Explain the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by tilapiah6

One year ago you would have been right, but alas, Enter the Void came out.

Damn!Is this a conspiracy?

[GunRanger]

Just remember, whenever someone says they have an answer, they really don't. There isn't a definite one, which was Kubrick and Clarke's idea. And no reading the book doesn't count.



I feel it's a copout.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by GunRanger

Just remember, whenever someone says they have an answer, they really don't. There isn't a definite one, which was Kubrick and Clarke's idea. And no reading the book doesn't count.



I feel it's a copout.

There is a definite answer, but Clarke and Kubrick weren't giving it to the audience. And even if they didn't have it, it doesn't matter. Getting an audience to think for itself isn't a cop out.

[Wings80]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Getting an audience to think for itself isn't a cop out.

I agree.

[Banned User]

If you want a movie that defies explanation see 'Last Year at Marienbad'. Which by coincidence was considered inspiration for the last scene in 2001 and the tracking shots and many themes used extensively in the Shining.

[headcheese_bbq]

Bowman becomes a star child....the end.

[Scott Parr]

I find this visual explanation interesting...

http://www.kubrick2001.com/

[tsinindy]

Originally Posted by GunRanger

Just remember, whenever someone says they have an answer, they really don't. There isn't a definite one, which was Kubrick and Clarke's idea. And no reading the book doesn't count.



I feel it's a copout.

Sucks to have to think for yourself and not have everything spoon-fed to you huh?

[GunRanger]

oh boo hoo

It doesn't make you any smarter.

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

There is a definite answer, but Clarke and Kubrick weren't giving it to the audience. And even if they didn't have it, it doesn't matter. Getting an audience to think for itself isn't a cop out.

"If you understand 2001 completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered."
- Arthur C. Clarke

It's not "thinking for yourself." It's you, creating your own story. It's a bunch of random colors, and images. Interpretation in film is best when there's action and some ambiguity towards motives, words, or the action itself. (e.g. the Dawn of Man scenes.)The end is just nonsense, and people eat it up thinking it makes them some sort of erudite cinephile. After the HAL sequence, the movie is at its plateau and then the ending is just a deflating letdown.

And asking others what the ending means, is exactly what Kubrick didn't want.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by GunRanger

oh boo hoo

It doesn't make you any smarter.


"If you understand 2001 completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered."
- Arthur C. Clarke

It's not "thinking for yourself." It's you, creating your own story. It's a bunch of random colors, and images. Interpretation in film is best when there's action and some ambiguity towards motives, words, or the action itself. (e.g. the Dawn of Man scenes.)The end is just nonsense, and people eat it up thinking it makes them some sort of erudite cinephile. After the HAL sequence, the movie is at its plateau and then the ending is just a deflating letdown.

And asking others what the ending means, is exactly what Kubrick didn't want.

I agree with you on the last part. That's actually why Kubrick and Clarke didn't give an explanation. They deliberately made an effort not to spoonfeed the story to the audience. Especially the ending. It's just too bad that you regard it as nonsense, while having to resort to insulting people who can and are willing to make sense out of it.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by NathanDrakeFan

That ending was very confusing.

It's quite simple really....

[Show spoiler]

All of those names they listed, like "Sound Engineer" and "Key Grip" were guys that worked on the film......

[s2mikey]

Great flick - One of the best ever, IMO.

As for meaning - there are a lot of themes going on but the key ones revolve around humanity needing an "update" so to speak. We are technically perfect. We have invented every machine possible to make our lives easier. Everything is sterile, banal, perfect. Kind of cool..yet there is something missing. Even our PHD-wielding astronauts are cold, calculating, boring. Why? Since that ape first discovered the use of a tool, weve gone crazy with inventions and technology. We are so reliant on machines and computers that even a seemingly small computer error causes a huge problem for us(even though we find out in 2010 that Hal really didnt screw up, he just didnt know any better or what to do).

Dave uses human ingenuity and a screwdriver(of all things) to shut down the machine. How ironic. Notice that each time the monolith appears, we "advance" in our technology or achieve something greater: The use of a tool/weapon for food, the capability to reach Jupiter, and then finally the rebirth of mankind into a better species. Cool stuff.

The ending(and final monolith appearance) IMO is simply a comfortable surrounding for Dave to play out his final time as a member of the "current" crop of humans. For all we know, many years are passing inthis hotel setting. Either way, Daves journey finishes in epic fashoin. Some have made a note that some of the things Dave does in that room are similar to Christ - last supper(Daves meal), resurrection(Daves rebirth as a Starchild, etc, etc. I havent made my mind up totally on this but its plausible. I know that the athiests get all pissed off at this explanation but as I said - its as plausible as any other "take " on it so those that are religion-offended need to relax.

Either way, some "Supreme Intelligence" or possibly an alien race is using the monolith to pique our sense of wonder which is what leads Dave to where he ends up. That "intelligence" could be God, or a God of some kind. Its up to us to analyze that and come to our own conclusions. There arent really any right or wrong answers.

Sorry for the long-winded post but Im a huge fam of this flick and love discussing it.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Scott Parr

I find this visual explanation interesting...

http://www.kubrick2001.com/

I found that link interesting,not all,but some.The idea that machines is the next step on the evolution-ladder was an intrigueing one.Thanks for post

[Grand Bob]

Kubrick: "Margaret Stackhouse's speculations on the film are perhaps the most intelligent that I've read anywhere, and I am, or course, including all of the reviews and articles that have appeared on the film, and the many hundreds of letters I have received."

Stackhouse:

The room at the end:

A. It is elegant, maybe to show man's cultural achievements, but it is sterile and silent... This is man's universe, that with which he is supposedly familiar, but even this is hostile to him.

B. Room could represent:
1. All that man can comprehend of infinity. Even in this limited scope he is confused.
2. Man's cultural history, as men remember their past before they die.
3. The trivia for which he relinquished the monolith (then at death realized the need for it).
4. A reminder of man's failure to draw on the past - it could contain more wisdom than the present.

C. In this room, man must die, because:
1. He has reached his limit; or,
2. He has failed too much; or,
3. He has been shown infinity.

... Maybe he knows what is happening to him but is powerless to change it. The changes in man may be a vision shown to him in punishment, or they may merely represent the various stages in life of one man or all men.

Theme: There is a delicate balance between the animal and divine nature in man. We will never be permitted to go beyond a certain point as individuals or a race [thus evolution is not gradual but occurs in quantum "jumps"].