Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange
45

I have watched all of Stanley Kubrick's movies. He wants you to know that he's in control of the pace of the movie. You'll be fed each line when he's ready to feed it to you. All of Kubrick's movies tend to have a lot of white space, empty space where no one is doing or saying anything; they are merely existing. Listen to the non-human pace of Nicole Kidman'...


44

The ending is largely symbolic, and reading the book helps with its interpretation. Here are some different opinions. The one based on the book goes like this: The black monolith you saw in the beginning of the film, and the one found buried on the moon, were placed there by a supremely advanced alien race as a way to nudge along the evolution of humanity....


35

They used what most people refer to as a "giant centrifuge". There are multiple sites on the interwebs which explain this. From Pajiba The giant centrifuge was built “in the North of England” by Vickers Aircraft and was “about 50 tons and 60 to 70 feet high,” (in actuality, 30 tons). In this shot, the centrifuge wheel does turn, but once the stewardess ...


26

I think there are five related and self-reenforcing effects that the pacing in 2001 has. The first two are related to Kubrick's general intentions to make an artistic film; the others are related more specifically to the story and how Kubrick crafted it. It impresses upon the audience the scale of the action -- what Kubrick called "the grandeur of space" (...


25

To me the brilliance of 2001 lies in that it's a perfect storm of brilliant individual parts. It has jaw-dropping cinematography and SFX (that holds its own even in this CGI rich era), an iconic soundtrack, amazing writing (HAL remains one of the most chilling adversaries in movie history), and an intentionally ambiguous ending. When you finish watching ...


16

Book ending explanation: The movie is faithful to the book, although it intentionally lacks narration explaining what's going on. Unlike the book, the movie is an allegory to a number of things, and shouldn't be interpreted as being simply an adaptation of the book, but much more. It's an artistic approach to a scientific novel.


15

In the book, Clarke expertly shows that the Power behind the monolith does not want to hurt Dave in anyway. The monolith creates an environment for Dave to exist in that would not harm him in any way, makes it look like a hotel room, filling it with familiar items to assuage any fear and appear welcoming. Dave can't believe what he sees, but leaves the pod ...


15

From my perspective, it's partly to contrast HAL's childlike behavior and to also show human evolution from apes to logical beings.


13

There was actually originally supposed to be a voice-over in the ending, and for unknown reasons it was cut. The original script can be viewed here. Hopefully that helps you align the meaning of the visuals with the narrative in the book and in your mind.


12

The footage was made specially for 2001. According to Creating Special Effects for "2001: A Space Odyssey" by Douglas Trumbull The movie being shown on the TV set in front of the sleeping passenger was a little more complicated. Kubrick wanted shots of a futuristic car, and close-ups of a love scene taking place inside. A crew was dispatched to Detroit ...


11

Like your second paragraph and your quote of Kubrick's own statement kind of answer the question already: there is explanation nor meaning for the movie. That is intended. You just may or must make up your own.


10

I always thought that the ending of 2001 was open in the following sense. The film narrates of two main steps in human evolution, both triggered by alien intervention using the monolith as an inductive device. The first occurred in the far past, where ape-like creatures were transformed into homo sapiens through an enhancement of their intelligence. We ...


10

One of the things I found interesting about the entire sequence in the Discovery is a sort of reversing: Bowman and Poole behave coldly, don't give in to emotions and seem--at least emotionally--always in control of the situation. HAL, on the other hand, is the one that cracks under pressure and panicks. So, of all the crew, HAL is the real human character.


10

At first I thought it might have been a breakaway model, used by the likes of Orsen Welles to make a camera appear to pass through a neon sign or window in Citizen Kane, but then I watched the clip and realized this could not be the case. I have had some experience with motion control cameras, and this certainly seems to have been produced using a track ...


9

They are two different people, though admittedly they do look somewhat similar and you don't see them both very clearly for very long. The scene follows the crew member in the uniform as he climbs down, gets his food and joins the crew member who is in the robe watching the BBC on a tablet device. They sit at different ends of the table. You can see them ...


9

I believe that you are on the right track when it comes to showing normality through eating. One of the main themes of the movie is the (forced) evolution of humanity. In the Dawn of Man segment we see humanity's ancestors living a subsistence life style. They huddle in fear and scrounge for scraps of food. Enter the Monolith, who teaches Moon Watcher how ...


5

Here's the bare minimum specs: Deep Blue (the first computer to beat a reigning grand master at chess) computer class: mainframe architecture: parallel, based on SP2 technology 32 Power2 SC CPUs (135MHz, 32-bit registers, RISC, 15 million transistors) 512 Chess processors One trillion operations per second (500,000,000 for a high-end PC in 1999) 500 ...


5

I think it goes beyond the lens: the whole thing is a reference to HAL 9000. it's named Gerty 3000, a very similar name it speaks in a concerned male voice it is artificial intelligence personified its interaction with the male protagonist is a key focus of the movie In fact, while watching Moon, I kept waiting for Gerty 3000 to pull a HAL 9000 and go ...


5

Kubrick was going for as much verisimilitude as he could get out of the various space scenes. Space is a vacuum - there is no medium for sound - so Kubrick shot these scenes with no sound except for the sound of David breathing inside his suit. As for the lingering and slow paced shots - despite the fact that you're in orbit and therefore travelling at ...


4

Yes, and Duncan Jones has said as much in interviews. For example, The robot in your film is fairly reminiscent of Hal from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Was Gerty an intentional homage to that film? Yes. But there are many homages in the film, to many sci-fi films. Maybe more than the casual observer will pick up on! The thing is, people who haven’t ...


3

A recently unearthed interview with Kubrick brings more light to the ending scenes of the film. The French room is basically a zoo enclosure in which Dave was studied before he was transformed into the Starchild. Source "The idea was supposed to be that he is taken in by god-like entities, creatures of pure energy and ...


3

The other answers already provide some very interesting insights on the matter, which largely amount to the fact that the movie is more or less intentionally left ambiguous and without a clear interpretation, which is also what makes it so fascinating and engaging. I'd like to amend this here with Wolfgang Schmitt's interesting analysis of the movie (...


2

In season 10 at the hospital it plays a scene on the tv where the female ape is giving birth to baby milo whos name is later on changed to "caesar". In this film ceasars parents pass on to ceasar the idea that humans are not bad. In the remake ceasars mother passes her genetic mutation to ceasar, the mutation that makes her intelligent. I think the ...


1

If you're looking to buy an actual prop used for the movie, you may be out of luck as according to a Hollywood.com article: Kubrick had all of 2001’s sets, props, and miniatures destroyed so they would never be able to be recycled for future movies, the way Forbidden Planet’s props surfaced in later films. Of course, there may have been ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible