused the hell out of me. Can anyone explain that? What the hell was going on? I mean everything after we see the Obolisk floating outside Jupiter. What's going on? What does this all mean? Help!!
|
|
|
|
Post by spacer on Apr 19, 2005 1:09:34 GMT -5
I'll help you.
Definitely.
If you're serious ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Apr 19, 2005 23:53:25 GMT -5
Oh, I'm serious, I didn't understand a damn thing about that ending. Explain it best yah can.
I like brainy stuff, but that left me all lost.
|
|
|
|
Post by spacer on Apr 20, 2005 2:21:05 GMT -5
OK if you say so, I'll do it seriously.
But before doing it I'll watch it once again to have a fresh look and comments.
But I warn you my interpretation may be completely different from these broadly accepted. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Apr 20, 2005 22:03:11 GMT -5
Any explanation is a good start.
Well, except blaming the ending on a wizard riding a flying unicorn...
|
|
|
|
Post by spacer on Apr 21, 2005 2:20:50 GMT -5
No wizards guaranteed. ;D Please be patient, explanation shall be processed promptly  |
|
|
|
Post by spacer on Apr 25, 2005 14:13:46 GMT -5
I ventured to see the Kubric's masterpiece once again.
Let's go then.
The last scene which you understand fully is the scene with oblong.
OK. The spaceship with Captain Bowman approaches Jupiter where the monolith found on the Moon is sending a steady and exactly beamed signal. Bowman approaches this point. We can see a blue oblong or Obolisk if you want to call it that way. Here's my interpretation:
The blue obolisk is the gate or the other similar device that is to transport any creature that comes close to it. Bowman did it so he is immediately beamed away, or transported in any other way away whatever you call it. We cannot know how he was transported cause we understand litlle and our technology is inferior to the one possessed by the creators of that Obolisk.
During the passage Bowman is experiencing side-effects of interstellar travel, warp travel, teleportation (you may choose anything).
You may see his eye from time to time which is blurred and coloured strangely (this is the sign that travel is under way and he is seeing strange things which his mind is trying to reshape into any familiar ones like lanscapes, lava flows etc...
Then the travel ends we learn about it when his eye goes back to the normal appearance.
He is inside something which looks like a house but which is not a house at all cause it is placed far far away from the Earth. It is really difficult to say where it is really but we may be sure that it is in a very far-away place since the travel seemed to be long. (Though it may lasted a millisecond as well as centuries no way to tell it. But the stars which are running away suggest a big trip.
Ok we're in the so called house which is built by those civilization that placed Oblong near the Jupiter and made it familiar for Bowman in order to study him how he is ageing and so on...
Finally when he is dying or rather close to death he is given the ultimite gift the immortality and is sent back to the vicinity of Earth as a foetus. Probably he is given special powers to use on Earth.
The scene is scary as he is a symbol of young human civilization which has immense powers (but foetal understanding of the universe) but will they be used wisely? Will the world be destroyed like a discarded and beheaded toy by that child?
You may like it or not.
But I watched it again just for you Penelope Errr... that is Quorthon.
Enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Apr 27, 2005 0:36:56 GMT -5
Very good sir.
I shall mull over your interpretation, which, mind you, I like very much. It's sad for me that, for as much as I like movies and film, I have little understanding of looking into a film's depth or meaning. Or for that matter, literature or novels.
Unfortunate as that is, I still love movies. Especially ones like this (or Naked Lunch).
|
|
|
|
Post by spacer on Apr 28, 2005 3:38:43 GMT -5
Very good sir. I shall mull over your interpretation, which, mind you, I like very much.  |
|
|
|
Post by spacer on Apr 28, 2005 3:43:22 GMT -5
It's sad for me that, for as much as I like movies and film, I have little understanding of looking into a film's depth or meaning. Or for that matter, literature or novels. Unfortunate as that is, I still love movies. Especially ones like this (or Naked Lunch). I can't believe it having read so many excellent posts of yours. |
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Apr 28, 2005 12:08:05 GMT -5
Sir! You are too kind!
But really, my head--quite thick.
Subtleties? I just don't always catch them. In fact, when I do, I'm actually certain that no one else did! If I caught it, then surely no one else did, because I don't see any depth!
I want to be a writer and filmmaker, but dammit, I always worry that my lack of understanding of depth and "meaning" in entertainment works will transfer all too obviously in whatever I do.
|
|
|
|
Post by spacer on Apr 29, 2005 0:56:16 GMT -5
Maybe you try too hard.
Relax and then let the subconscious part of your mind to do the whole job.
Just free your imagination and it will come for sure.
( No need to use stimulants )
|
|
|
|
Post by Pulpmariachi on Apr 29, 2005 10:23:49 GMT -5
You know, of course, Kubrick said "If anyone fully understands 2001, we've failed."
I love this film by the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Apr 29, 2005 17:17:58 GMT -5
You know, of course, Kubrick said "If anyone fully understands 2001, we've failed." I love this film by the way. Gotta love that man. |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Apr 30, 2005 0:14:57 GMT -5
You know. I've watched this movie three times and I still don't feel like I totally understand it. But I do have to say, that it's definitely worth the time to watch it and try to interpret it. I do feel like I "get it" a little more each time, as I notice new things with each viewing.
BTW, Spacer's explanation is as good as any I've heard.
|
|
