Kubrick explains the ending of 2001 A Space Odyssey
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ก.ย. 2024
- #stanleykubrick #2001aspaceodyssey #omidfilms #endingexplained #cinema #makethisviral #movie #movies #film #acting #editing #music #makingof #film #filmmaking #shorts #kubrick #ending
I like how his own explanation is way more rational and easy to follow then any of those film analyst guys
those guys always have at least 3 videos on Wes Anderson & why it looks so unique too
Because they are projecting their own ideas on it.
@@pizzaparkerhotdogmaguire3225 yep & need to rake in those views
I’ve been saying for years that I think Kubrick was more about visual storytelling and I really don’t think his films had hidden meanings like a lot of fans speculate, although I’m sure Kubrick had deeper personal meanings for his art as all people do. However over time I do think Kubrick may have had some extra layer of meaning or subliminal messaging to some degree, just being a masterful film maker and photographer I’m sure he had a few tricks up his sleeve. So basically I have no idea and I think Kubrick may have just been a mad man lol
@@kang6914 I think you’re right on but a little more in the middle. Personally I feel the same ways, but at this point in my life I believe he probably had a good understanding of the potential deeper meanings to his visuals & realized if he didn’t pick one in particular to bolden over another, it leaves it very open to interpretation. I mean he’s said that many times before with his films. but it’s hard not to feed into the conspiracies & deeper meanings / narratives
I always loved the very last line of Arthur C Clarke's novelization of 2001: "For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next. But he would think of something."
At least he stops the nuclear Armageddon.
apotheosis is fun
Just as “Moonwatcher” in the “Dawn of Man” chapters thought basically the exact same thing.
None of that carried over into 2010 film, even though Kubrick wasn’t a part of it( though he could have, unless he was just out at that point.
Sounds like the god of modern religion. Made a zoo to watch an worship himself. Got bored what ego
I remember in the novel that the aliens make water too well as it tastes like absolutely nothing since it's so pure, unnaturally pure to the point of not even taking on the flavor of the container it's in. That really helped illustrate the alien's intellectual superiority but that there were still gaps in their knowledge of us.
But it's the hydrogen and oxygen themselves that have flavor. RO/DI water will have 0TDS, but still have a taste.
@@dickbutt7854 - this is actually true and I agree as I get 0ppm out of my system for my saltwater aquarium.
if they were truly intelligent, they wouldn't have missed that one... so they're advanced technologically, or energetically, or whatever... but intelligent? obviously not.
Pure water kills you by destroying your kidneys... Weird the author missed that fact.
@@g3nj1 they're obviously intelligent I mean come on. I think the word that you are looking for is alien, and also they are not omnipotent/perfect in their conception of terrestrial life, let alone human life. They are foreign to us in every conceivable way, literally more alien than most aliens in science fiction since they wouldn't have a natural respect for the notion of taking on a physical form. With that in mind they bridged the gap pretty decently all things considered.
If you want to know what it would look like if the aliens weren't intelligent/interested in human wellbeing but were just as powerful and capable. Look at the hellraiser series. The humans who are turned into abominations in hellraiser are also made that way by a giant alien rhombus thing.
For everyone arguing:
Kubrick had decided he wanted to make a science fiction film after finishing Dr. Strangelove. He was inspired by "To The Moon and Beyond", after seeing it at the NY World's Fair. He reached out to Clarke because he thought (based on his writing) that Clarke seemed like a "nut and a recluse"; he was surprised and a little disappointed when they met and Clarke was a quite normal guy.
Clarke showed a collection of as-yet unpublished stories to Kubrick. Clarke suggested they do a short-film treatment of one, with Clarke writing and Kubrick directing.
Kubrick ended up selecting a previously published piece called "The Sentinel", but suggested they expand it into a film and work together on the script. Kubrick's only writing rule was "no monsters, no sex".
Clarke didn't begin work on the novel until they had finished a first script treatment of about 130 pages. That's why the final novel and the film are so different - the script went through over a dozen more drafts before shooting but Clarke had already started on the novel, so his editor rejected the idea of making any major structural changes.
Clarke said later that both the script and the novel should be credited as "written by Arthur C Clarke and Stanley Kubrick", but the publishers of the book wouldn't go for it.
Kubrick and Clarke also contacted Carl Sagan to consult on the film. The final scenes of an "alien super-intelligence beyond our understanding" were a compilation of Sagan's input, and he said he was "quite pleased" to see they included his ideas, but was glad they didn't credit him since he felt his involvement was minimal.
By all accounts, while Clarke respected Kubrick’s genius, he disliked him personally and, eventually, professionally. Clarke had apparently recorded long voiceover narratives for the breaks in the film, explaining things in great scientific and dramatic detail. Kubrick encouraged these and any time Clarke brought them up, he would nod approvingly.
Clarke had spoken glowingly of the voice-over to his colleagues and lauded Kubrick for including it. He would pitch the film to people by saying “it’s like a documentary of mankind’s future”.
He went to the red carpet premiere…and was shocked not to hear himself during the opening minutes of the film. He left at the intermission, angry and embarrassed, upset that Kubrick cut his voice over but left in seemingly irrelevant and boring things like an 11 minute sequence of Poole doing nothing more than running on a treadmill. Later he would admit he was more upset that Kubrick changed the film without telling him (which embarrassed Clarke in front of his peers, since he had told them all about his involvement) than he was about the missing voiceover.
Hope that clears up any confusion on who was responsible for what.
I mean, Thank God there is no voice over
Seems like an absurd idea
This was amazing, thanks
@@guciowitomski3825 can you imagine? It'd be like Bladerunner with a voiceover.
I forgot I was reading a youtube comment while reading this 😅
Cheers for the info though 👍🏻
I can see how Clarke would be upset. But Clarke’s voiceovers would have guaranteed a crappy boring movie.
My favorite analogy that read in a comment from another video like this was “It’s similar to when we trap a bug in a jar, and we put a leaf and a stick in the jar to give the creature a feeling of home”
The leaf and the stick are for our sake, not the insects.
If we respected the insect, we wouldn't capture it at all.
We step on bugs.
@@METVWETV Your point of view is a bit too simplistic. Yes, everything we do is ultimately for our own sake, but if we wanted to step on the bug, we wouldn't bother putting it in a jar. Not many people care to keep mosquitoes in jars, for example, we usually just squash them.
For the ones we do like to observe and keep alive, we tend to simulate their environment to an extent, to elicit their comfort and natural behavior. Whether it's a stick and leaf or a full fledged terrarium, we do it to make them feel at ease, and yes, ultimately to satisfy our curiosity about nature.
I glad he explained what the ending was about. Because I hadn’t got a damn clue when I watched it back in the day.
Lol same
Same we were all sitting there going, what the hell did we just watch?
It's been stuck in the back of my brain for years FINALLY some clarity 🤣
FINALLY I GET SOME SORT OF ENDIGN EXPLAINED TO ME LMAO
@@ZamboniZone what Kubrick means by human zoo is a simulated matrix that humans call reality until our consciousness passes onwards or renters the matrix system of control likely operated by quantum technology. Those black rectangle
Cubes are quantum computers like DWAVE, they are able to alter reality of access different matrix dimensions. The frequency may be coming from Saturn, which is the god of time which all man is born into SIN or frequency of “SINE” which means time.
The most frightening thing in the film was his realization that he was alone forever in a cold, claustrophobic, alien environment, a prisoner. I am sure he went mad. As much as I admired the story and brilliant production, was relieved to leave the movie theater. I wanted to immediately kiss Mother Earth, find a living thing to hug and feel the sun on my face.
Well I wouldn't say that's an unworthy set of emotions to elicit from a viewer, is it? I wouldn't be surprised if that's exactly the reaction the makers were going for.
I did that after watching the movie “Brazil” but the first thing I came upon out side the theater was an artificial waterfall with a small creek.
@@matthewberner9732 how incredible, to see Brazil when it first came out! I saw it in college in 2002. Changed me.
In the end....we find out that the monolith is just a super duper hyper mega quantum computing machine. Dave didn't stay crazy as he and HAL basically merged into The monolith. They both have studied the 'interior' of the monolith for over a thousand years...our time....
that’s a weird takeaway from this movie almost the opposite
I went to see the movie with my late cousin in Dallas when it first came out. I’ll never forget us looking at each other in confusion after we left the theater. “Did you understand any of that?” “No, did you?”
Same
I thought it was boring and pretentious. And although I was a kid at the time, I just don't see myself rewatching in fear of wasting three more hours of my life.
@@anniebodyhome1000 It was ahead of it's time, Apollo 11 didn't landed in the moon yet, some of the things of the movie became true, like tablets or Artificial Intelligencies now. Not for everybody.
The 1st time I saw it I fell asleep.
Plus, I didn't get why the computer decided to mutiny.
@@anniebodyhome1000 I was a kid when I first watched it too and didn't get it either. Now I'm middle-aged and somewhere along the line, I watched it again, and again, and gradually it has become one of my favourites...that's where we differ. 😉
I don't know if this truly was Kubrick speaking but he literally explained it better than many other TH-cam videos, and in less time Lol
I was wondering the same, it turns out it is a recording made for an unreleased 1980 documentary on Kubrick by Japanese director Jun’ichi Yao.
th-cam.com/video/zaR2pJjL08g/w-d-xo.html
Of course that's Kubrick.
It’s clearly Mike Menzel talking about what it is like to lift to pure muscular failure.
It is Kubrick. It's a telephone interview from a Japanese production, you can find the whole thing on youtube. They tour the sets of The Shining with his daughter, he also explains the ending of that to them. It's funny at the beginning of the conversation he clearly doesn't want to explain the endings but he feels bad because of the language barrier.
Man kubrick was just a different kind of director.
I first saw 2001 when I was seven years old and it made perfect sense to me. What happened at the end was what happened at the beginning: they came and gave us a boost.
Yeah that’s my impression as well. And o was probably about the same age as you when I saw it. There’s some big obelisk at the start that gets all the chimps arguing right?
@@Laurencemardon And using tools, and organizing.
And at the end, Bowman returns to Earth in the form of the Starchild.
I was six and understood it better. I win.
@@Movetheproduct I was in the womb and it made perfect sense.
@@JonSmith-cx7gr l was a pure energy pulse and it made perfect sense to me
This movie was so 20 years ahead of his time and still looks fantastic even today :) Classic!
More precisely 33 years ahead
more precisely 55 years ahead
Atleast 60 years ahead man, I watched it last year and it's my favourite movie of all time now
@@Abaddon-ds8yq for you maybe , not for everyone
It's timeless
That ending sequence in the hotel room is pure cinematic genius.
I found it deeply unsettling. He was a prisoner being kept for observational purposes, until the end of his natural life.
And it was never explained exactly who or what was keeping him in that prison.
@scorpionwins6378 that's the point. Our primitive brains could never comprehend what was keeping him there.
We can just call it God if need be.
@@nosuchthing8 Curiosity instead of caritas. That's a strange god, even for Hollywood. But it solves their problem of being scared.
“We just have to guess what happens next”.
I used to debate Kubrick films but grew to lean towards maybe Kubrick doesn’t give all the answers. That his films aren’t puzzles to solve but a story to experience and that individuals will have their own interpretations. I don’t think Kubrick was being difficult in not spelling out his movies.
In this clip he is explaining the surface narrative not any of the deeper themes. Great director
Agreed. He just wanted to produce a story as a slice of humanity in the middle.
In the 30s, Margaret Mitchell did that with Scarlett OHara. A great final act scene but no epilog or sequel intended. What happens to both of them is your business. The writer and Selznick were done with them.
@@STho205 yes. David Lynch does something similar. Once he releases a film he doesn’t tinker with it. He stated once released the film is in the realm of the audience and it’s with them….he was implying there’s no underlying meaning other than what the audience interprets. I’ll take a bet this is why Kubrick burned/destroyed all the deleted scenes from his movies post release. The released version is what it is. It’s for you to take from it what you want.
Kubrick was very big on leaving things open to interpretation. Some films, like The Shining, were deliberately crafted to have multiple possible interpretations with contradictions and no clearly defined solution, and he genuinely enjoyed that.
I saw 2001 at the age of 9. I didn't understand it; I just experienced it. I suspect that is exactly what Kubrick wanted.
He was "the rat" in that laboratory, They transform him and then send him back to earth, i guess his DNA is transform because he died from old age and the one that return is an upgraded babe, wow after 20 years i finally understand the finale
I was initially perplexed by the ending, but I think the ‘star child’ could be an emblem of human advancement (as the main character does die) and we’re always wondering and speculating on what other forms of life may exist out in space but the movie is saying while we may possibly never encounter it, life/civilization/technology as we know it are monolithic through the universe and we’re so preoccupied looking outward that we miss observing the mystique, innovation, and the universe itself as it exists in our own human race old as hundreds of thousands of years. The star child he is reborn as is as old as the stars themselves, it’s a symbol of life and human advancement seeking to survive and continue no matter what, and is something inimitable that even advanced AI couldn’t overtake.
You mean DNA.💀
You know every human is recycled after dead? this movie is actually telling the truth
@@krazykrumz3 he biologically dies....but he's still 'living'......
@@bryfunkenstein he dies and is reborn again to return to earth and live another life. It’s reincarnation
This is basically how I had interpreted it up to the part about returning to Earth as a super-being. I thought the idea was that, as he slips his mortal coil, he achieves perfect enlightenment and becomes a cosmic being under the tutelage of the monolith beings.
Of course.and yet also a babe. Because he is brand new in that new form. But it also seems to be a science version of reincarnation and heaven. But substituting heaven for space and angels/gods for aliens. And making the process of reincarnation a scientifically possible one with some unseen technology.
Does the novelization ever describe the aliens beings who put the monolith on Earth ?
@@SHNASTDOG A babe, sort of like Lao Tzu (the old child) in Taoist literature
@@julianmitchell5776 read the entire series.
Jesus 2.0 ....only his father is Aliens not God
Kubrick’s idea was based on Nietzsche book “Thus spoke Zarathustra”, regarding the “superman” .
Also, the main theme song is called:
“Also Sprach Zarathustra”, which is obviously also inspired by Nietzsche’s work. Such brilliant work.
Another fact, when John Williams composed the "Superman Theme" for the 1978 movie, he used the same notes from Also Sprach Zarathustra's introduction by Richard Strauss.
Yes, and Homers Odyssey (many similarities to that tale).
Then The Nature Boy said. WOOOOO!
I just went down a three and a half hour rabbit hole because of you. Mind blowing
I remember seeing 2001 when it first came out. I was the only person in the theater. It was awesome!
In 1968 ? The day when it came out ?
@@abyssano78I know right? Lol
@@wooahh17 it means the dude is 55 and he was alone in the theatre of Kubrick movie, kinda weird to me
Wow, man.❤
now u have 80 years old ?
In Slaughterhouse Five, at least the aliens gave him a mate.
Film starlet Montana Wildhack. She made him a far out macrobiotic soufflé while on the planet Tralfamadore
no monsters no sex
I saw 2001 when I was 10 and it was the most awesome thing I had seen. And it still is.
Kubrick was something else. There's been no one quite like him before or since. The huge wide lens still cinematography he pioneered is still influencing modern cinema today. Perhaps maybe Nolan would be a close modern cerebral equivalent, but there's this pervasive feel to Kubrick films. there is little or no character exposition you're just dropped into a world left up to the viewer to make sense of.
Nolan’s films aren’t ‘cerebral’.
Pretentious AF, however.
@@eustacequinlank7418 yes they are. You're a hater.
And Kubrick's time, his films were also seen as pretentious and were not the masterpieces they are considered today.
A genius usually doesn't get their work fully realized until much later.
@@eustacequinlank7418 they arent if one has trouble understanding how to wear trousers. *pro tip* if the zipper is at your arse you have then back to front. ;)
@@nepntzerZer That was quite nice of you, to repeat the parental advice that has kept you stable all this time. Did they have to call you back in when you ran out like that?
Kubrick was an enigma. A true creative person, not always nice but most often on point with his art. Gone are those types nowadays, replaced by obvious narrative, predictability and dilution
Not entirely. We still got the likes of Sam Esmail.
I had to see "2001:A Space Odyssey" several times in order to figure out the plot and explore the themes that it leaves for the viewer to try and figure out.
Damn Kubrick what the hell where you on when you came up with this idea? Like dude it totally blew my mind
The film is an adaptation of a novel by Arthur C Clark. The ending is the same, only a bit less intuitive.
@@a_m5115 The movie and the novel were made at the same time and Kubrick co-wrote the novel with Clarke.
Dude needs a sky beam and cameo from a superhero to make a good film I bet
The film was an adaptation of a short story by Clarke which has similarities and differences from the film. The endings are not the same though. The novel is a separate publication.
@@jackl629 Gotta love how people just see that there's a book and assume that it was written before the film was.
Many thanks, to whoever found the audio and put this video on the computey. I appreciate you.
When a movie is beyond a movie.
Where is this whole interview?!
Jun'Ichi Yaoi's 1980 interview for a documentary that was never released, I can't check around right now but since we're hearing this you probably might be able to find it
@@rusemode Find deez nuts mf
@@Alolan.Vulpix.Getting.Railed can't find em
th-cam.com/video/Gdbh_FiRLyw/w-d-xo.html
@@danieljarvis9117 thanks bro 💜
Stan left us hanging with the very end.
Saw the film when I was about ten years old and have pondered and been confused about the ending ever since. Having clarity now makes me realise that this film was decades ahead of its time and to some extent prophetic
The coloured liquid scenes that precede the room always remind me of conception, the egg being fertilised. He fertilises what's waiting for him and he becomes a new entity.
How anyone would deduce what he is saying from the end of 2001 is beyond me.
I deduced it as something else more symbolic rather than actual. But now I’m glad I can also look at the ending in a different more matter-of-fact perspective.
It wouldn't be a deductive matter.
Induce, or abduce, etc.
I think you simply mean "guess," or, "get."
Exactly 😂 like what?
I mean, the trippy lights sequence very much conveys that David is traveling through some kind of wormhole, something that is bending time and space around him. From there, it’s easy to conclude that the room he ends up in is some kind of place beyond the confines of the universe, a location that our human brains could never possibly understand or perceive. From there it’s much more up to interpretation, which adds to the cosmic horror element.
It actually connects well to 2010: The year we make contact.
That is not Kubrick talking. He explicitly tried to avoid giving explanations to his movies because he wanted people to come up with their own.
If you’ve heard Kubrick in other interviews it’s pretty clear that this is him, unless it’s just a really good impersonator. I think this is from the 80s, so by that time he was probably just fed up with people always asking what it was about and just explained it in the most literal sense.
this reminds me of the movie Mr. Nobody, its a movie about a child who supposedly never had his memories of heaven/what happens before you are born, erased, so he spend the entire movie looking into all possible futures of his life.
These non-linear time movies make me queezy 😂
This was taken from a phone call with a Japanese interviewer. I'm honestly very surprised Kubrick was so frank and direct with him about the film's intended meaning, since he otherwise made it clear to all it was meant to remain uncertain and up for various interpretations.
He returns to earth and is given the name Jack Torrence.
I was thinking it's Alex from Clockwork Orange
That was a good one
Or little Danny
😱
Chuck Norris
I had essentially understood what he explained here up until the character started seeing himself inside the room. It made no sense to me how he kept seeing himself and at that point the abstraction of the idea had been lost by me. Good to know I was mostly tuned in. The first maybe 60 minutes of this movie is EXCELLENT science fiction.
"My god... It's full of stars." Best line in any movie. It gave me chills when I watched it the first time and it still does every time I think about it.
Interestingly not in 2001! It's in the novel but not the movie. It finally appears (in recorded form) in 2010, the sequel.
@@nickgreen4731 I think you might be right. Maybe I remembered it wrong. Still, it's one of the most chilling lines ever.
Faker
This is one of my favorite movies ever. I love the atmosphere and the feel. It was ahead of its time.
33 years ahead more precisely
Keir Dullea: the guy I was named after! 👍🏻
Thank you for sharing this. I absolutely loved that movie. Kubrick …absolute brilliance. Clark also brilliant. I have watched 2001 every two years since it came out ( I am in 2023) and each time it still thrills me but the end always mystified me….so again gratitude for sharing this!
🙏💙
One of the greatest movies ever made!!! Thank you Mr Kubrick
I had absolutely NO IDEA that's what was happening!
"you must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star" - Friedrich Nietzsche
I’m glad for this post including Kubrick’s description of the movie. 🎥 I have seen many videos done by people who are guessing what the movie was about. Usually when I watch this again, I skip the Stargate scene and ending.
If Mr Kubrick came up with all that he is a genius on a different level.
He came up with this along with Arthur C Clarke it is based on a shirt story called the Sentinel....it is what Clarke thought might happen if we made contact with a vastly superior alien life form.... If you pay attention carefully at the beginning of the movie it is literally a retelling in long form of what happens at the beginning with the dawn of man sequence.... One of the ape men have contact with the monolith and it transforms him into something else a tool user and from the point of view of the other ape man he's almost like a god.
I believe there's a line in the novelization that says after he defeat the other ape men from the other tribe there's a line that goes something to the effect of he has all these god-like powers but he didn't know what to do next but he would think of something....
Later on in the novel when Bowman is transformed into the starchild there's almost the exact same line about having all of this power but he would think of something to do next bookending the story.....
@@ianbrewster8934 Clarke himself took exception to the idea that the film is based on The Sentinel as he said that the film is an amalgamation of several stories with the only idea really coming from The Sentinel being the monolith on the moon.
@@endorbr oh wow I did not know that part of it. Thanks for sharing.
It’s in the book. I believe, it really helps. You understand the movie. Much better.
I really really really appreciate this. Since a kid, this movie left me wondering. The film also incorporated a great deal of silence which added great depth to the film.
Friederich Nietzsche - Richard Wagner - Stanley Kubrick
What a nice mash-up!
Strauss, no? Is not Strauss the composer?
@@RRonco I probably got confused, but Wagner was Nietzsche's best friend and idol 😅
@@RRonco Strauss composed the Blue Danube Waltz - what you hear during the docking sequence with the space station, early on in the film, before we ever see the Discovery or Meet Bowman or Poole. The Wagner piece the movie is famous for is Also Sprach Zarathustra. If you look for these titles on yt you'll know which is which.
@@enumaelis5048 you didn't, the movie has both Strauss and Wagner compositions in it, and is famous for both.
@@johnnewman1819 that is Johann Strauss. 'Also sprach Zarathustra' was composed by Richard Strauss
That’s how I always saw it too, thanks for sharing this, I feel so validated!
2001 A Space Odyssey is such a wonderful, interesting, spectacular, & iconic movie I’m glad my teacher showed us movies like this also just so many more
Good thing he explained because i never saw it that way at all lol
I’ve always loved that ‘light show’ sequence with the great (for the time) visual effects… it still stands up as a terrific sequence today, 55 years on!
Is that really Kubrick or just some dude drunkenly analyzing the movie on an answering machine ?
It turns out it is really him
th-cam.com/video/zaR2pJjL08g/w-d-xo.html
I got it the first time. Brilliant direction. And the colors......my God, the colors.....
"My God it's full of stars!"
Thats the second part , isn't it?
The year of contact 2022
@@farrider3339 2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984) Directed by: Peter Hyams
@@KGBeast. ah, OK. Was too lazy checking for correct title.
Thanks 👋°•.
@@farrider3339 it's okay! Have a nice day 😊😊
That's what the Super Baby exclaimed upon seeing the Hollywood Walk of Fame for the first time.
That makes total sense, and analogous to our scale of intellect & behaviour towards other species.
There are those who theorize that when Bowman is transformed into the Space Baby, he goes back to Earth during the Dawn of Man. Bowman is the Monolith, and he goes back in time to create himself, that the entirety of the movie is an Ouroboros or time loop.
PS: when the film begins, the black screen with the wailing music is the Monolith speaking to the audience.
His explanation makes it seem “well of course” because it’s so good, you couldn’t understand it any other way
I just saw it as a bunch of random stuff happening
It's like a drunk guy wrote this after trying to remember a hard night out
This is a world-famous movie director explaining the end of a movie he thought up.
@@MeowmeowAlexandra yeah? Doesn't change what I said.
I remember writing an essay about this movie in a class I took, “Film As An Artform”. I was to take 3 films from a certain genre and compare them.
I picked this, “Empire Strikes Back” and “Alien”.
I got an A+ for convincingly showing Alien was the best movie of the 3.
This movie reminds me of soul contracts, we die and then rewatch our life and learn what we could have done better to then be sent back after agreeing on the life we chose. This movie just reminds me of it so much. The star child is going back to hopefully expand and ascend our human form.
They don’t make em that way anymore that’s for sure!
That's exactly what I thought watching the ending.
Kinda sad and surprised Kubrick willingly would offer an explanation. It's like explaining your own painting. Please don't do that. I much prefer my own interpretation, which since I saw the movie as a kid, is utter bewilderment and awe.
The part of the story is 100% hero's journey a la Campbell. The crossing over, apotheosis, and return across the threshold.
Watched it as a rerun with a few school buddies, around the age of 17. After the screening, we would theorize and debate in front of the theatre for more than an hour. Mind officially blown.
Kubrick was way way ahead of his time, a true Genius.
and that’s exactly what I thought happened.
Good job Mr. Kubrick! 👏
You’re lying! 😂
I have waited a long time to understand what the hell that ending was supposed to represent.
It was obvious anyway
aren't zoos supposed to encourage mating?
🤔
This is definitely the meaning of the ending in the context of the plot. But Stanley has layers to all of his work that he doesn't ever straight up tell you that transcend the plot. The film and plot as a whole is just a vessel for Kubrick to express concepts transcendent of language that could only be express through symbolism/semiotics subliminally to a person's subconscious that a person wouldn't even conciously process until after multiple viewings.
I think just about anybody seeing the film could conclude this explanation that Kubrick gave us because its a description of the meaning of what happens on a plot level. But there is more to deduce.
When you realize it was actually just show and not for digestion
If Kubrick had this in mind, why didn't he give more hints as to what it was in the actual movie? It's as if every earthly person's warped imagination, is an individual tweaked universe, with absolutely no understanding of anyone else's, meaning Kubrick's for example. In a million years I wouldn't have just randomly guessed that this was what the damn movie meant. He needed to come closer to actually presenting this as what happened in the Goddamned movie, not that it would have made any more sense than it actually does, left on its own without explanation.
So.....when do we get a movie that explores what happens when he's sent back to Earth?! I'd like to see that.
He shows up again in 2010: The Year We Make Contact.
Read the damn book people. Don't ever criticise Kubricks visual representation of what was written.
Exactly what I was thinking.
He didn’t know what he would do next, but he would do something
I like to imagine it kind of goes like stranger in a strange land
I always thought it was David experiencing lightspeed, kind of like the next step of human evolution. The first human to experience infinity, that’s why he was able to see himself at all the different stages of his life.
Hmm well I guess I feel better, sounds like what he intended is pretty close to what I guessed.
This is a masterpiece of horror science fiction. And Kubrick just nailed it. It is still as impressive as l watched for the first time.
THANKYOU!
I NEVER GOT IT!!??(until now*)
lol 😆👌🏻🙏🏻👏🏻
Me too, thank you for pointing it.
I found it helped to have read the book, first.
Best damn movie I never did drugs watching.😎
🧐🤔🤨🤷🏼
😆😆😆😆
I mean.... I REALLY was confused about it!?--
At first, i thought it was an omen of the moment technology will again swt us down a different path. And that perhaps they were NOT always a good thing..
Like it was the "snake in the garden of eden" sending us down a path that can cause greater harm, perhaps achieving things before theyre ready to exist!?
Or that it was a time traveler screwing with man for an unknown motiv/goal
Or that the machine/technology is Alive in itself and will take over/merge with mankind.. but in effect Destroying everything good in the universe..
Or just the "perils of unchecked technological advancements without a social or industrial infrastructure to safely/responsibly/ethically absorb this into our way of life for an ENTIRELY positive outcome/effect**????
I was always cycling through that list, then came to the conclusion
THERE WAS NO PURPOSE
OR backstory!? Just a trippy movie about a bunch of unrelated things so it may be interpreted as Many things to many people like any abstract modern art piece!? Lmao 😆👍🏻
I interpreted the monoliths as human science,and that in the end, i interepreted he is going through genetical alteration, like, the next step of mankind after space. To alter ourselves to be more adaptable.
By far the greatest movie ever made. It is a work of spectacular visuals and spectacular ideas. The film that brings cinema to its glorious medium, visual, sound and ideas. engaging all the senses. No one has come near Kubrick, with Orson Welles in Citizen Kane.
Agree
Yet, there have been so many who surpassed Kubrick in terms of story telling
An absolutely brilliant film. I saw it as a little kid, with my uncle who loves sci-if and horror films, and didn’t understand it. However, my not understanding it I think is what caused me to keep watching it again and again until I matured and finally got it.👏
Kubrick is the undeniable Goat of directors. There are many greats but none can match Kubrick imo. Kurosawa, Hitchcock, Tarkovsky, Fellini, Coppola, and many others. But no one has achieved the horror of the shining, he truly tormented Duvall to give of one of the most unsettling performances of all time. He visualised horror not through monsters but angles, camera work and the normal. This girls in the hallway man... He set the standard for science fiction films, his work in the unknown of space was so great millions of people to this day believe he directed the moon landing... A clockwork orange is a masterpiece and a vastly underrated film when it comes to any cinema depicting mental illness in a society gone mad (cough, cough today). He made all sorts of films and most only once as he left no stones unturned with anything.
Having not won an Oscar is not a valid argument for him not being the goat. Again his work on a movie about space travel of many things before we had even stepped on the surface of our own moon it literally made people believe he was in on faking the fucking moon landing! I know film enthusiasts who talk about 2001 as being only comparable to a religious experience like finding ones faith or using things like dmt.
He did only won an oscar to personal name, for "best visual effects" in 2001, and Barry Lyndon got 4 oscars (best soundtrack I think, costume design, photography, and I don't remember the other). Many scientists, physicits and astronomers owe something to this movie, it also predicted some invents like tablets, it's still a movie that respects physics laws.
He makes movies unbearable with drawn out, pointless scenes. Not impressed that he knows how to move a camera. You should be giving the credit to the writers and special effects team. Kubrick is a big time fraud.
@@sportkid1547go watch marvel dude
I saw this movie in the 1970s.Could not understand the ending.And finally do.Thank you stanleyKuberick
I feel so stupid that I didn't get any of that. I just thought it was some kind of crazy trip into infinity that led to madness
Lmaooo same
You were right
The idea of NASA being like "Sir! We've caught something on the radar. It's some sort of... Giant space baby!?"
Thank you sooo much for real i been wondering for effing YEARS wtf was going on in that whole sht
It's a greatly complex and sweeping story of humanity. The ending is like Hitchcock's macguffin. The meanings emerge all through.
He is reborn as a millennial, gods perfect traveler! But unaware that he is detested by everyone else around him.
Dude 🤯
See, I always thought that he was taken by inter- dimensional beings and shown the meaninglessness and cyclical nature of life from their perspective.
It's kind of funny : why would they bother?🤔
Pure brilliance!
That's pretty much what I though was going on, but some people really need it all spelt out for them
Speaking of spelling...lol
@@seansummers1066 Obviously, ENGLISH spellings are not US specialities.
@@dj1NM3 It's unlikely he was calling you out on that. Check it again.
Maybe there's a phone call about how the moon landing really ended too
I love that thought both of these movies, we're kept in an ominous mystery regarding the monoliths. The music gives a vibe that it's either amazing or terrifying or both. It'd be interesting to actually see the aliens themselves but only a ship, with the myself aspect as the monoliths, we can see the ships but not what's inside or who is flying it/them.
Kubrick created basically the concept of ai art about 54 years before it became real
They should have asked A. Clarke too since he's the author of the novel and co-author of the movie's storyboard.
Finally. But, the explanation is crazier than the ending itself.
Underated movie. Slow pace aint for the kids these days
Never ever did I come even close to understanding this