No.

The Aliens buried the monolith for a very specific reason. Care to take a stab?

Then it might just not be your style of filmmaking.
I enjoy a beautiful shot of someone walking down an empty street for ten minutes. I totally get why some might not. If I'm not in the mood, I don't enjoy such scenes myself.
Tarkovsky is actually considered one of the greatest directors of all time, but yeah, he is something for the film buffs, a casual viewer would be bored to pieces by his films.
Oh, and I love Sergio Leone. Kudos for growing up watching him.

Kubrick was the first one to show space travel as it really is. The reality of the shuttle docking with the space station is that it would be an extremely slow and delicate process set in the absolute vacuum silence of space.

Him adding the Blue Danube to augment it was brilliant.

I saw 2001 on the large screen about a year ago with a packed house of all ages. During that scene you could hear a pin drop in the theater. It was equal parts beautiful and mesmerizing.

Haven't read the book. I know Clarke is well-respected in the sci fi community, but I just kind of figured the book would be a redundant companion piece to the movie.

As it happens I just rewatched 2001 yesterday.
Amazes me each and every time.

Not at all. He fills in every single blank. My respect for the movie went up a ton after reading the book.

That's not exactly fair. We have different interpretations of whether there were aliens at all, so asking me about them won't get you any answer other than "the monoliths are just a symbol, popping up alongside developments in technology and intellect, simply to serve as a metaphor", and I've already explained the advancements behind the appearances of the monoliths. I feel like you have a very solid interpretation of the movie based on information given to you by the novel, which I haven't read and refuse to take into account, because we're examining Kubrick and not Clarke.

But since everyone is asking me questions, I think it's only fair that I get to ask a few. I have three of them: First, why did they find a monolith on Jupiter? Secondly, (spoilers) why did HAL sing as he was being killed? And lastly, why do you think Kubrick deliberately decided to not give us a concrete explanation?

First: The monolith on Jupiter (which is infinitely larger than the ones on the earth and moon) is the gateway to the Alien's home galaxy. The worm hole.

They buried the one on the moon because they rightly anticipated that by the time mankind had the advanced technology to discover it, they'd have also used that technology to develop weapons sufficient to destroy the Earth.

Second: Daisy was one of the first programs that HAL had implanted during his early stages of development. As Dave broke down HAL's memory he regressed back to being an "infant" and fell back on that early program. (a very sad scene in retrospect)

Third: Because he is Stanley Kubrick and that's the way he operated during his peak "mind f*ck" years.

First: The massive monolith was so large because it coincided with the final part of humanity's journey: the creation of artifical life (HAL) and attaining enlightenment (The astronaut).

Second: HAL is supposed to be the perfect being, and yet he breaks down into infancy (his most basic programming) when confronted with death. He symbolizes the final leg of humanity's intellectual journey: realizing that even though we are biologically programmed (just as HAL was literally programmed), biological life has the ability to override that programming. We, at our most basic level, exist to live and breed, and when confronted with death we resort our most basic instincts to survive. And yet we have the ability to overcome the fear of death, and even learn to understand and cherish it. We have the potential to change our programming, and to completely override the very things that are supposed drive us. HAL is a commentary on a rigid and mechanical way of thinking; cold logic can only take you so far, before you have to confront the idea of death. Whether you believe there is life after death or not, thinking about it is an act of trying to understand the unknown, and either way is an act of faith in the evidence we have been presented with (but can't ever be 100% known or proven).

Third: Rather than just rehash what Clarke was saying, Kubrick decided to offer up a completely different story from the same inspiration (which makes sense. Why bother having two people tell the same story in the same way?) Rather than come up with a story about aliens like Clarke, he made a story that lets the audience decide just what exactly is going on. Let me ask you this: Why do you think that they both wrote different stories, rather than just make one definite one in both the movie and the book? Why do you assume that both have to be companions to the other, rather than standing on their own as different interpretations of the same inspiration? Kubrick told the story he wanted to tell, and Clarke did the same. Stop trying to mix the two together, when they clearly wanted them to be seperate.

See? Even though we watched the same movie, and are approaching the same questions, we both have different answers. And the best part of the movie (which I still dislike, by the way =p) is that Kubrick made it so that neither of us is wrong.

Thanks! :laughing:

Lastly, am I the only one here who's going to play the devil's advocate? Because if so, this is going to get pretty boring pretty fast.

But they didn't. The story is the same. Kubrick told it ambiguously so that everyone could take stabs at their own interpretations. And then Clarke released the book (the novel was released after the movie had been out for a while) to clear up the ambiguity.

Ignoring the novel is doing a real disservice to the movie. Not saying that's a bad thing, just that the story is so much more satisfying having both to draw upon.

At the start of the movie you see a black screen for a few minutes with music playing. Then there's an intermission midway through, where again you see a black screen with music playing. What's the significance?

This is not in the book and is 100% pure SK brilliance.