Originally Posted by Oriphiel

No, I don't need to read the novel. We're discussing the movie, and quite frankly, I think if Kubrick decided to omit things from the source material that blatantly revealed the existence of guiding aliens, he did it for a reason. And since it's his vision that we're reviewing, not Clarke's, I think you have to admit that Kubrick's ambiguity is much more important to the movie than Clarke's specificity.

And stop asking why the monolith was on the moon. I already said that my interpretation is that the monoliths are just a symbol for intellectual achievements/development. In my opinion, the monoliths are wherever/whenever they need to be to best exemplify the metaphor behind them, being shown at every turning point (when we developed tools, when we achieved space flight, when we approached transcending reality, etc. Didn't they even find one on Jupiter right when humanity developed a robot that gained sentience (HAL)?).



I grew up watching Sergio Leone flicks. Long shots don't phase me in the slightest, as long as there's something meaningful or emotional going on. Also, this might reveal that i'm not really much of a film buff, butI don't know those two people you mentioned.