Talk:Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey

another issue with The monolith section

"As it marks the beginning of the film's most cryptic and psychedelic sequence, interpretations of the last two monolith appearances are as varied as the film's viewers. Is it a "star gate," some giant cosmic router or transporter? Are all of these visions happening inside Bowman's mind? And why does he wind up in some cosmic hotel suite at the end of it?[12]"
-I don't think encyclopedic articles are supposed to ask this many rhetorical questions, are they? And if these are rhetorical questions being brought up by another author, it should be made much more clear. --Okkusenman (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The monolith section

I'm having trouble understanding the 2nd sentence of the following:
"2. After 4 million years but this time on the Moon. This begins the transition between ape-like man and a time traveler is embedded between the appearances of the monolith."

I'd edit that "between ape-like man and a time traveler is embedded" part, but I have no idea what the author's intended meaning was. Help revise? --Okkusenman (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The monolith is the Tree of Knowledge. It's obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.223.138 (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's axis mundi.--83.218.198.165 (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

HAL section

I feel as though this section could use citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinprovo (talk • contribs) 06:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Help editing the HAL section draft would be most appreciated! Dreadstar † 22:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Has there been talk about the letters of HAL being one letter prior to IBM? I don't know if that's junior high trivia, or if it has the obvious intention... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.113.190 (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It has been well-established (and is discussed somewhere in Wikipedia) that the HAL/IBM one-letter-off bizness is a coincidence and that Clarke meant HAL to stand for Heuristic ALgorithmic computer. In math parlance, an algorithm is guarenteed to give an exact answer, while a Heuristic gives a well-educated guess.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Supermen?

"Supermen" is an incorrect translation for the Nietzsche section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.204.145 (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not having the original, I assume "Ubermensch" is the word in question? Maybe a native German speaker could suggest a better term. I have heard it translated as "superman" so many times my mind is blanked. Wwheaton (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

According to dict.cc Wörterbuch :: Übermensch :: Englisch-Deutsch-Übersetzung: Superman is the most likely translation of Übermensch Diegoaac (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Although "Superman" is a correct translation, recent translations of Nietzsche use "Overman" to avoid confusion with the comic-book character.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ugly figure

There's no disputing about taste, probably.  :) Can someone suggest a better image? Wwheaton (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gee, I kinda like it..but then I'm biased...;) If you think it should be removed or replaced, please be my guest. Dreadstar † 04:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And I think it is fine myself; but perhaps a brilliant replacement would blow me away. If someone has one to suggest...? Personally, I would not remove it in the absence of a better substitute, tho. Wwheaton (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Dreadstar † 16:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

HAL infallible?

Under HAL there is this: "We are told that HAL is infallible early in the film." Even tho Dave and Frank sort of allude to this, it is only HAL who makes this declaration. AI researchers have pointed out that this is the first sign that HAL is fallible. The reason being a truly superior intelligence makes mistakes and learns from them. By claiming infallibility HAL is showing it already has a screw loose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Almost Everything is a Metaphor

It is all about power and control and deception. Power over the populace. Control over the populace. Deceiving the populace. It all has to do with solar events. Throughout the movie it is never an "alien" obelisk. HAL realizes they are going on a suicide mission and attempts to stop them - they were never supposed to survey anything. polpoint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.146.151 (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Either you've been reading wayyy too much Michael Foucault or else too much tabloid news. One or the other. --WickerGuy (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

So the military industrial complex sets up a mission which is designed to fail. Could we possibly ask why? I'm with the StrawMan, it makes no sense. Greglocock (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It is clear from the novel that ACC at least had a very clear, definite, and scientifically reasonable back story in mind, and Clarke's dairy of the writing makes it clear that he and Kubrick were in constant close communication during the writing. That back story could not be laid out in detail within the confines of a film of reasonable length, so it was essentially omitted from the movie. (No doubt there were good commercial and artistic reasons for Kubrick to leave the details to the imagination of the viewer.) But the two stories, in the novel and the film, fit together perfectly well. Thus I claim they are complementary halves of a single work of art. See the film for the visual and aural experience of awe; read the book to back it up with a scientifically respectable foundation. Leave the rest to your imagining, since the reality of the universe is yet unknown to us. Wwheaton (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Have to disagree with Sinebot. 2001 is entirely about human evolution; the development of AI as an extension of humanity, and the notion that aliens and technology have a stake in our evolution. Clarke & Kubrick's novel/screenplay collaborations investigated every aspect of the alien technology, and Clarke wrote many discarded drafts including some dubious alien characters. Though eventually Kubrick steered Clarke toward a more oblique depiction of the alien technology, the motivation for the Odyssey mission makes perfect sense in the film and the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.159.50 (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have thought for many years that the entire movie is primarliy about the evolution of human consciousness. HAL may represent a dramatic milestone in that evolution - when conscious, intelligent beings evolve to the point where they can make conscious machines. The monolith must then represent the monotheistic god that mediates the evolution of consciousness, appearing at crucial points in that evolution, not unlike the appearance of the great avatars who appear to help humanity evolve spiritually. Finally, I see a clear reference to Tibetan Buddhism at the end. The light show that seems so mysterious can be understood easily as a reference to re-incarnation. The protagonist dies and is catapulted though the Bardo states which, according to Tibetan Buddhism, are the soul's journey between incarnations. This would seem to be a reference to the Tibetan Book of the Dead. The fetus is then the protagonist re-incarnated, ready to begin life anew, more spiritually evolved. Again, the star child is a final metaphor for the evolution of consciousness. May 7, 2009 captinclearlight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captinclearlight (talk • contribs) 06:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:2001child2.JPG

The image File:2001child2.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Links Removed

Today I removed some links after that section was tagged as having too many links that don't conform to WP policy. Most were from non-notable sources. One was removed because the article really is about Kubrick's work as a whole even though titled "Beyond the Infinite" and not especially focused on "Space Odyssey".--WickerGuy (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Monolith -> Islam

No one else thought of the moslem Kaaba and the Black Stone?

As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries?

Another contributor recently excised this image. The image and its inclusion here was discussed at ffd. So I think the decision to excise it from the article should require a little more discussion than the four word edit summary "remove decorative non-free image".

Note, the same contributor excised the fair use rationale for the use of this image in this article from File:2001child2.JPG with the two word edit summary "decoration ther".

Both excisions have been reverted. There may be good arguments to back up both of these edits -- but they weren't offered for the rest of us to read. Geo Swan (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that that editor contributed quite a bit to the discussion at "FIles for deletion". Was (s)he not satisfied with the results?--WickerGuy (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This same editor has tried to remove the image from the article twice before in 2008 and in 2009. To me, this latest removal crosses the line of disruption, expecially considering that this same editor has been revisiting many articles and repeating the same behavior. I'm thinking we need an RFC on this user if he continues his disruptive behavior. Dreadstar ☥ 15:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

User is trying to delete the image as well. Dreadstar ☥ 16:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

At least move the image to the relevant section, where its meaning is explained. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see no discussion of this picture in the article. Either somebody points to where that discussion is (and then the image needs to be placed near it), or the image goes out. Simple. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As someone who rolled into the article due to a ANI thread I've looked at the photo, it's Fair Use rationalle, and the discussion here. Would the editors here be willing to accept a change to put the image in question where the fair use rationalle claims "With the conception allegory" so as to remove what appears to be the only problem? Thanks Hasteur (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. Dreadstar ☥ 17:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And done. Dreadstar ☥ 17:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And why do we need to use this non-free content on that section? I know the section mentions the passage in the movie captured on the image, but I fail to see why seeing the image is necessary for the understanding of the material on that section. --Damiens.rf 17:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)