What was it made out of?

>>83817120
unobtanium

eggs

Chocolate.

>>83817120
love

>>83817120
BREAK!!!!

>>83817120
Kubrickium

Stars

>>83817283
This.

>>83817120
the same stuff chalkboards are made of

>>83817120
Olde english and swishers

Bags of coins and sand

recycled plastic

>>83817120
plasma and bone marrow

Obsidian

>>83817120
That shit that leaked out of Gary Oldman's head when he was talking to Mr. Shadow on the phone in The Fifth Element

Bismuth

>>83817120
100% U.S. steel, baby.

>>83817120
chocolate

>>83817857
This

>>83817120
BIG OL' NIGGerian minerals

>>83817120
Kangzidium.

>>83817120

In the novels Clarke constantly refers to the monoliths with the word "ebon", as they are normally perfectly black and nonreflective. Sometimes they do light up, though, when they're "doing" something.

They may be voids in space, though just like this scene they are alternately depicted as being conventional, inert objects. They would seem to manifest as either one when appropriate.

>>83817120
Stay tuned for the prequel to find out!

Primitive CGI.

space jizz

>>83817120

midichlorians

>>83817120
basalt

>>83817120
Who cares. Vastly overrated sci-fi that ascribes the advent of intelligence to a deity. Literally reinventing Christianity from the top down in the most asinine way possible.

Kubrick was and always will be a hack.

>>83818288
Kys

File: ZT-187nr.jpg (32KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 512x512px

>>83818288

>>83817120
LSD

>>83817120
Carbon, Hydrogen, Helium, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Iron and Selenium.

>>83818288
t. Triggered brainlet

>>83818337
>>83818370
>>83818540
Notice the lack of argumentation from the actual brainlets

Whereas I articulated my position perfectly in three sentences.

>>83818288
So any form of alien intervention would be "reinventing Christianity" to you?

>>83818288
>butthurt christfag detected

File: 256px-HAL9000.svg.png (46KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 256x256px

>>83818884
No, just the way it's done in 2001. Ape touches monolith; is imbued with a "divine spark" that makes him superior to the other apes.

It's about as subtle as Ridley Scott's Engineers but it's wrapped in enigmatic shit. In the end it hardly matters, the only thing people remember is pic related.

>>83817283

But isn't everything made out of stars, Anon?

>>83818143

(You) need to leave.

>>83819141
shut up fag

>>83819182
Yes more or less. Everything except stars themselves anyway.

Those are made out of hydrogen, which begat stars which begat shit heavier than helium.

>>83818819

>It took me three sentences to get (You)s

Congratulations.

>>83817120
vibranium, the same shit that woke ass nigga from Black Panther had his lip plate made out of

>>83818819
you didnt really make an argument either

>le stupid Christianity is bad, no deities either that is not allowed

is literally not an argument you pseudo-intellectual mook.

>>83817120
Carbon nanotubes

>>83817120
Diamond, the hardest metal known to man

>>83819311
and where did the hydrogen come from ?

>>83819417
>the hardest metal known to man
>not DragonForce

>>83819141

What is it in your life that makes you think it is a "divine spark"?

There is certainly nothing in the film that suggests divinity.

>>83819421
Big bang stuff chillin' out

There was lots more but 99% of the shit got wiped out by anti-shit

>>83819468
There's nothing in particular to suggest it's not divine.

The monoliths defy all rationality.

File: 1487916260135.jpg (6KB, 222x227px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 222x227px

>>83819484
Jamie pull that shit up right now

>>83819511
>There's nothing in particular to suggest it's not divine.

And yet you went with the "divine" option, why was that?

>>83819574
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology)

File: 1438716622444.jpg (182KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1024x1024px

>>83819595
Because of lack of evidence to the contrary

I guess you could posit "maybe it was ayyliums" to which I retort, "for what purpose?"

Money.

>>83819643

>Because of lack of evidence to the contrary

There was lack of evidence for the idea that MLPs were responsible, and yet you went with divinity. Why are you skirting round the issue that the "divinity" idea came from you and your life experiences?

The prop was wood

>>83817120
Light

>>83819643
The books confirm it was literally aliens. In 3001 they make the decision to destroy humanity.

>>83819743
Why are you so triggered by the word divine? Are you still mad mommy made you get up early to go to church?

File: 2spoopy.gif (486KB, 475x347px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 475x347px

>>83819780
>be aliens
>can make monoliths that zoom around the universe and make dumb shits intelligent
>takes you 150,000 years of human evolution + 1000 years of them shitting up space to realize it was a mistake
I don't buy it.

>>83817120
Properties of both rubber and gum

>>83819833
They are still bound by psychics and the speed of light. The monoliths were all checkpoints designed to report back to the alien race, that's why they put one on the moon and one at Jupiter, to see what humans were like at that point in time.

So after the events of 2010 the monolith sent information back which took 500 years each way.

>>83819800
That's not an argument and you know it

>yfw the monolith is actually a movie screen

>>83819780
At the same time Kubrick hated the ending to the book and disregarded it for the film. I wouldn't use the book to interpret the film.

>>83819877
Ok but why does the monolith make the apes smart

>>83819964
Kubrick, while a genius, was a cantankerous coot who hated anything he didn't personally create.

The two were created together, two interpretations of the same story.

>>83818288
Lol. You're a fucking retard.

>>83819986
To advance the race. The aliens advance by discovering new species and bringing their uniqueness into their own.

>>83820009
Hmm, what is this... what is this not...

this is not an argument

>>83819986
It doesn't "make them smart", it just gives them a little nudge in the next evolutionary direction. The monolith makes the apes figure out how tools work. The rest occurs naturally.

>>83819800

I'm not triggered, Anon. Just curious as to where the "divine spark" idea came from as it certainly wasn't the film.

>>83820020
Ok familiar, I'll spell it out...

What you decided to call 'a deity' could simply be a transcendental species or their tech. Aliens. Or a stage of humanity that managed to reach out through time.

You also failed when you assumed that an ancient hebrew fable was in any way relevant to the teachings of Christianity.

In short: You're a fucking retard.

Happy?

>>83818288
Dude... literally nowhere in the movie is/are the monolith(s) presented as having anything to do with a deity. The nature of the monolith is left a complete and utter mystery. The books explain it, but I ignore the books since the movie is light years greater as a work of art. And in any case, the monoliths are not made by deities in the books. You've misunderstood the movie. That's if you've ever even watched it.

>>83819854
O

>>83820152
>inb4 the retard replies

>>83820174
>>83820152
It confirms the notion that man's intelligence is not intrinsic to man, but granted to him by an outside authority.

I only said divine because Kubrick, an atheist, was deconstructing the mythos by turning God into ayylmaos.

>>83819141
You're reading one particular interpretation into that scene. Another, equally valid interpretation is that the ape is stirred into a higher consciousness, not by anything the monolith does to it, but simply by the geometric/artistic merits and awe-inspiring mystery of the monolith as it stands there contrasting with every other thing on that plain

>>83820233
You should be careful about how you pick your words, if you even slightly imply that something like a god could exist the turbo atheists like that guy will throw a hissy fit.

>>83819780
I completely ignore the books. All due respect to Arthur C. Clarke - his was a powerful intellect. But compared to the film, the books are so trivial and mundane that I don't consider them to take place in the same universe. The film is a mystic experience and an elevation of consciousness. The books are just standard sci-fi.

>>83820328
And that's why I like the two together; Kubrick brings you the feelings and awe and wonder of the story while Clarke gives you the foundation and facts of it. The two very different ways of telling the same story is interesting to me.

File: kubby.jpg (131KB, 970x545px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 970x545px

>>83820233
>>83820174

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_and_religious_beliefs_of_Stanley_Kubrick#Religion

>I will say that the God concept is at the heart of 2001 but not any traditional, anthropomorphic image of God. I don't believe in any of Earth's monotheistic religions, but I do believe that one can construct an intriguing scientific definition of God, once you accept the fact that there are approximately 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone, that each star is a life-giving sun and that there are approximately 100 billion galaxies in just the visible universe. Given a planet in a stable orbit, not too hot and not too cold, and given a few billion years of chance chemical reactions created by the interaction of a sun's energy on the planet's chemicals, it's fairly certain that life in one form or another will eventually emerge. It's reasonable to assume that there must be, in fact, countless billions of such planets where biological life has arisen, and the odds of some proportion of such life developing intelligence are high. Now, the sun is by no means an old star, and its planets are mere children in cosmic age, so it seems likely that there are billions of planets in the universe not only where intelligent life is on a lower scale than man but other billions where it is approximately equal and others still where it is hundreds of thousands of millions of years in advance of us. When you think of the giant technological strides that man has made in a few millennia—less than a microsecond in the chronology of the universe—can you imagine the evolutionary development that much older life forms have taken? They may have progressed from biological species, which are fragile shells for the mind at best, into immortal machine entities—and then, over innumerable eons, they could emerge from the chrysalis of matter transformed into beings of pure energy and spirit. Their potentialities would be limitless and their intelligence ungraspable by humans.

>>83819999
Two interpretations, yes, but one vastly better than the other. The film is one of the greatest works of art ever created. The books are forgettable sci-fi.

>>83817120
hardened compact monkey turds.

>>83820353

I respect Clarke for his intellect and ideas, but damn he writes boring books.

>>83820596
His style certainly was a bit ponderous I'll admit, but for me at least the content makes it worth reading through still.

>>83820260
It's just called being precise, you dipshit. My guess is you're not really into scientific methods.

>>83820945
How long have you been a member of LessWrong?

>>83820233
>Kubrick, an atheist, was deconstructing the mythos by turning God into ayylmaos.

State your source. Your Pastor isn't a viable source.

>>83821192
Original research, get fucked white boi

File: 2001fordummies.jpg (188KB, 1086x813px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1086x813px

>>83817120

>>83821293

Cite your sources.

>>83821377
>>83820396

>>83820396
See, my problem with shit like this is that these people are saying they believe it's possible for a being we would think of as a god to evolve from nature, but they don't believe that nature could have been created by such a being. I'm not a Christian, for the record, but so many of these "intellectual" types say shit like this that is so logically inconsistent and basically hypocritical....it irritates the fuck out of me.

Like how do they not realize how retarded they sound? You believe that a being far above us, "pure energy and spirit", could eventually evolve out nothing, but you dismiss the idea that such a being could have existed before the natural world and brought it into existence. Like....why?

>>83821382

Well done, but this wasn't the other Anon's source otherwise he would have linked it instead of telling me to get fucked. The other Anon is just an argumentative twat who claims to have researched something but in reality just has a religious chip on his shoulder since he specifically mentions Christianity.

File: 1406889664881.jpg (5KB, 250x240px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 250x240px

>>83817120
Digits.

>>83821352
actually "renaissance" is a french term.

>>83821705
>they believe it's possible for a being we would think of as a god to evolve from nature

A being we would think of as God is not an actual God, it is just something we would struggle to define, so it becomes "magic".

>>83817120
smegma

>>83821831
>A being we would think of as God is not an actual God
>an actual God
>implying there is such a thing

Also you completely missed the point.

File: Mind Blown.png (27KB, 126x105px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 126x105px

>>83821805

>>83821831
Explain what an "actual God" is, then?

>>83819141
shut the fuck up pleb

>>83821890

I didn't imply anything of the sort. Claiming that something is not an "actual God" doesn't mean that there are actual "Gods".


>>83821921

There is no such thing.

>>83817120
steel beams

>>83817243
Underrated.

File: 1400524908107.png (117KB, 320x263px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 320x263px

>>83822017
>There is no such thing.

So how does HAL play into all this implication circle jerk?

>>83822017

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/actual
>actual: existing in fact or reality

Don't use words if you don't know what they mean.

>There is no such thing
Irrelevant to my question. You used the term "actual God", and that term has a definition which you claim is in disagreement with the phrasing used by Kubrick:
>immortal beings of pure energy and spirit
>limitless potentialities (aka they can do literally anything)

Those are very clearly characteristics which the vast majority of people would attribute to or use to define the term "God"

You apparently have a different concept of what "God" means, and in order for your argument to be valid you must present it.

memes and dreams

>>83817120
100% Monolith

>Jupiter turns into a sun
>Somehow Earth is barely affected by it

Wow

File: 1494169384443.jpg (450KB, 2018x2864px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 2018x2864px

>>83817120
Necrodermis.

>>83817183
fpbp
made me lol

>>83818288
point and laugh at the brainlet

>>83818819
If you like pretending your iq is over 70 by writing a shitload of words that say nothing then reddit is your place

>>83817120
LOVE TARS, LOVE

File: Billy-D_Approves.gif (1MB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x225px

>>83822309
rekt

>>83822017
no response anon?

>>83818288
(You)

>>83818288
You're kind of a faggot huh?

>>83822210
We humans are the creators of Hal,and we judge him for his sins, therefore we become God.

>>83817120
bbcinium

File: joerog.png (533KB, 1268x696px) Image search: [Google]

533KB, 1268x696px

>>83817120
weed

>>83819780

No they don't. You didn't read closely enough.

>>83828109
So what were they?

>>83817120
like all these lights and like numbers and shit

>>83817120
Cocainum

>>83818056
underrated