So I just saw this for the first time. And WHAAAAT THE FUCK

it's about so much, just think about it and come back to it. best movie ever.

File: 12321619_1026972974005533_8741976747761431410_n.jpg (54KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 720x960px

>who has seen this?

What's up with all the newfag 2001 threads lately.
Did a Reddit post about it hit the front page?

>>64456579
You have to have the tiniest imagination, the shortest sight, and you probably haven't watched many movies, if you really don't have any idea what this movie is about.

It's literally what 80% of Clarke's stories are about.

a dominant theme is evolution of man.

The black monolith marks evolution.

Monkeys see it, they grow, the see it as an object foreign to them and their knowledge. They then learn to make tools with bones, they use this in war.

Man discovers it on the moon, learns there is more to their pre concieved knowledge of reality.

The same technology that allows them to travel to space becomes a downfall as Hal kills most of them, man become reliant on it and it was a downfall in this scenario.

Dave must go back to basics to use a tool in form of screwdriver to take apart hals AI,he then goes on a trip of his own and it takes him to infinite beyond.

Then he is sort of reborn into the baby due to a better understanding of what he thought was reality, there is so much more and it plays with so many things, but this is a constant theme in the movie.

Lots of little goodies layered in, google it and people have all types of diff thoughts on it.

Fun Fact, in the secret space meeting with all big wigs, only the USA flag is waving in the room with all other flags not moving which is what the American Flag on the moon was also waving, people suggest all types of things....

Your supposed to watch, rewatch, rewatch, go talk about it, read about analysis on it, rewatch... enjoy it.

File: 2001 6.png (2MB, 1600x799px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x799px

The monolith is a representation of the cinema screen.

2001: A Space Odyssey is basically about the characters becoming aware that they inside a film.

Dave Bowman transforms into a higher consciousness being after travelling through the monolith, and returns to Earth to share the new found knowledge.

The film is an allegory for man's understanding of the mysteries of human consciousness, as we are encouraged to explore and critically apply ourselves to this present reality.

>>64456579
I don't think it's really intended to be a "Watch this shit high nigga" movie, even though it's pretty out there.

In my opinion there are a lot of finer plots in the movie, HAL being aware and reacting to the crew is just one.

There are vague themes but the film is more an experience above all else.

>>64457504
>>64457738

These are BS.

Fully disagree, he is also right about monolith mirroring the cinema screen the viewer watches because it reinforces the fact that the movie is made with intention of making the watcher grow.

Just read the book. It explains everything

>>64458198
the movie and book were made at the same time and in conjunction with Kubrick/clarke

Kubricks autistic cinema means everything is subtle so changes were made

>>64456579
the ending is much clearer in the Novel. The novel/movie relationship is kind of a weird one in this case as the movie was written by Kubrick and Arthur C Clarke together, but while the film was in production Clarke wrote a novelization of it that released at roughly the same time as the film.

The novel is amazing by the way

>>64458198
It's pretty funny because the book shows the movie is actually extremely literal:
Color space is Dave literally travelling through space and watching exotic astronomical phenomena
The house thing is an hologram by the ayyliums to evaluate humankind's maturity
Then the last monolith evolves Dave into the Star Child (remember? Just like they used the first monolith to evolve the monkeys?)

It's sci-fi, not some ultra deep allegory about random shit or anything.

>>64456579
How does this post not warrant a ban for being underage?

>>64456579
I knew there was more to it, but I also thought that HAL was the main conflict of the movie going in.

It's a great experience.

I see the basic idea as
>man picks up tools and rises above the animals, starting an inexorable progress of technology
>man's tools inevitably become as smart as him, and a conflict will arise
>in order to continue as a species, man (Dave) and his tools (HAL) must merge and become a new being (the starchild)

there's a lot more going on that that though.

>>64456579
Jeff Hardy was in 2001?

>>64457850
dont be an anti intellectual, the film is more than an experience, dont cheapen it

>>64459087
Hal was a problem because it was stupid as fuck and misunderstood orders.

>>64458541
>It’s not a message that I ever intend to convey in words. 2001 is a nonverbal experience; out of two hours and nineteen minutes of film, there are only a little less than forty minutes of dialog. I tried to create a visual experience, one that bypasses verbalized pigeonholing and directly penetrates the subconscious with an emotional and philosophic content. To convolute McLuhan, in 2001 the message is the medium. I intended the film to be an intensely subjective experience that reaches the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does; to “explain” a Beethoven symphony would be to emasculate it by creating an artificial barrier between conception and appreciation. You’re free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film—and such speculation is indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a very deep level—but I don’t want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or fear he’s missed the point. I think that if 2001 succeeds at all, it is in reaching a wide spectrum of people who would not often give a thought to man’s destiny, his role in the cosmos and his relationshop to higher forms of life. But even in the case of someone who is highly intelligent, certain ideas found in 2001 would, if presented as abstractions, fall rather lifelessly and be automatically assigned to pat intellectual categories; experienced a moving visual and emotional context, however, they can resonate within the deepest fibers of one’s being.

>>64456579
>Am I the only one who
reddit 9gag facebook

File: 1449628136159.jpg (39KB, 598x608px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 598x608px

>>64456579
>Who has seen this

>>64456579
>And WHAAAAT THE FUCK
>and wtf is that ending?
Judging by the reaction and writing, I'm guessing somewhere around 15 years old.

>>64459265
All he's saying is that he left stuff open to interpretation, he even says he wanted it to be "subjective" which proves that he didn't really have some grand vision about philosophical allegory that is any deeper than what is presented in the book.
Sure it's fun to speculate and build your own headcanon but when you look at it objectively it's a pretty transparent movie.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love 2001 but I just don't think it hides the meaning of life or anything.

>>64456579
Everyone has seen this movie you retarded fuck. Why would you even ask that?

>>64457850
>vague themes
>reducing the thing to "an experience"
How retarded can you be?

Fucking Clarke would be rolling around in his grave.

>>64457805
>I don't think it's really intended to be a "Watch this shit high nigga" movie, even though it's pretty out there.
A lot of it's early success was due to the films length syncing perfectly with the effects of dropping acid (if you drop during the black screen start by the time he's going through the wormhole you are tripping serious balls).