2001: A Space Odyssey

King Mob

Obelisk wrote: »

Getting back on topic- the esoteric meaning of the film...


Interesting. :cool:

Well watched the first video, a few thoughts.

First, I think it's very nice that he's so much more special than everyone else in that he was able to divine the "true" meaning.

There's no such word as symbology.

Second in his quest to find the true meaning of the film, he messes up at the first hurdle. He says that the very start of the opening sequence involves a "cold dark world" eclipsing the Moon with the Sun behind the moon. But in reality it's the Moon eclipsing the Earth.

Next we come to the usual trope of supposed "freemason symbology".
Mistaking simple geometric shapes for esoteric symbols claimed to be related to freemasonry.
He claims the crescent of the Earth in this sequence is the "boat of Isis".
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/images/egyptianboat.jpg
But the thing is there's very little other sharps light takes when shining on a planet and practically any scifi movie or tv with a scene in space will have this shot.
In fact lets look at the classic opening for Star Trek: The Next Generation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL8nnMpV2Eo
Pretty much the same shot, in reverse....
So clearly TNG has symbology of "Osiris riding across the sky on the boat of Isis" as well.
Odd that.

Next he goes on to explain that the sun rising in the next scene signifies the "birth of the world."
Despite the fact the scene has the words "the dawn of man" written across it.
I don't think he's as good at noticing things as he thinks...

Next it talks about the early hominids, saying how it symbolises the "garden of eden". But seeing it's a fairly accurate depiction of the life of our ancestor species, I think it's a symbol for our early ancestors.

Then he says something about a womb that doesn't make a lick of sense.
The goes on to explain how "man is living peacefully with animals" as one of the monkeys wrestles with a cheetah.

And now he's telling us that we saw a rock shaped like a dick. Which is indeed a mysterious, rarely seen thing outside the secret symbols of freemasonry...

So yea, that was the first part. The guy is a crank pretending to have secret knowledge that he is in fact pulling out of his ass.
For every "symbol" he finds, he misses 2 or 3 things that are actually in the film. And the "symbols" he does find are a stretch to say the least.

I have no idea why you pay this crank so much attention.

Obelisk

King Mob wrote: »

Well watched the first video, a few thoughts.

First, I think it's very nice that he's so much more special than everyone else in that he was able to divine the "true" meaning.

There's no such word as symbology.

Second in his quest to find the true meaning of the film, he messes up at the first hurdle. He says that the very start of the opening sequence involves a "cold dark world" eclipsing the Moon with the Sun behind the moon. But in reality it's the Moon eclipsing the Earth.

Next we come to the usual trope of supposed "freemason symbology".
Mistaking simple geometric shapes for esoteric symbols claimed to be related to freemasonry.
He claims the crescent of the Earth in this sequence is the "boat of Isis".
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/images/egyptianboat.jpg
But the thing is there's very little other sharps light takes when shining on a planet and practically any scifi movie or tv with a scene in space will have this shot.
In fact lets look at the classic opening for Star Trek: The Next Generation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL8nnMpV2Eo
Pretty much the same shot, in reverse....
So clearly TNG has symbology of "Osiris riding across the sky on the boat of Isis" as well.
Odd that.

Next he goes on to explain that the sun rising in the next scene signifies the "birth of the world."
Despite the fact the scene has the words "the dawn of man" written across it.
I don't think he's as good at noticing things as he thinks...

Next it talks about the early hominids, saying how it symbolises the "garden of eden". But seeing it's a fairly accurate depiction of the life of our ancestor species, I think it's a symbol for our early ancestors.

Then he says something about a womb that doesn't make a lick of sense.
The goes on to explain how "man is living peacefully with animals" as one of the monkeys wrestles with a cheetah.

And now he's telling us that we saw a rock shaped like a dick. Which is indeed a mysterious, rarely seen thing outside the secret symbols of freemasonry...

So yea, that was the first part. The guy is a crank pretending to have secret knowledge that he is in fact pulling out of his ass.
For every "symbol" he finds, he misses 2 or 3 things that are actually in the film. And the "symbols" he does find are a stretch to say the least.

I have no idea why you pay this crank so much attention.

I see you read the comments, and indeed you did look at the first part of the video...

Now, regarding your claims: The video & audio are not in sync...

You numpty :pac:

King Mob

Obelisk wrote: »

I see you read the comments, and indeed you did look at the first part of the video...

Now, regarding your claims: The video & audio are not in sync...

You numpty :pac:

That's great, but that doesn't address any of my points at all.
Good to know I wasted my time watching that crap.

Obelisk

King Mob wrote: »

That's great, but that doesn't address any of my points at all.

Actually it does, as the majority of them were based on what you were seeing @ the time of what you were hearing which I have just told you were not in sync. Here is the full unedited hour;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o__D464kGyY

(Hour 1 of a 42 hour series)

King Mob wrote: »

Good to know I wasted my time watching that crap.

That is good to know, as you were supposed to be listening. What's your own interpretation of the film? Please enlighten us...

King Mob

Obelisk wrote: »

Actually it does, as the majority of them were based on what you were seeing @ the time of what you were hearing which I have just told you were not in sync.

Except they aren't.
Bill says that the sun comes out from behind the moon. It doesn't.

Bill thinks that a crescent is an arcane symbol, despite it being an unavoidable astronomical effect if you are showing planets in space, and something present in most sci fi shows and movies.

He rattles on about the birth of the world, despite the metaphor being clearly labelled as the "dawn of man".

He claims that showing early hominids is a metaphor from the garden of Eden. This is self evidently stupid.

The nonsense about the womb is still nonsense as nothing (and afaik not even in the normally bat **** Egyptian mythology) "retreats into a womb".
That's not how wombs work.
And sometimes a cave is just a cave.

He claims several times that "early man is living peacefully with the animals" but there's still one of the monkeys raslin' with a cheetah.

So not one of my point is dependant on when the it was said in relation to the film. So my point stands.

Obelisk wrote: »

Here is the full unedited hour;
(Hour 1 of a 42 hour series)

I would learn more rewatching the entirety of TNG.
You probably would to if you could stop seeing imaginary symbols.

Obelisk wrote: »

That is good to know, as you were supposed to be listening.

And I listened as well, to apparently the ramblings of a paranoid crank.
I then made several detailed points about the video, which you fobbed off because you can;t address them, hence I wasted my time watching the video and making the points.

Obelisk wrote: »

What's your own interpretation of the film? Please enlighten us...

Well I always saw it as having several points.
First, and most important to the opening scene, is what makes us human, or different to other animals.
Another is how far we've come as a species, particularly symbolised as the throw bone fading into the spinning satellite.
Another is the wonder and mystery of exploring space, counter pointed by the crushing loneliness and isolation of those who actually go out into space.

And a new one that has since arisen now that the film is set ten years in the past is the wasted potential in that we've nearly all but stopped that exploration. This point could even be topical now with the recent end of the shuttle program.

Frankly believing that it's a mason code is lazy, paranoid thinking that totally misses what actually is in the film.

Obelisk

Apart from deliberately looking for little faults to pick out of a ten minute exerpt (all incorrect btw) there seems to be a whole lot of stuff you missed out on about this film! From Kubrick himself;

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.

So, that's on the lowest level huh? The exoteric meaning. What level are you on?

If you want to get even close to the esoteric meaning, I suggest you listen to the original broadcast which I posted already, or even all 3 parts with the footage I posted earlier. Or else continue to watch startrek, if you prefer.

To cut a long story short:

The film’s main theme, simply put, will be human evolution. This may sound innocuous to many readers, but this actually cloaks a deeper, darker agenda – an occult agenda where man “evolves” to become God. Not, mind you, in any kind of Christian sense of redemption from death and participation in immortality and Resurrection, but rather in a blasphemous evolution where man literally becomes a new god.

Now where have we heard that before anyone...

King Mob

Obelisk wrote: »

Apart from deliberately looking for little faults to pick out of a ten minute exerpt (all incorrect btw)

Well considering that the crank himself is deliberately looking for little things to pick out, I don't see what's wrong with me doing the same.
So how are they incorrect?
Why are they so difficult to address?

Obelisk wrote: »

there seems to be a whole lot of stuff you missed out on about this film! From Kubrick himself;

So, that's on the lowest level huh? The exoteric meaning. What level are you on?

And I gave several other interprations, which shockingly you ignored.

Now any chance you can give the context of that quote?

Obelisk wrote: »

If you want to get even close to the esoteric meaning, I suggest you listen to the original broadcast which I posted already, or even all 3 parts with the footage I posted earlier. Or else continue to watch startrek, if you prefer.

So who says there's an esoteric or occult meaning besides the paranoid cranks you keep quoting?

Maybe there's some deep occult symbolism in Star Trek, considering it contains several of the "symbols" Bill is imagining in 2001.

Obelisk wrote: »

To cut a long story short:

The film’s main theme, simply put, will be human evolution. This may sound innocuous to many readers, but this actually cloaks a deeper, darker agenda – an occult agenda where man “evolves” to become God. Not, mind you, in any kind of Christian sense of redemption from death and participation in immortality and Resurrection, but rather in a blasphemous evolution where man literally becomes a new god.

Now where have we heard that before anyone...

Who said this exactly?
Why should we take them seriously?

Because they really don't seem to understand the plot to the film.

jargon buster

obelisk quoted

The film’s main theme, simply put, will be human evolution. This may sound innocuous to many readers, but this actually cloaks a deeper, darker agenda – an occult agenda where man “evolves” to become God. Not, mind you, in any kind of Christian sense of redemption from death and participation in immortality and Resurrection, but rather in a blasphemous evolution where man literally becomes a new god.

king mob wrote

Who said this exactly?
Why should we take them seriously?

it was "jay" and no he probably shouldn't be taken seriously
http://jaysanalysis.com/2010/06/11/2001-a-space-odyssey-esoteric-analysis/

Obelisk

King Mob wrote: »

Because they really don't seem to understand the plot to the film.

Neither does anyone, since 1968 that's the whole point.

Unless they understand the meaning of the ancient symbolism being used. Clearly you dont, and dont want to hear the broadcast out so thats fine by me.

For anyone interested and willing to listen, it's all there in 'Mystery Babylon' EP I posted! Enjoy :cool:

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.
What are those areas of meaning?
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.

– Kubrick interviewed by Joseph Gelmis 1969 http://www.collativelearning.com/2001%20chapter%201.html

King Mob

Obelisk wrote: »

Neither does anyone, since 1968 that's the whole point.

And now I don't think you understand the difference between plot, interpretation and themes.

Obelisk wrote: »

Unless they understand the meaning of the ancient symbolism being used. Clearly you dont, and dont want to hear the broadcast out so thats fine by me.

But how exactly do you know it's ancient symbolism in the first place, besides simply swallowing what you are told?
The ancient symbolism seems to consist of simple geometric shapes that are in practically every other scifi film.

I see no point to listening to the broadcast. Just as I don't see a point in listening to an idiot spew incoherent gibberish for 40 hours.
Same thing really.

Obelisk wrote: »

For anyone interested and willing to listen, it's all there in 'Mystery Babylon' EP I posted! Enjoy :cool:

So how come you're not willing to listen to a dissenting opinions about it?

Obelisk wrote: »

– Kubrick interviewed by Joseph Gelmis 1969 http://www.collativelearning.com/2001%20chapter%201.html

So how come he doesn't mention any of the mason symbols or signs he put in his film?

jargon buster

Neither does anyone, since 1968 that's the whole point.

and maybe Kubrick simply couldn't think up a decent ending, so just left it open to interpretation.

What did Bill Murray say to Scarlett Johansen at the end of Lost in Translation?
It doesn't matter, its up to the viewer to decide for themselves.

Emme

Stanley Kubrick is brilliant. I saw this film 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange (full of symbolism for those who'd like to viddy it), Eyes Wide Shut and Dr Strangelove.

jargon buster

Eyes Wide Shut was an absolute turkey, I actually got up and left the cinema, I have never done that before or since.

Obelisk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kyavXyKRhk

King Mob

Obelisk wrote: »

How Kubrick used subliminal encoding to communicate his critique of the technology giant IBM.

Except in both the book and the film HAL stands for Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer.
Also he has a twin named SAL. So unless he was making a biting critique to TBM
And both Clarke and Kubrick have specifically denied that's what they were intending:

Clarke more directly addressed this issue in his book The Lost Worlds of 2001:[4]

As is clearly stated in the novel (Chapter 16), HAL stands for Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer. However, about once a week some character spots the fact that HAL is one letter ahead of IBM, and promptly assumes that Stanley and I were taking a crack at the estimable institution ... As it happened, IBM had given us a good deal of help, so we were quite embarrassed by this, and would have changed the name had we spotted the coincidence.

Or to quote a character from one of the squels:

"tter nonsense! [...] I thought that by now every intelligent person knew that H-A-L is derived from Heuristic ALgorithmic".

Also why would either Clarke or Kubrick want to critique IBM in the first place? Such an anti technology position is not present in any of their works.
Were IBM doing secret AI research that only film makers knew about?

And my god the "evidence" the video presents is idiotic.
"One character says "there's something wrong and I can't put my finger on it." then in a later scene his finger was near a rectangle."
Do you really expect rational people to take this crap seriously?

clever_name

Obelisk wrote: »

Neither does anyone, since 1968 that's the whole point.

Unless they understand the meaning of the ancient symbolism being used. Clearly you dont, and dont want to hear the broadcast out so thats fine by me.

For anyone interested and willing to listen, it's all there in 'Mystery Babylon' EP I posted! Enjoy :cool:
– Kubrick interviewed by Joseph Gelmis 1969 http://www.collativelearning.com/2001%20chapter%201.html

How many interviews with Kubrick have you seen or read? and I mean seen or read yourself, most of what you have posted is other peoples opinions of interviews.

Kubrick was a very clever man, he rarely gave interviews and when he did he was smart enough to not definitively answer questions, he remained almost neutral quite often, some might argue that this was to not bias the viewer.

So anyone who claims to have cracked the code and knows the secret is more than likely talking out their backside cause most of what those clip contain was written by someone far less clever then Kubrick, some of it seems less clever than the apes at the start of the movie.

Obelisk

AWESOME! http://www.kubrick2001.com/

Undergod

Re the issue of Clarke's beliefs and Freemasonry: the statements supporting his atheism are from fairly late in his life. It is possible that he held a more mason-compatible position at some earlier point in his life, though I'd consider it surprising given his "logical positivism from the age of ten" and insisting his dog-tags read "pantheist" while he was in the army.

stevejazzx

King Mob wrote: »

Such an anti technology position is not present in any of their works.

I agreed with your post however I would say there are some strong anti technology themes and misuse of such in many of Kubricks works


Dr Strangelove
Clockwork Orange
AI

In 2001, in simplistic terms, HALs sophisticated artificial intelligence allows it to chose against human life for the sake of the mission. In A.I (which Speilberg didn't do justice) the theme is explored further. It is hardly pro technology - somewhere down the middle I suppose; Kubrick was always keen to show humans as the core of most of their own problems despite the other factors involved.

In Clockwork Orange the message is very much a warning about a nanny state using contrived methods of control for its population. They justify these methods with pseudo science and implement them using them a mix of medical techniques and technology. In very much a similar vein to 1984 it is clearly anti technology in many ways.

In Dr. S - Obviously the burgeoning age of the cold war underpinned by terrifying nuclear weapons is an obvious indictment of how man has the potential to destroy himself and the planet using technology.

King Mob

stevejazzx wrote: »

I agreed with your post however I would say there are some strong anti technology themes and misuse of such in many of Kubricks works


Dr Strangelove
Clockwork Orange
AI

Honestly I never saw any of those films as anti technology specifically.

Dr Strangelove was certainly anti nuclear war, but didn't have anything to say really about nuclear power.

A Clockwork Orange wasn't really focused on the brainwashing as anything other than a plot point, more on the state being willing to remove moral choice and Alex being more of a pawn in a much bigger political game than he understands.

And AI wasn't anti technology as there was that whole bit with the circus thing were they destroyed robots for fun.
They portrayed the whole anti technology thing in a bad light.
Though this might have been Spielberg's doing.

And even then I still don't really see how HAL is meant to an anti technology metaphor, let alone why he's meant to be a criticism of IBM itself.

stevejazzx

King Mob wrote: »

Honestly I never saw any of those films as anti technology specifically.

Dr Strangelove was certainly anti nuclear war, but didn't have anything to say really about nuclear power.

Yeah, however an anti nuclear position is often sympathetic to anti technology one. There wouldn't be one without the other.

A Clockwork Orange wasn't really focused on the brainwashing as anything other than a plot point, more on the state being willing to remove moral choice and Alex being more of a pawn in a much bigger political game than he understands.

Well I disagree strongly there. Clockwork Orange was set in the future; the idea being that technological advances would allow for the kind of socio-political experiments carried out within. The whole purpose of the movie was to get Alex into 'treatment' and then viddy (sorry couldn't help it) the results.
And in its own twisted way the technique stopped Alex's urges.

And AI wasn't anti technology as there was that whole bit with the circus thing were they destroyed robots for fun.
They portrayed the whole anti technology thing in a bad light.
Though this might have been Spielberg's doing.

Well, at it's simplest, it clearly is a warning against playing God using technology.

And even then I still don't really see how HAL is meant to an anti technology metaphor, let alone why he's meant to be a criticism of IBM itself.

I'm not sure about the IBM thing but in terms of an anti technology theme I think that's clear. At its most base obviousness the Robot get's too clever and turns against its Human creators.

I think part of the issue here is that may be including in your mind a broad ranging sweep of the entire technological landscape when discussing this
whereas these movies tend to be warning against a specific type of sophisticated unchecked technological advance and our immediate reliance.
And I don't think that if there exists anti technology themes in these movies then Kubrick or whoever must be anti technology with in their own personal outlook.
Here's an interesting article

http://www-scf.usc.edu/~morihisa/essay3.htm

King Mob

stevejazzx wrote: »

Yeah, however an anti nuclear position is often sympathetic to anti technology one. There wouldn't be one without the other.

But that's a bit of a stretch. It's sort of like saying that being against animal cruelty means you are a vegetarian. They're related, but not always implied by each other.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Well I disagree strongly there. Clockwork Orange was set in the future; the idea being that technological advances would allow for the kind of socio-political experiments carried out within. The whole purpose of the movie was to get Alex into 'treatment' and then viddy (sorry couldn't help it) the results.
And in its own twisted way the technique stopped Alex's urges.

But the technology aspect is simply a means to an end plot wise. The film was never about the method they use on Alex. I always saw the technobabble they used to describe it and the method itself to be going over Alex's head, further showing him as just a pawn in a larger, unseen dystopia.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Well, at it's simplest, it clearly is a warning against playing God using technology.

But at it's simplest it shows people who are against technology so much they destroy for sport as savage, uneducated hillbilies.
If you're going to analyse the subtlies of HAL, you can't ignore something like this.

stevejazzx wrote: »

I'm not sure about the IBM thing but in terms of an anti technology theme I think that's clear. At its most base obviousness the Robot get's too clever and turns against its Human creators.

Well both Clarke and Kubrick denied that Hal was meant to be connected to IBM, as detailed in earlier posts.
But again, I interpret it differently. I think it was HAL not being clever enough as he couldn't reconcile two conflicting orders without trying to murder people and being afraid for his own life.

stevejazzx wrote: »

I think part of the issue here is that may be including in your mind a broad ranging sweep of the entire technological landscape when discussing this
whereas these movies tend to be warning against a specific type of sophisticated unchecked technological advance and our immediate reliance.
And I don't think that if there exists anti technology themes in these movies then Kubrick or whoever must be anti technology with in their own personal outlook.
Here's an interesting article

http://www-scf.usc.edu/~morihisa/essay3.htm

But as I said, I simply don't see how any of their works have overtly anti technology messages nor do I see how HAL is meant to be a criticism of IBM.

Wibbs

I was given a 1970 first edition of this http://www.amazon.com/Making-Kubricks-2001-Jerome-Agel/dp/0451071395 by a very good friend many moons ago for my birthday(coincidentally enough also today and coincidentally enough again I've been reading it the last few days:)) and it contains a load of interviews and musings of both Clarke and Kubrick. It's as close to an "official" bio of the movie for the time.

In it Kubrick is actually quite open about many aspects of the film. A lot less of his later reluctance to chat away is evident. Clarke is equally forthcoming. They discuss the HAL/IBM thing and it came as a shock to them afterwards. Basically because people at IBM had been very helpful to them during production. Concerned, he rang around those same people when this rumour kicked off(very soon after the film came out) and they all laughed and told him not to fret. To this day people still buy this, just like they buy that The Beatles, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds purposely spells out LSD maaaaa. Even when John Lennon produced the very kids picture he took the title from. In any case it spells out LITSWD. Not quite as catchy. Some stuff is just (un)happy accident.

Indeed he says something that the Beatles and other 60's dudes and dudesses said about this stuff, namely make some art that has resonance for you and when it gets out there the best of it will have a different resonance for each and every viewer, reader and listener. Shít Charlie Manson chopped people up in a mass murder spree after listening to Helter Skelter, because as an American he was unfamiliar with the fact McCartney was singing about a childrens fairground/end of pier ride, so that shít can get outa hand... As Stanley said in Obelisk's quote "In this sense, the film becomes anything the viewer sees in it"

They did have ipads in it though...

Stevie Jobs nicking ideas again eh? Funny coincidence; Jobs named his company Apple computers because he and the other Steve were big beatles fans. That was the name of their record/design/clothing/retail/film company they came up with. John Lennon after seeing 2001 and HAL mused on registering Apple Computing as a good bet for the future. AFAIK he didn't.

Though for the CTr's out there the book does add something that may interest. If Kubrick had gone with his initial shape for the monolith the conspiracy folks would have had a shítfit. Maybe they still will when I reveal from the horses mouth what the original shape was to be? A Tetrahedron, otherwise known as a pyramid. But Stanley canned the idea as being too obvious and it looked shíte on camera, no sense of scale.

Obelisk wrote:

AWESOME! http://www.kubrick2001.com/

Its well enough done, but do not get me started on the ancient man part and the errors within. No really. Don't. or the errors in Stanley's take going on late 60's knowledge.

King Mob

Wibbs wrote: »

Though for the CTr's out there the book does add something that may interest. If Kubrick had gone with his initial shape for the monolith the conspiracy folks would have had a shítfit. Maybe they still will when I reveal from the horses mouth what the original shape was to be? A Tetrahedron, otherwise known as a pyramid. But Stanley canned the idea as being too obvious and it looked shíte on camera, no sense of scale.

It was actually from Clarke's short story that the movie and later book series was based on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sentinel_%28short_story%29

Another difference that CTers would have loved is that fact that the book is based in orbit around Saturn rather than Jupiter, but was changed because the rings would have been too hard to make in special effects at the time.
Originally the monolith was meant to have been on Saturn's moon Mimas, which looks like a giant eye.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Mimas_Cassini.jpg

Obelisk

Wibbs wrote: »

Its well enough done, but do not get me started on the ancient man part and the errors within. No really. Don't. or the errors in Stanley's take going on late 60's knowledge.

Belt away, that's the idea! Also came across this;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qySnL38JpOg

It appears to be a promo for a feature, wondering has anyone seen it? Coopers theory will be hard bet IMO.

osnola ibax

I saw this film today, was looking forward to reading this thread having Google it. But unfortunately its a load of balls. Freemason symbolism, there is so much more to this film than bringing that rubbish into it.

Themes of isolation, mans relationship with technology, advanced benevolent alien races, beautiful music / imagry and of course the invention of the ipad. Anyone have a link to a proper film discussion of 2001