MovieChat Forums > 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Discussion > I FINALLY watched the whole thing!

I FINALLY watched the whole thing!

posted 8 years ago by jane_bront
8 replies | jump to latest

And if you knew the nature of my previous attempts, you'd know the reason for me starting a whole thread to announce the fact. Before voicing an opinion on the film, I'll read around this board to see if I can find an answer to what the ending meant - because I don't know what to make of it. However, I'm not one of those folks who say a movie is bad because they didn't understand it. I think I still did like it, but I'm not completely sure. lol

EDITED to add: Oops! I see someone else very recently started a similar thread. Glad I'm not alone in being probably one of a few people over a certain age who's only just now sat through a viewing of this well-known sci-fi film.

[–] Blueghost 8 years ago

The ending was about the astronaut entering the aliens world and their construction apparatus. It's supposed to explain what they did, but not exactly explain why they did it. You get a sense of them acting as self appointed protectors, hoping life will evolve and develop to the point where it can protect itself and maybe join other worlds.

[–] bradhbbrd 7 years ago

It's trans-humanism the aliens evolve the apes than millions of years of development later we prove we can go to the moon by excavating the lunar monolith which sends a signal to the Jupiter monolith which we follow.
Once there Dave enters the stargate, where the aliens use up his human body at an accelerated rate so he can be evolved into the next step...the star child.
The infant is also a metaphor for us as a species still being in our infancy.

[–] gary_overman 7 years ago

Even though it came out when I was in my teens, I just watched it for the first time a couple of years back. I got it in the bargain bin at WallyWorld for a pittance.

[–] aaahmemories 7 years ago

I'll read around this board to see if I can find an answer to what the ending meant - because I don't know what to make of it.

Would Kubrick's answer help?

GELMIS: The final scenes of the film seemed more metaphorical than realistic. Will you discuss them -- or would that be part of the "road map" you're trying to avoid?

KUBRICK: No, I don't mind discussing it, on the lowest level, that is, straightforward explanation of the plot. You begin with an artifact left on earth four million years ago by extraterrestrial explorers who observed the behavior of the man-apes of the time and decided to influence their evolutionary progression. Then you have a second artifact buried deep on the lunar surface and programmed to signal word of man's first baby steps into the universe -- a kind of cosmic burglar alarm. And finally there's a third artifact placed in orbit around Jupiter and waiting for the time when man has reached the outer rim of his own solar system.

When the surviving astronaut, Bowman, ultimately reaches Jupiter, this artifact sweeps him into a force field or star gate that hurls him on a journey through inner and outer space and finally transports him to another part of the galaxy, where he's placed in a human zoo approximating a hospital terrestrial environment drawn out of his own dreams and imagination. In a timeless state, his life passes from middle age to senescence to death. He is reborn, an enhanced being, a star child, an angel, a superman, if you like, and returns to earth prepared for the next leap forward of man's evolutionary destiny.

That is what happens on the film's simplest level. Since an encounter with an advanced interstellar intelligence would be incomprehensible within our present earthbound frames of reference, reactions to it will have elements of philosophy and metaphysics that have nothing to do with the bare plot outline itself.

GELMIS: What are those areas of meaning?

KUBRICK: They are the areas I prefer not to discuss because they are highly subjective and will differ from viewer to viewer. In this sense, the film becomes anything the viewer sees in it. If the film stirs the emotions and penetrates the subconscious of the viewer, if it stimulates, however inchoately, his mythological and religious yearnings and impulses, then it has succeeded. (Gelmis, The Film Director as Superstar, 1970, p. 304.)

The Dumpster gives a whole new meaning to "red" states.

[–] Pete8680 7 years ago

Now you must watch 2010! The best part was when Hal gets a message and any astronauts say who's it from?

HAL says... "i WAS David Bowman"

[–] nakedgirl 7 years ago

a very simple relationship

[–] ratherbebocce 7 years ago

I saw it on tv back in the seventies when I was a teen and it blew me away.

I did not understand it one wit.

I'm sorry baby, I had to crash that Honda.

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

What took you so long, Jane? I watched it in the cinema WAY back in 1968, and was totally blown away by it.