The Ending Of 2001: A Space Odyssey Explained 

Wanted to fall asleep

My fav scenes! I like the weird music in that white room, showing the absolute strange atmosphere

ii found it to be prety strang

Evolution in reincarnation

Dave travels through a psychedelic space/time warp, ages, dies and is reborn as the Star Child.

When did he shoot the moon landing

@@user-ex4si2md6r yeah, like what if when you die, you wake up?🧐

@@MonRoeTheory hmmm 🤔.. good question ❓... well, if I finally died and then woke up to my same life..mid hump off a bridge 🌉

are you serious bro. this video literally states that there is no clear explanation and it’s a movie for analysis and discussion

@@MonRoeTheory hopefully I won't be myself again 😔

Thank you man. I finally feel closure. No other explanation was giving me this.

@@Sajid_Hossain195a great explanation, and what I thought it to be too.

Thank you

Just say no to A.I.

@@wilde.coyote6618 Too late, unfortunately..

The sequel, 2010, makes it clear that the monoliths are tools to both evolve species, and to judge the resulting evolutions and decide if they are fit to join galactic society. There are two other two sequels, 2061 and 3001, that carry on the story. In 2010, the monolith around Jupiter ignites it into a dwarf star and sends another monolith down to Europa to evolve the life there. By 3001, it becomes evident that both experiments in the Sol system have failed.

@@TechBearSeattle Thanks, looks like I have some more Clarke novels to read

That's exactly what I thought while watching.

It was just a flat screen TV.

“Both the movie and the film” lmao what? That’s literally the same thing. 🤦‍♂️

Been doing it for years, as my brother Joe says, "I don't mind being by myself, if there's NO One else around, it's the last good time in town"....

Yes, but he IS immediately reborn.

We don't know how much real time he is experiencing. He may be aging quite quickly like in the film and unaware of the passage of time and so these are blinks of time for him and this he is not alone for too long from our Earth perspective of time.

There is sequel?? I finally saw it. Such a trippy movie

Interstellar is far more better than this boring movie

@@hamzaomari7052 Exactly the point, really. 2001: A Space Odyssey walked so that Interstellar could run.

Star Wars changed that standard. They went with the used worn out look to their sci-fi universe which I believe is more grounded and most films since it’s release followed suit.

​@@hamzaomari7052Avg small attention span people

@@harshitsinha4686 you're on of those people who sees random color splattered on a canvas and thinks it's "art" 🤣... trying to find a hidden meaning behind it.

It's a 1980 interview. And in it, Kubrick speculates that everyone will dismiss his straightforward attempts for their own interpretation. Which is precisely what happened. But I doubt that was his intention.

The monoliths are the AI tools of aliens. The monoliths sometimes promote the evolution of Intellect which gives birth to new AI.

Kubrick was a nut and everyone who ever worked with him hated him. He ruined multiple books by turning them into horrible versions of great source material. Everything good about this movie came from Arthur C. Clarke.

​@@HankShawsHis film adaptations are literally masterpieces , his films are perfect the way they are , and considered amongst the greatest films ever made in their respective genre , also nobody hated him lmao 😂 anyone who ever has worked with him highly appreciated and admired his brilliance, geniusness and perfectionism . There's a reason he is regarded amongs the greatest and most influential filmmakers of all time so plz Keep ur Shitty opinions to yourself , L opinion tbh 👎

Kubrick sent Clarke off to write the book version while he continued to write and film his own version, thus there are kinda two versions of the story...

I think Kubrick's version is ultimately cleverer because we are left to ponder whether humanity in all its violence and destructiveness is worth saving. It wouldn't surprise me if the star-child simply observes and does not choose to act.

@@BowieZ Hey, that`s what I thought about the ending also, I mean, that was one of my thoughts, it looks like it he chooses not to do anything anymore at the end..

Actually the twin paradox would state that he would be the same age, but that others not traveling as fast would have aged exponentially faster. General relativity was misplayed in this film. Kubrick can be a great director, but have missed the mark at the same time.

6? Very young. I was taken to see "House on Haunted Hill" When I was Six. I bet you can guess how that turned out.

@@davidmacphee3549 yikes 😎 🤙🏼

@@yeuxdal Didn't know it wasn't people coming out of vats of acid with nothing but their bones left on and that it was only 'grown up just pretend'. I saw it all happen with my own two eyes

Overrated, take out the overextended time showing the apes at the beginning it would be appreciated more.

@@bennyc2426 You had to see this movie in the theater in 1968. Not a 'Pan and Scan' on the boob tube, late show.

@@bennyc2426 your crazy. That would take out the whole meaning of man's development, thanks to the monolith . You just didn't get it. Most people understood that. I guess you just felt bored.

@@dolphinsrr For it's day, no doubt. One of the maddest movies to come out, you'd come out of that jaw dropped. In terms of a sci-fi I agree to this day it's good. But.. the statement "Based" has mad I personally disagree with. I understood the movie, the revolution of man. The monolith being an entity of space time continuum. It's just how it was pieced together , could have be been better. Just because I don't think it was the best movie ever to this day, doesn't mean I think it's bad.

I can’t tell you how many times I fell asleep during this movie. Felt like the last 30 minutes was all I needed to see.

nonono not a captive at all. enlightened. he was experiencing time all at once, but that's kinda hard to do in a movie, so kubrick made the overlapping aging/regressing a metaphor that bowman was beyond time.

​@@c.ladimore1237Kubrick himself said he was being studied like some animal by the aliens tho. After he died he was reborn into some kind of super alien baby.

I never really thought of it like that. I first saw it so long ago, that I presumed it was kind of answering the questions "Where do ideas come from?" or "What, really, is a muse." IOW, my perspective was that each advancement was some amount of the monolith giving humanity additional outside information. Now being much older and much better read in philosophy and Eastern religions, it's clear that everything we experience really comes from within. That is, we don't experience, for example, a table as it is. We define the boundaries of the thing as the whole set of surface, legs, back, & support rather than by each piece or by the way the cloud of subatomic particles are configured (ever-changing), etc. That is, we define things relative to their usefulness to us & all of our previous experiences with them-importantly including all the emotional history with the concept. Some people love dogs, some people fear dogs, but either way each person has given the sound complex "dog" all of the meaning it has for that person. The word is a reference to a personal collection of experiences with the concept the word references-none of these (the word, the internal concept, the feelings or moral baggage we associate with it, etc) are the objective reality itself. In 2001, as with the real history of innovation, each interaction with the monolith have the characters move vastly beyond their home looking for more of what's "out there." But, the real final frontier is what else is inside. When a person's self-awareness increases, their consciousness shifts and their externally observable behaviours follow. So, I suppose it really is "Where do ideas come from?" but the answer isn't the expected "From X source outside of us" in the long Western traditions (cf, ancient Greek deities & ancient Indo-Aryan ones-despite both starting from the same Proto-Indo-European set). New thinking comes from within by synthesizing information differently than we previously had done. Each time the monolith expands the beings' consciousness (allowing for a new opportunity for true free will-"What will you do with this new insight?"). It's not until the end that we see a character looking at himself and it scares him. After his evolution, he then points his attention back to his home, Earth, instead of continuing the tradition of expanding outward. Perhaps rather than simply "the monolith represents self-awareness" it's "the monolith represents expanded consciousness-which can only be achieved through increased self-exploration/self-awareness." In my personal opinion, most people, most of the time live entirely deterministically reacting based on the ego they have built up from experiences. It's only when we put our attention on the self-thoughts, speech, behaviours, habits, etc-that we actually have the opportunity to change. I'm doubtful that all of this was intended by Clark & Kubrick. But still, thanks for giving me the chance to have these new thoughts about the film regardless-for me at least it has increased the film's value.

A sequel ? Kinda like 2010 The Year We Make Contact ?? Yeh that would be great 👍

@@classifiedtopsecret4664 Yes a bit of a letdown as it was a 'normal' film as opposed to iconic.

@Mr Bill it wasn't outstanding was it.

@@classifiedtopsecret4664 No magic in it.

Sequel was fine. People are never happy. The first one people didn't understand. So the sequel explain things and now people complain on that too. It's like the old saying. You can't please everyone. I'm happy with both films. Why would the sequel be a confusing copy of the first one? Then you would have more questions. Right?.

1968

It’s the original AI film. Why not? Loads of channels revisit classics.

I wouldn't know.

@@raysmith2940 And you don't WANT TO FIND OUT! FO REAL DOE!

Unfortunately, the next two books in the series of four -- 2061: Odyssey Three and 3001: The Final Odyssey -- have yet to get screen adaptations. The whole series is very, very good, and Arthur C. Clarke (who wrote all four) was one of the grandmasters of science fiction. 2001 was written by both Clarke and Kubric: the novel and the screen play were developed at the same time with both men consulting with the other. There are some differences, as Clarke set the destination as Saturn. Kubrick could not get Saturn to look right, so he went with Jupiter, and the subsequent books all kept Jupiter.

@@TechBearSeattle i agree. One of the books they found Frank pool floating in space and brought him back to life.

@@bigkraus1 - That would be 3001. The premise is that Poole was essentially freeze-dried, leaving his DNA and neuron connections in place and undamaged.

I thought it was overrated but it constantly appears in people's list of favourite films.

The last 30 minutes was good. Very very VERY slow.

Give it a try. And if you don't like it. That's okay :)

You're not missing out on anything.