2001
discussion
Did anyone else think the ending was lame?
message 1:
by
Susie
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Feb 11, 2014 09:27PM
I'm an avid fantasy/sci fi reader but the whole ending was beyond belief! Anyone else feel the same way?
reply
|
flag
Not at all. Why do you feel so?
"Then he waited, marshaling his thoughts and brooding over his still untested powers. For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure of what to do next.But he would think of something."
Not just the last two paragraphs but the whole morphing from an astronaut to master of the universe was pretty stupid. No longer needed food or air etc. I got the feeling that Clarke was at a loss as to how to end it and just tossed that in, then got a publisher to buy it.
I would have rather read about the conflict between HAL and the astronauts and been able to see that unfold into something menacing or maybe a win for the astronauts.
Well you can't consider the novel separately from the movie, you know that of course? The novel was adapted from the movie script. Reverse of the usual procedure. Taking them as a duo, makes it the least sound assumption to assume that Arthur C. Clarke 'reached a point in his story where he didn't know what he was doing'. The structure of what he and Stanley Kubrick had conceived and written up to that point, bely any such insinuation as you're making.
In other words, they wouldn't have written a story about a paltry spaceship accident/mystery. They wanted cosmic overtones and profundity and its clear from the anatomy of the work that it was written that way from the outset.
What you just quoted (from the text) makes perfect sense in the movie. Its intuitive and manifest. Whereas the whole point of the story could never be the mere saga of the silly astronauts and their computer; that would have been childish and simplistic.
'Master of the universe' is not at all a startling figure-of-speech when you consider that Dave's journey was initiated by such powerful entities. He is 'joining their ranks'. Its inherent to the series of 'causes' which set the story in motion, that such powerful, cosmic beings exist. Its inherent to the premise of the story at the outset: the suggestion that higher intelligence 'stimulated' human development 600,000 years ago. That is the basis of the tale.
I've never seen the movie all the way through to the end. Maybe that's why the book is so disappointing. The end may or may not make sense in the movie but as a story in a book it sucks.
I read the book as well, before I saw the film 'all the way through'. Trying to assist you as best I can. Not sure why I had less trouble with it. When I finally saw the movie it merely confirmed the understanding I received from the book. The basic principle is (if you accept the 'premise' I mentioned earlier) is to grasp that 'higher intelligence' would not have bothered to 'augment our survival' unless it was for a purpose. Progenitation. That's what the film articulates and that's why the imagery in the finale' is so reminiscent of sperm/egg. 'Dave' assumes a vast change in scale: he finds himself injected into a 'galaxy-sized' womb and undergoes the same change in mass, which a spermatozoa undergoes when it forms into a fetus.
I had no problems with it; Bowman just reaches the the ultimate step in (human) evolution - he ascends, guided by the same alien entities that started it millenias ago, to godhood, one could say.And yet he's reached nothing more than an embryonic status of being in the greater fabric of it all.
The end is pretty much in sync with Clarke's overall philosophy found in the body of his work.
I loved the ending. Definitely didn't think it was lame. It simply took the story into different, even more exciting realms than mere human <-> AI conversations had done before. Since I also knew there was a sequel (2010) I considered it a cliffhanger actually.
I have to agree with Gerd in terms of it being in sync with the overall philosophy. The book is about evolution, from the first chapters following the cavemen to humanity taking their first steps into space. Especially considering the constant pondering on how we could continue to evolve - the first children born in space aging more quickly and the description of how the aliens going from physical bodies, to machines, to incorporeal entities and even affecting our own evolution with their technology. The ending made me a little bit angry because I have yet to purchase the sequel, but it also made me laugh out loud with excitement. I will definitely be reading '2010: Odyssey Two' in the near future.
I loved the ending too. It's clear that humans have been evolving for millions of years. Interesting to think about it largely starting due to aliens and then getting kicked into high gear at the end of the book.It hadn't occurred to me until just now but the ethical implications of their doing so would make an interesting discussion. Star Trek's notion of a Prime Directive makes a great deal of sense because if you influence the course of a species, you can just as easily create its doom as its future.
I loved the ending because it shows that there is none. As far as I am concerned, this is a story about consciousness evolving in and through 3D + time.And yes, I consider myself a realistic mystic.
Don wrote: "I loved the ending too. It's clear that humans have been evolving for millions of years. Interesting to think about it largely starting due to aliens and then getting kicked into high gear at the e..."Ordinarily yes. But this is such an unusual tale that the issue is side-stepped. If someone really wanted to insist that the higher-intelligences were being 'rash' in boosting the brainpower of the hominids in this case; they would probably reply that they deliberately selected a species which was already on the brink of extinction. Humans didn't have good prospects for survival before the monolith appeared.
Great point!Except...what would the criteria be for deciding this? That humans have great prospects but need a break to survive? Some species just aren't viable...
Thank you. Well in the case of these small bands of puny, rag-tag, clawless, fangless, weak, ground-dwelling apes..if they were that 'tenuous' and 'iffy' a bet on long-term survival... meanwhile receiving a brain-enhancement gives them 50,000 years of growth and hardiness...really, can it be gainsaid? How could they come off any worse, even if the experiment goes wrong? Better to have loved and lost..eh? That's 'house-money'! :)
Feliks wrote: "Thank you. Well in the case of these small bands of puny, rag-tag, clawless, fangless, weak, ground-dwelling apes..if they were that 'tenuous' and 'iffy' a bet on long-term survival... meanwhile re..."Granted, I would be supremely grateful to have advanced aliens superevolve me into a space toddler right now. I want to explore the galaxy, damnit!
Feliks wrote: "Thank you. Well in the case of these small bands of puny, rag-tag, clawless, fangless, weak, ground-dwelling apes..if they were that 'tenuous' and 'iffy' a bet on long-term survival... meanwhile re..."Granted, I would be supremely grateful to have advanced aliens superevolve me into a space toddler right now. I want to explore the galaxy, damnit!
Don wrote: "I want to explore the galaxy, damnit! ...."Not me. I want a normal human life which ends buried right here in Mother Earth when done, not floating around somewhere alone in cold, black, empty, limbo.
I never read the book and have seen the movie several times. The ending for me is what makes a rather tawdry tale brilliant. So the ending may not have been what Clarke originally had in mind, but the master of the universe is not either how I interpret it. My take on the ending is that this is the next development in the human species-the one for which we were put on earth. We develop into cosmic beings and the monoliths`s existence was the catalyst.
James wrote: "What do you suppose was the key thing? Consciousness? Language? Memory? ..."Memory
Got any easy questions? Sheesh.Alright I'll bite.
The monolith was a 'conveyance system'. In each of the cases where it appears, it conveys something.
Who made it? Some impossible-to-describe higher intelligence, higher power. Child's play for them to create something like that.
I thought the ending was poorly written, but it was nothing if not consistent with the entire plot of the book, which was about making huge, evolutionary leaps. Bowman's transformation into something greater was really no different than the hominid that picked up the bone and beat another to death with it. He was reflecting on his new state of being and wondering what the next step would be, a very good question for anyone who's just gone through that kind of transformation.
James wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "We develop into cosmic beings and the monoliths`s existence was the catalyst. .."But what is the monolith? And who made it? Or did some species that found it on their own plant ..."
I'm guessing you didn't read the book then? Because that was pretty much spelled out in the novelization of the film. The monoliths are essentially how the First Born get around. They are an ancient species that has been alive for eons and evolved past the need for physical bodies. The ships carry their consciousness throughout the cosmos, and act as sentries and monitors for all their works.
As it says in the novel:
Call them the Firstborn. Though they were not remotely human, they were flesh and blood, and when they looked out across the deeps of space, they felt awe, and wonder— and loneliness. As soon as they possessed the power, they began to seek for fellowship among the stars.
In their explorations, they encountered life in many forms, and watched the workings of evolution on a thousand worlds. They saw how often the first faint sparks of intelligence flickered and died in the cosmic night.
And because, in all the Galaxy, they had found nothing more precious than Mind, they encouraged its dawning everywhere. They became farmers in the fields of stars; they sowed, and sometimes they reaped.
And sometimes, dispassionately, they had to weed.
James wrote: "I read the book, but it has to be at least 20 years ago. I didn't recall anything specific about the monoliths, what they were, what they were made of, or whether they are all the same thing. I am ..."I'll have to take your word on that, though imagine the comparison would make Clarke turn over in his grave. But they are not so much protectors as evolutionary engineers, who seek to promote the creation of intelligence by giving species with potential a chance to flourish.
As for the monoliths themselves, what they are made of, etc. Nobody knows! (insert spooky music here) But According to the other books in the series, Earth scientists did examine the TMA-1, but all they learned was that it was impenetrable, seamless, and made of an unknown material. And they discovered from comparing TMA-1 to the one around Jupiter that all of them, regardless of their size, have the exact same ratio when it comes to their dimensions - 1:4:9, the squares of 1, 2 and 3.
Don wrote: "It hadn't occurred to me until just now but the ethical implications of their doing so would make an interesting discussion. Star Trek's notion of a Prime Directive makes a great deal of sense because if you influence the course of a species, you can just as easily create its doom as its future..."Oh, I think the Prime Directive is a moral issue more along the lines of Hard to Be a God. Humans in the Trek future have not yet accomplished the ability to further a races development as the monolith aliens did.
I really liked it. As others have written it was the next ultimate evolutionary step for humans.
I really liked it too.If some of you guys really want to know how the story was brought together you can check out 'The Lost Worlds of 2001'. Clarke describes how he and Kubrick wrote the film and book, and there are proto-pieces of the novel that never made it into the film or book. The writer's cut so to speak.
James wrote: "Matthew wrote: "I'll have to take your word on that, though imagine the comparison would make Clarke turn over in his grave."I was referring specifically to the last line of the quote you provide..."
In that respect, I suppose they have something in common. But keep in mind, Clarke was far more subtle than the makers of that reboot, which bore no resemblance to the original.
Kevin wrote: "Frankly, this was, for me, a film, not a novel. he novel attempted to make some kind of logical sense of the way the film ended. The film spoke clearly enough for itself, and it remains one of my f..."I agree, and its what I loved about the film. It was intensely visual and esoteric, like most of Kubrick's work. And it captured a sense of emotional intensity, awe and wonder that Clarke never manages to in his work. Somehow, he always seems to think people would be entirely rational about meeting the unknown or undergoing a major transformation, which is never the case!
I'm guessing you didn't read the book then? Matthew, post #24,Matthew
If you had read my previous post (message #19) carefully you would have seen clearly that I had not read the book, because I said exactly that!
I never read the book and have seen the movie several times. (message 19).
At least I wrote that I had never read the book. You read my post but didn`t have the decency to read it carefully. Tut tut. Shame shame. Such carelessness.
Anyway, thank you filling me in on the details. Maybe someday I will read it. Is it the same as CHILDHOOD`S END? Is CHILDHOOD`S END another title to the book, 2001? If so, I read that 40 plus years ago and did not care for it.
Anyway, brings up another point, not literary. Stephen Hawkins has publicly stated we`re making a huge mistake in trying to contact advanced beings in outer space as they will only come and subjugate us. I have given this careful consideration and have arrived at two different conclusions, both predicated that there are millions of planets out there that host intelligent life.
1) Many planets have become destroyed as their most intelligent beings unleashed the atoms awesome powers hundredfold.
This is but the natural development of any advanced race of beings with aggressive, homicidal tendencies similar to our own.
2) With so many galaxies and solar systems vying for visitation entreaties, what would make our puny planet such a tourist attraction? Considering the speed of light can not be surpassed in intergalactic travel what alien race would spend 20 years in a spaceship in cosmic travel to visit us and another 20 to return to their own world?
And why in the world would they want to subjugate us? In human history, subjugation of less developed peoples had the intent of plundering their resources? Why would aliens bother to plunder us and not go to uninhabited planets unencumbred with pesky habitants?
Some elements like oxygen or water might lure them here.I was always in awe of the concept of Aliens in the Independance day movie, they are travelling space and visit planets for its sources, clean the place out and continue. Not because they are evil but because they must or die themselves.
Geoffrey said: 'Why would aliens bother to plunder us and not go to uninhabited planets unencumbred with pesky habitants?'Maybe they want or need a new home and we are the nearest place.
Childhood's End is not 2001. Different novel, but ultimately a similar theme of transcendance.
I was judging the book as a story, assessing it's construction and strength. Not as a cult classic or something that's been turned into an "amazing" movie. I felt that the parts about the monoliths and the cavemen weren't folded in with the rest of the story. As you look back over the book, maybe you can see the significance but I thought it was a poorly constructed story and I'd been hoping for something more compelling. I think the book is often seen through the lens of fandom, and not being a fan I guess I see it differently than most.
RobTrue that´s entirely possible. But then again the question would be wouldn´t they have to live within say a 20 light year radius from here. And why bother come to such a paltry planet? Surely there are larger planets in other solar systems with more room for expansión. And considering our relative dimunitive size in comparison to Saturn and Júpiter, wouldn´t a planet of that size with Earth´s atmosphere be more appropriate for their expansión?
It´s most likely those solar systems closest to our own have beings only slightly more advanced than our own, if there location is further from the center of expansión from the locale of the big bang. And such beings wouldn´t have developed intergalactic travel at this point. Remember as the universo expands, that which is on the periphery is the oldest and would have the most life development, but the distance would be insurmountable for the life time of those beings.
Geoffrey wrote: "Anyway, brings up another point, not literary. Stephen Hawkins has publicly stated we`re making a huge mistake in trying to contact advanced beings in outer space as they will only come and subjuga..."Response to point 2. In truth, the speed of light may be surpassable, according to research at MIT and NASA. In the latter case, they are revisiting the idea of the Alcubierre Drive, which works by contracting and expanding space time around the ship in question, rather than accelerating a ship at all. In the former case, it has been proposed quite convincingly through the examination of black holes and quantum entanglements that wormholes do exist within our universe that allow the transfer of matter instantaneously.
So, making the leap in logic that an advanced race would have discovered these same scientific breakthroughs before us, we can infer with a degree of confidence that they would have the ability to come to our world without terrible effort of expenditure of energy.
Okay, Matthew, so are you getting your survival gear in order, tunnelling a domicile underground, or building a hideaway? And when they come what will their interests be? Will they go straight to Ft. Knox and plumb our gold reserves, (ah Goldfinger, you should have partnered with the aliens) or will they be wáter deficient and land at one of the polar caps with a huge heating device? And again, if it´s minerals they´re after why not just go to a larger planet?Interesting about the speed of light. So we won´t need DUNE WORMS and spice after all
Or perhaps they´ve already visited and the earliest organisms were but the living debris that flaked off their ships. That would have occurred 3.5 billion years ago when their own planet would have been at least twice that age. Nahhhh. That wouldn´t be right either as the living debris would have been more than pre cell critters.
Geoffrey wrote: "Okay, Matthew, so are you getting your survival gear in order, tunnelling a domicile underground, or building a hideaway? And when they come what will their interests be? Will they go straight to F..."Okay, you seem to have confused me with someone who thinks the alien apocalypse is coming. Believing in FTL is an entirely different thing, and does not rule out the Fermi Paradox. While it is possible that aliens might have found ways to circumvent the speed of light, it does not necessitate an alien invasion. Nor does it provide them with a legitimate reason for invading, which of course, you've already covered in spades there.
In fact, that's another theory I wanted to mention which was the idea that post-Singularity civilizations lose interest in expanding into the outward universe because their energies and resources become dedicated to creating things like Matrioshka Brains and Dyson Spheres in their own systems. In fact, we kind of assume that a high level of technical development will lead to interstellar travel, never realizing that everything we need to build a highly-advanced society without want is right right in our own backyards.
Susie wrote: ""Then he waited, marshaling his thoughts and brooding over his still untested powers. For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure of what to do next.But he would think of somethi..."
Well did you read the chapter explaining how the creators evolved from beings like us into beings of pure energy? The ending shows that they found a way to expedite the process.
This thread has devolved into gibberish. Nothing is more painfully mawkish than listening to people talk 'theoretical'. Reminder: we're a species of clumsy incompetents who can't even keep our space shuttles from exploding. We're not going anywhere.
Feliks wrote: "This thread has devolved into gibberish. Nothing is more painfully mawkish than listening to people talk 'theoretical'. Reminder: we're a species of clumsy incompetents who can't even keep our spac..."Actually, there is something worse. Namely, listening to a person thoughtlessly dismiss thoughtful and relevant discussion about a novel and speculation about the future as mere "gibberish". Especially when its based on nothing more than arrogance parading around as cynicism and misanthropy.
And you seem to forget how we successfully put several members of our species on the Moon, countless satellites into orbit, multiple rovers on Mars, or orbiters and satellites in the outer Solar System, not to mention cataloging thousands of potentially habitable planets beyond our own. Yeah, "clumsy incompetents" indeed!
Not at all! This book and it's ending blew my mind like 5 times. I didn't like the movie though.
I first saw this movie on its initial release in the UK in 1968 and upon leaving the cinema in a state of shock and awe, searched the town on foot for hours for a copy of the novel to help me understand what I had just experienced.“Then he [The Star Child] waited, marshaling his thoughts and brooding over his still untested powers. For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next. But he would think of something.”
I thought the movie was beautiful and way ahead of it's time, but I read the book first and as far as storytelling, details and explanations, the movie didn't hold a candle (for my taste).
I think there's something to be said for the end of the book being if not weak, then certainly the product of a particular kind of thinking. That is, Clarke was a believer. He believed in the ultimate moral value of science and technological advance in and of itself. Where HAL is the villain of 2001: A Space Odyssey he later reveals that his (its?) actions are the product of faulty and immoral human instructions. The logic being that a creature of more or less pure intellect that is the product of technological progress must have moral values equivalent to its intelligence, and that only the secretive, political machinations of its masters could have lead to it acting out so dramatically. In keeping with that theme, beings of advanced technology are equally more advanced in moral terms, to the point that they are, essentially, angelic beings of energy (rather than spirit) who lay out a path for humanity to follow in order to ascend into a like state of scientific/spiritual bliss.Hawkings is less idealistic. He recognizes science and technology as morally neutral forces. Certainly many good things come from the process of advancement, and we are surely better off as a species for that progress, but technology itself has no actual moral value, and moral values are not developed along with technology. There is no reason to assume that a more advanced culture would be a more moral one, or that we would even recognize their morals as comparable to our own, or that they would even recognize us as intelligent and capable of development.
In that sense, the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey is somewhat naive, if idealistic, wish fulfillment. It's not necessary for the ascended Bowman to have a plan, because we know, through Clarke, that he (dare I say "He?") is not only technologically advanced, but morally advanced. By the end of the book, we are supposed to have faith that that is the case.
Feliks wrote: "This thread has devolved into gibberish. Nothing is more painfully mawkish than listening to people talk 'theoretical'. Reminder: we're a species of clumsy incompetents who can't even keep our spac..."Feliks
It`s called exercising our imagination and it`s a viable human activity. Up with CONJECTURE POWER. Down with regurgitated Communism.
I didn't think the ending was lame but I'd sure be let down if that was my fate. All that living, learning and traveling has brought me here!? No thanks.
Matthew wrote: "Actually, there is something worse. Namely, listening to a person thoughtlessly ..."Thoughtlessly? It doesn't take much deliberation to see hooey for what it is. Its really a sin to waste time with trifles and balderdash, wouldn't you agree? I'm sure your time is precious to you as well; I'm sure there's products and past-times you no longer bother yourself with because they're childish to you. Right? So I guess we're just arguing about whether "SyFy" belongs in this category as I say it does.
Matthew wrote: "dismiss thoughtful and relevant discussion about a novel and speculation about the future as mere "gibberish"..."
Maybe my remarks are painful to you--because you're caught on the wrong side of the divide--but down throughout history there's always been more pain suffered among the sober, mature, thinking public than the minority in society who helplessly cling to daydreams of:
~little-green men
~marsh gas
~UFOs
~clairvoyance
~automatic-writing
~crystals
~ESP
~the lost city of Atlantis
~magnetic weight-loss belts
~Captain Video and his Video Rangers
~tribbles
~darleks
~lightsabers
~string-theory
^^^The whole sappy admixture of pseudo-science and wishful-thinking which denotes the silly and the flaky.
Hey, if you don't believe me, check out back-issues of the magazine 'Popular Science' to see just how relevant the 'thoughtful speculation' you praise, has ever been. Science has always been dominated by the hare-brained and the wild-eyed. As well as, the outright deadly.
Matthew wrote: "Especially when its based on nothing more than arrogance parading around as cynicism and misanthropy..."
If so, then you have to level that accusation at many generations of readers. As far as the novel is concerned, the truth is--for decades--'sci-Fi' wasn't even used for wrapping fish or lining bird cages. It was simply thrown in the trash. So that's a lot of people who were 'arrogant, cynical and misanthropic'.
I suggest that the most significant aspect of Arthur Clarke's '2001' is really its spiritual message. Everything else in it could be said to be rather childish.
I've read all the Arthur C. Clarke novels.Regarding 2001 - Clarke says in the forward (at least in the edition I read) that Kubrick had no idea or interest what the ending meant- it was all aesthetic.
During the day Clarke worked on the screenplay and at night he wrote the novel version. The novel does explain what is going on (this is only Clarke's explanation though- not Kubrik's) as do the subsequent novels (3001: The Final Odyssey wraps it all up). When I read this I was so p***d off- I'd watched the movie so many times trying to work out what the hell was happening. The more I learn about Stanley Kubrik the less I like him as a person.
Ok, my rambles over
James
Jimbomcc69
http://jimbomcc.wix.com/jimbostories
Feliks wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Actually, there is something worse. Namely, listening to a person thoughtlessly ..."Thoughtlessly? It doesn't take much deliberation to see hooey for what it is. Its really a sin..."
Wow, you're still here? That's hardly your MO, which is to hurl insults and then disappear. And you're remarks are hardly painful, mainly because the so called "divide" you've established is meaningless. This forum is and always has been dedicated to the discussion of the ending of the story, which was all about transcendence, evolution, and making contact with a higher intelligence. Only you would be so arrogant as to assume its gone downhill in your absence.
Because really, that's the only difference between what was being said when you were participating in this forum and when you came back to troll it. As always, the conversation is about the very themes you claimed you thought were at work in the story, the ones that transcended the so-called "paltry spaceship accident/mystery." So really, you drawing a line between your comments and what others have to offer here - and comparing them to pulp sci-fi and equating it with the general dumbing down of standards - are an entirely transparent attempt on your part to once again be a shit disturber.
And fyi, comparing String Theory to Daleks, tribbles and ESP, really doesn't help your case. The majority of theoretical physicists - including Stephen Hawking, Edward Witten, and Juan Maldacena - believe it is the only sound theory that resolves how relativity and quantum theory can coexist, and hence the key to finding a Grand Unifying Theory. If you're going to make the pretense of knowing the difference between respectable science fiction and pulp, you might want to do your homework.
Geoffrey wrote: "Feliks wrote: "This thread has devolved into gibberish. Nothing is more painfully mawkish than listening to people talk 'theoretical'. Reminder: we're a species of clumsy incompetents who can't eve..."Don't mind him. He does in this every thread and forum he visits. It's how he gets his jollies, no doubt. It's also hilarious he could talk about standards when in one forum (about OSC and his homophobia) his only remarks were "You Mad Bro?" In another, he called someone vapid for saying "the new rich" instead of "nouveau riches".
Basically, he gravitates between talking like a twelve-year old gamer and an elitist snob. Anything to get a reaction, really.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
2001: A Space Odyssey (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Hard to Be a God (other topics)2001: A Space Odyssey (other topics)
