I disagree. You might think that ignoring the novel is doing the movie a disservice, but I think it's the other way around; that taking the novel into account robs the movie of it's strongest point (the openness to interpretation). Anyway, knowing Kubrick, the darkness and music probably symbolized the underlying and perpetual nature of life throughout existence. The onward march of life, of trying to survive and make sense of the unknown, isn't all that dissimilar to a symphony in the dark. When humans prowled the earth as primitive tribes, and also when humans mastered technology and space travel, our motives and programming remained the same, and we were just as in the dark at our greatest cultural peak as we were when we first began. Until the astronaut reaches enlightenment, and the screen has a seizure (:laughing:), which is probably a metaphor for leaving the darkness.

But I'll ask again: Why do you assume that both the movie and the novel have to go together? Kubrick wanted an abstract commentary, and Clarke wanted one that was solid. Because of their different natures, and the different intentions held by the different creators, each has to be examined on it's own. Why? Because reviewing the movie (an abstract effort) as if it were a solid effort is ignoring much of what it has to offer. And reviewing the book (a solid effort) as if it were abstract is trying to go against the way that the author was trying to inform the reader. If you gain enjoyment from combining the two, then that's fine. Go for it. But you have to realize that there are people who enjoy them both seperately, and there's nothing wrong with point of view either.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to take the movie on its own accord without giving credence to the novel. They're two different animals and the book isn't that great anyhow. The aesthetic of the film alone makes it a 9/10, the plot and themes that it touched on gives it that extra point to make it a perfect film.

i just like the scene with the monkies

(1) The width to height aspect ratio of the monoliths were EXACTLY the same as the width to height aspect ratio of the cinema screens the movie was first shown on, rotated 90 degrees. The movie screen monoliths are singing to the audience signifying that their minds are about to be blown in the same way that the monoliths in the movie are singing to Moonchild, and then the astronauts that their minds are about to be blown.

(2) 2001 was a joint collaboration between Kubrick and Clarke. It's not an assumption. They did that project as a team.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8149/7...b4ea84d1_o.jpg

So the monoliths that appear whenever a great technological/intellectual leap is made happen to appear as a part of the movie screen? Sounds like Kubrick was trying to point out that movies and art are one of the greatest ways of expressing amazing ideas and pushing humanity closer towards greater understanding. Specifically, it sounds like he thought his movie was just such a push. No offense, but that kind of coincides with my own interpretations of what Kubrick was trying to do with the movie. The only difference between our ideas is that you think that the monoliths are singing for the astronaut, while I think it's apart of a grander metaphor aimed at all of humanity since the beginning of our existence.

Face it, this isn't even an argument that can be won or lost, and thinking that it is is missing the point and intentions of the movie. We're simply comparing perfectly valid interpretations. Also, stop saying moonchild. I'm having Neverending Story flashbacks.

No, they didn't. If that was the case, then Clarke would never have felt compelled to write his own version of the story. The fact that he did only shows that the story he had in mind was different from Kubrick's vision. It's the same as if two friends, one atheistic and one religious, wrote a story together but couldn't finish it and flesh it out in a way that satisfied both, so they decided to just each write their own version and let the readers decide which they preferred.

Before you call it a "perfect film", keep this in mind: After looking at everything I've said in this thread, and all of the points I've made, how would you feel if I told you that I fast forwarded through at least half of the film? I'd like to think that I at least kind of get where Kubrick was coming from with this movie, and yet I technically watched less than half of it. Making the movie drag on forever isn't some grand artistic statement that is integral to the film, it's actually the movie's greatest and most pointless weakness. There's no reason why Kubrick couldn't have said what he wanted to say in just one hour, let alone more than two, and by stretching it out he alienated a whole hell of a lot of people who could have gotten much more out of the film. Not only that, but the characters and dialogue are so forgettable that almost everyone who watches the movie can't name a single character other than HAL and the astronaut, and usually can't bring up a single quote beyond one of HAL's creepy moments (as well as "See you next wednesday", for some reason).

Edit: Oh yeah, one last thing...

No offense, but I think you should elaborate more on why that specific scene stuck out to you.

(1) No. The monoliths were there from the very beginning. They were planted. They didn't just appear.

(2) Why do you refer to it as an argument? It's a spirited discussion. One that would be so much better if you'd read the companion novel.

(3) One last time. Clarke and Kubrick worked this together. There's no different version. Why do you keep falling back on this?

One of the better aspects of the novel is the first section. Where Kubrick can only show how Moon-watcher exists and then ultimately reacts to the monolith and it's message, Clarke is able to put the reader inside Moon-watcher's primitive brain. He's such a great writer and pulls it off so well.

That's not fair. The movie never leans in favor of the monoliths being strictly literal objects placed by aliens, or metaphors. Again, you're using the novel to try and justify your interpretation of the movie, which is perfectly fine if that's what you enjoy, but you can't demand me to have the same preferences or interpretations. The movie and the novel are two seperate entities, and whether they are to be put together is up to each individual audience member.

I was making a point. The answer to each question asked in this thread so far has been a matter of interpretation, and yet you keep insinuating that there is only one way of looking at the 2001 canon (that aliens were responsible), and that the novel gives concrete answers (when in reality it is simply the elaboration of Clarke's personal take on the story). By that logic, should fans of The Last Airbender be forced to accept Shyamalon's recent movie into the canon? It's up to every fan to decide for themselves.

But there are different versions; the movie and the novel. If both Clarke and Kubrick wanted their collective work to be viewed as a whole, why did they both end up creating different stories altogether? Each was dissatisfied with the other's interpretation; why else would Kubrick feel the need to deviate so far from Clarke's idea of "aliens", as well as Clarke feeling the need to write a novel after the fact clarifying his specific version?

I'll be blunt; we're discussing the movie, not the novel. You bringing it up every five seconds is like jumping in front of a movie reviewer and yelling "Read the book first!" The movie reviewer is there to review the movie, which should be capable of standing on it's own. We can talk about the novel some other time, preferably when I've actually had the chance to read it.

That's great, but again, we're discussing the movie. Maybe you're right, and the book really will help me to like the movie, but that is a different discussion for a different time. I'm here strictly to elaborate on how I felt about the movie after watching it.

Ok. Fair enough. Did you know that people walked out of the theater during it's initial run? People were pissed wondering, what the hell is this about? A lot of critics ravaged the movie in 1968 upon its release. A lot of those same critics now consider it among the greatest cinematic achievements of all time.

Kubrick was a complex man - understatement of the millennium. He made movies that he knew wouldn't even be close to be fully dissected for decades after their release. He understood Clarke's vision and then turned it into a mind f*ck for the ages. The fact that you and I are having this discussion 47 years after the movie first came out only cements what he hoped to achieve with his vision of Clarke's story.

The monolith/screen aspect ratio is fact. He sang to the audience in the theater as a preface to the monolith singing in the movie.

Sure, Kubrik's influence is massive, and 2001 in many ways gave birth to the modern sci-fi movie, but honestly I could talk about any movie like this. I mean, I don't exactly have the best taste in movies that I consider "good" anyway, since out of all the movies I've seen, this is still one of my favorites:

With the following in mind, I have to go with Chula on this. You could at least do some research before arguing your point as fact. I googled this in a couple seconds.


Stanley Kubrick's letter to Arthur C. Clarke that launched 2001 | Blastr