The first monolith grants the apes reason and logic.

The first monolith grants the apes reason and logic. The monolith orbiting Jupiter seeks to show the humans what lies beyond reason and logic. (The universe does not exist for a logical reason.)

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    No one on IQfy is going to find A Space Odyssey philosophically profound. I know you're probably only in high school, but you should start trying to read real philosophy so you can mature past this fluff as fast as you can.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      2001 is vastly more profound that Plato’s republic, the Bible, and the founding texts of buddhism

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >you should start trying to read real philosophy so you can mature past this fluff as fast as you can.
      Why? Where's the finish line? Philosophy is something you enjoy, not something you look to complete.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >but you should start trying to read real philosophy so you can mature past this fluff as fast as you can
      When do you start?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      2001 is a movie you think is super deep as a teenager, think is midwit when you have a little bit if exposure to philosophy and esoteric ideas, then realize is deep again once you understand more of these things.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        it's just a silly space porn movie about evolution lol

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, man, things in real life fit into that moronic meme. So profound.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          The Bell curve meme is just the dunning Kruger effect put through an MSpaint filter.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      cringe pseud midwit

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Is the book worth reading if I've already seen the movie?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, it clarifies many things and there are more books than movies (in addition to 2001 and 2010, there are 2061 and 3001).

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      tbh clarke was okay for a luciferian (and the books are full of luciferian symbolism) so I'd say yes, at least if you're young enough to digest them, but 2001 really is the best of the bunch

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      They're very similar but different. Both being written and made at the same time. The book lacks an iconic line of dialogue, but also skips some of the psychedelic scenes. I think I prefer the book.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >The book lacks an iconic line of dialogue
        I swear this is a Mandela thing right here. "My God, it's full of stars" isn't in the movie.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Heh, maybe. But that's not the line I was thinking of.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Fair. I actually liked that scene with HAL more in the novel. His betrayal and "murder" is presented as a much more methodological and tense situation, owing partly to the silence of it.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Oh definitely. The film version is more darkly comic if anything. Both great for different reasons.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Heh, maybe. But that's not the line I was thinking of.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010:_Odyssey_Two#Discontinuities_between_2010_and_the_other_works
          >In the novel 2001, Dave Bowman says "Oh my God—it's full of stars!" during his encounter with the monolith. In the novel 2010, characters quote Bowman slightly differently as saying "My God—it's full of stars!" in his last transmission. In the film version of 2001, Dave Bowman is not shown speaking any words as he leaves Discovery and enters the monolith. However, the film version of 2010 includes a recording of Bowman saying "My God—it's full of stars!" as if it had occurred in the 2001 film.

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I remember reading a movie criticism by pauline kael the other day about this movie.
    It goes like this:

    >The new tribalism in the age of the media is not necessarily the enemy of commercialism; it is a direct outgrowth of commercialism and its ally, perhaps even its instrument. If a movie has enough clout, reviewers and columnists who were bored are likely to give it another chance, until on the second or third viewing, they discover that it affects them “viscerally” — and a big expensive movie is likely to do just that. 2001 is said to have caught on with youth (which can make it happen); and it’s said that the movie will stone you — which is meant to be a recommendation. Despite a few dissident voices — I’ve heard it said, for example, that 2001 “gives you a bad trip because the visuals don’t go with the music” — the promotion has been remarkably effective with students. “The tribes” tune in so fast that college students thousands of miles apart “have heard” what a great trip 2001 is before it has even reached their city.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Using movies to go on a trip has about as much connection with the art of the film as using one of those Doris Day-Rock Hudson jobs for ideas on how to redecorate your home — an earlier way of stoning yourself. But it is relevant to an understanding of movies to try to separate out, for purposes of discussion at least, how we may personally use a film — to learn how to dress or how to speak more elegantly or how to make a grand entrance or even what kind of coffee maker we wish to purchase, or to take off from the movie into a romantic fantasy or a trip — from what makes it a good movie or a poor one, because, of course, we can use poor films as easily as good ones, perhaps more easily for such non-aesthetic purposes as shopping guides or aids to tripping.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >2001 is a movie that might have been made by the hero of Blow-Up, and it’s fun to think about Kubrick really doing every dumb thing he wanted to do, building enormous science fiction sets and equipment, never even bothering to figure out what he was going to do with them. Fellini, too, had gotten carried away with the Erector Set approach to movie-making, but his big science-fiction construction, exposed to view at the end of 8½, was abandoned. Kubrick never really made his movie either but he doesn’t seem to know it. Some people like the American International Pictures stuff because it’s rather idiotic and maybe some people love 2001 just because Kubrick did all that stupid stuff, acted out a kind of super sci-fi nut’s fantasy. In some ways it’s the biggest amateur movie of them all, complete even to the amateur-movie obligatory scene — the director’s little daughter (in curls) telling daddy what kind of present she wants.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >There was a little pre-title sequence in You Only Live Twice with an astronaut out in space that was in a looser, more free style than 2001 — a daring little moment that I think was more fun than all of 2001. It had an element of the unexpected, of the shock of finding death in space lyrical. Kubrick is carried away by the idea. The secondary title of Dr. Strangelove, which we took to be satiric, How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb, was not, it now appears, altogether satiric for Kubrick. 2001 celebrates the invention of tools of death, as an evolutionary route to a higher order of non-human life. Kubrick literally learned to stop worrying and love the bomb; he’s become his own butt — the Herman Kahn of extraterrestrial games theory. The ponderous blurry appeal of the picture may be that it takes its stoned audience out of this world to a consoling vision of a graceful world of space, controlled by superior godlike minds, where the hero is reborn as an angelic baby. It has the dreamy somewhere-over-the-rainbow appeal of a new vision of heaven. 2001 is a celebration of cop-out. It says man is just a tiny nothing on the stairway to paradise, something better is coming, and it’s all out of your hands anyway. There’s an intelligence out there in space controlling your destiny from ape to angel, so just follow the slab. Drop up.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >It’s a bad, bad sign when a movie director begins to think of himself as a myth-maker, and this limp myth of a grand plan that justifies slaughter and ends with resurrection has been around before. Kubrick’s story line — accounting for evolution by an extraterrestrial intelligence — is probably the most gloriously redundant plot of all time. And although his intentions may have been different, 2001 celebrates the end of man; those beautiful mushroom clouds at the end of Strangelove were no accident. In 2001, A Space Odyssey, death and life are all the same: no point is made in the movie of Gary Lockwood’s death — the moment isn’t even defined — and the hero doesn’t discover that the hibernating scientists have become corpses. That’s unimportant in a movie about the beauties of resurrection. Trip off to join the cosmic intelligence and come back a better mind. And as the trip in the movie is the usual psychedelic light shows the audience doesn’t even have to worry about getting to Jupiter. They can go to heaven in Cinerama.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >It isn’t accidental that we don’t care if the characters live or die; if Kubrick has made his people so uninteresting, it is partly because characters and individual fates just aren’t big enough for certain kinds of big movie directors. Big movie directors become generals in the arts; and they want subjects to match their new importance. Kubrick has announced that his next project is Napoleon — which, for a movie director, is the equivalent of Joan of Arc for an actress. Lester’s “savage” comments about affluence and malaise, Kubrick’s inspirational banality about how we will become as gods through machinery, are big-shot show-business deep thinking. This isn’t a new show-business phenomenon; it belongs to the genius tradition of the theatre. Big entrepreneurs, producers, and directors who stage big spectacular shows, even designers of large sets have traditionally begun to play the role of visionaries and thinkers and men with answers. They get too big for art. Is a work of art possible if pseudoscience and the technology of movie-making become more important to the “artist” than man? This is central to the failure of 2001. It’s a monumentally unimaginative movie: Kubrick, with his $750,000 centrifuge, and in love with gigantic hardware and control panels, is the Belasco of science fiction. The special effects — though straight from the drawing board — are good and big and awesomely, expensively detailed. There’s a little more that’s good in the movie, when Kubrick doesn’t take himself too seriously — like the comic moment when the gliding space vehicles begin their Johann Strauss walk; that is to say, when the director shows a bit of a sense of proportion about what he’s doing, and sees things momentarily as comic when the movie doesn’t take itself with such idiot solemnity. The light-show trip is of no great distinction; compared to the work of experimental filmmakers like Jordan Belson, it’s third-rate. If big film directors are to get credit for doing badly what others have been doing brilliantly for years with no money, just because they’ve put it on a big screen, then businessmen are greater than poets and theft is art.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            How is it physically possible to be that far off of the mark.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            This woman is brutal.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            How is it physically possible to be that far off of the mark.

            hm, she might be on to something

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            It looks more entertaining than the giant baby movie, for sure.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Kubrick is cancer, the story was supposed to end in global war but someone pointed at him laughing, saying it was Dr. Strangelove all over again and he changed the end.
            You can see a remain of this in the film, the space "tubes" appearing after the bones scene are orbital bombing stations.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Hippies are dumb
            >Therefore a movie is bad
            Female logic

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >I’ve heard it said, for example, that 2001 “gives you a bad trip because the visuals don’t go with the music” — the promotion has been remarkably effective with students. “The tribes” tune in so fast that college students thousands of miles apart “have heard” what a great trip 2001 is before it has even reached their city.
      Damn. The boomers were exposed once more...

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >grants the apes reason and logic
    they killed each other after the monolith
    did you watch the movie?

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    that movie had scene of sand monkeys jumping around a black stone that came from outer space
    >you cannot make this shit up

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >The first monolith grants the apes reason and logic.
    The film was released on the same day as Planet Of The Apes.

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >when you reach the you vs abyss point you have 2 options, you can eat the abyss or let the abyss eat you.
    >eat the abyss and you are plagued with constant hunger.
    >let the abyss eat you and you have to seek external reassurance.

    Favorable odds on just eating the abyss and that way you can go ahead eat obelisks when they show up, odds are good they can't answer those questions anyhow.

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Quit mapping religion onto Darwinism you gay

    That goes for all the Jungians, Freudians, positivists and Marxists too.

    Map secularism onto religion if you want real answers.

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It's not supposed to mean anything. It simulates the feeling of having a huge unknowable mystery to explore, but even that was unintentional. The author themself just wrote it that way because it feels good.

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >the gargantuan effort it took orchestrating a giant $12 mil operation involving 100s of talented designers and artists

    >hey lackey, go do dis
    >how much this gonna cost? nvrmnd idc
    yeah real impressive

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      which is more effort than you or anyone on this board ever put in their entire lives. real impressive

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        not an argument, buttlicker

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Projectus maximus

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *