Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 18:09:10 -0500
From: [Name removed at user's request]
I have always believed that the monolith, in its lack of apparent use,
its blackness, and its indestructibility represented for the early
man-ape their(our) first comprehension of mortality, or more accurately
death. The monolith is the symbol of the abysmal. The use of tools and
the advantages which they bring in providing for self-preservation are
reactions to that awareness of death. For mortals, when they become
aware of their mortality, mere survival is not enough. Humankind are
continually trying to use their technology to protect themselves both
negatively (clubbing another ape over the head) and positively using
technology to improve their condition. It seems to me that all of our
activities as humans (whether they are wars, economics, grand projects
which strive for the creation of something meaningful and enduring or
simply entertainment)are attempts to deny or delay the inevitable
re-confrontation with the abyss -death.
I have never read Clarke but have seen Kubrick's interpretation several
On the other hand, I like your use of the question of technology and
what it means for our species to be defined by the quest to make a world
of abundant things and objects rather than live naturally -- in
What do you think?
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:27:39 -0800
From: "Ana Paula G. M. Leite" [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Hi! My name is Ana Paula, I'm from Brazil and I have just read
your essay on 2001 - A Space Odissey. I'm a great sci-fi fan - literature
and movies, and Arthur Clarke is one of my favorite authors, since I've
read a few books by him and enjoy his style, his opinions about Man and
the Universe very much. I read the novel 2001, and I watched the movie
a`dozen times. But when 2010 was released, I have to confess I liked it
better than 2001 - the conflicts, the (possible) explanations it gave to
the astounding questions of 2001, concerning the plot; and the images and
effects it contained. The ending of the film, when Jupiter turns into a
new sun, and the final message sent by the Aliens through Dave and Hal
("All these worlds are yours, except Europa. Use them together. Use them
in peace), and Dr. Floyd talking to his son about what had just
happened and the warning (we are not the owners of our planet, we just
live here, and we had been given another chance). To me, that was one of
the most beautiful scenes ever done, and it explained a lot about being
human and understanding that we live on a wonderful planet, and we are
not here by mere chance. But when I read your comments on 2010, I
realized that I had never seen the story through this point of view. It
made me think, and I would like to read the novel to make my own
conclusions. Of course, the birth of a new star so close to Earth would
have a terrible effect on the surface of the planet. When you say that
2010 is not a sequel to 2001, I still have to read the novel to see if I
have an opinion. By the way, I read 2061-Odissey Three, and I think this
one doesn't have much - if any - to do with the original story, except
the fact that the characters mentioned in the novel are the same. What do
Well, thanks for reading my message. Send me an e-mail if you
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 18:36:39 +1000
From: rex bellator [email@example.com]
Major Bruce Miller says about your essay;
And your point about no sound in a vacuum....I have not seen another
space-based movie get that law of nature right, including Apollo 13! And
I can't understand why. Its such a simple point to get right...just shut
the sound off of the sound track when the camera is in space!
He false assumes that the camera is somehow a single "sense point" of
the viewer which is the same as the point-of-audition. A false
assumption; there is no --law of nature-- that says the audition point
has to be the same as the viewer's viewpoint (ie the camera) -- it's
just Standard Hollywood Convention, nothing more. If it were true you'd
have to equally complain about external shots of characters whilst
hearing their thoughts!
As for over-interpreting the film; perhaps it's not MEANT to have a
"meaning"; after all, sometimes a cigar, is a cigar. All the interaction
between HAL and crew might just be standard filmic tension-building. For
an interesting perspective on this there is an essay on "Full Metal
Jacket" in the book "Incorporations". Kubrick himself says of FMJ that
he is "trying to explode the narrative film" (the middle bit after the
shooting at Parris Island), 2001's structure can be read in this light
too, instead of injecting every last item in every scene with some
supernatural and overreaching mystical "meaning".
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 16:42:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Todd Mackay Rosie [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Hey there Modemac(if that is indeed your real name),
My names Todd and I go to university up in northern B.C., Canada. I
truly enjoyed your essay, and in fact have printed it off keep it at
home. Anyway the one point I wanted to discuss was your interprestation
of the ending. The scene I wanted to talk about was the one where Dave
arrives in the "room". My interpretation is that Dave did see himself
when he looked out the window of the craft. My interpretation that Dave
is in fact in the process of becoming a being of pure spirit or engergy,
something beyond humanity, something as incomprehensable to us as we are
to apes. In a film which revels in showing us every detail of the
events taking place, why leave out Dave exiting the pod? No, I believe
that Dave did not leave the pod, instead he "thought" himself out,
something so startling to the human mind that he percieved it as seeing
himself. However it is and older him as he has aged perceptiably. He is
now acting on subliminal impulses, he moves around, in this strange
environment, perhaps wondering how long he has to stay there,then sees
another man, again he "jumps". What I believe is happening is a
progressive ability to move through the mind and not the body, and as
this reaches its end, with the death of his body , he is reborn through
the support of the monolith, as pure mind, or whatever is beyond us.
Anyway just a thought, thanks for the web page on the only film I
have ever seen which feels like a spiritual event. Any thoughts email me
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 97 16:35:22
GREAT JOB! 2010 EXPLAINS HALS MALFUNCTION CLEARLY( HIS ATTEMP TO INTERPETE
CONFLICTING ORDERS). EVERYTHING ELSEIS EASY TO FOLLOW UNTIL THE END. I THINK
THE LIGHT SHOW IS AS YOU SAID. HOW DO YOU SHOW THE UNSHOWABLE OR INEXPLAINABLE
. THE EARTH LANDSCAPES IN DIFFERENT COLORS ARE MAYBE TO SHOW HOW THE MONOLITH
HAS AFFECTED EARTH-LIFE. IF YOU WATCH THE LETTER BOXED VERSION(AS ALL MOVIES
SHOULD BE WATCHED) YOU CAN SEE AN ALIEN FACE IN THE SCENE JUST BEFOR ETHE
5(I THINK ITS 5)FLOATING DIAMONDS APPEAR.MAYBE NOT.I THING THE ROOM IS HIM
IN FAMILIAR SURROUNDINGS AT ITS SIMPLEST FORM-CHAIRS,TABLES A BED.I THINK
THE BROKEN GLASS GOES BACK TO HUMAN ERROR.PEOPLE HAVE SAID JUST BEFORE DEATH
THAT THEYVE LOST ALL FEAR, SEE WITH TRUE CLARITY AND EVEN ENLIGHTENMENT.
ONLY WHEN DAVE OVERCOMES HIS FEARS AND LETS GO OF HIS ATTACHMENTS IS HE REDY
TO REACH OUT AND EVOLVE.I THINK THATS WHATS MEEANT BY THE "LOOKING BACK"
SCENE. THE MONOLITH IS CHANGE OR THE NEXT STEP. I DONT THINK ALL THIS REALLY
NS, ITS IN DAVES MIND. BY THE WAY, I JUST HEARD KUBRICK IS PLANNING ON
MAKING A MOVIE CALLED A.I.(ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE) TO BE RELEASED IN 2001.
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 09:25:41 -0800
From: David Garvin [email@example.com]
I just recently watched 2001 with a friend, and she and I were
discussing the film, and several points as to its meaning. Then,
yesterday, I found your website, with the essay, and I was overwhelmed
by the amount of similarity that you, my friend Christina and I share in
respect to our collective take on the film.
I just had one question for you. It concerns the sequence immedietely
before Hal states that the AE-35 unit will fail. Upon being probed as
to the rumours surrounding the mission, David asks Hal if he is doing
his crew psychological report. There is a deafening silence, until Hal
unconvincingly says, "Yes. That's is exactly." Given that Hal is a
computer, with immediate responses to everything put to him before, this
pregnant pause may have seem like a lifetime to the computer. He most
undoubtedly went through a thousand algorithms, trying to find a good
lie to tell David. Of course, he was not programmed to lie, and he was
also programmed to not tell them of the mission's proper intent.
Perhaps this was indication that Hal was in a state of confusion over
how to deal with the matter. From the time David asks him the question,
to the time he answers, perhaps he, for the first time in his existence,
tells a lie. He covers it with another lie, and then falls down the
slippery slope to the point of no return. He avoids David's question by
giving him something bigger to think about. (The failure of the AE-35
Unit). Of course, there is nothing wrong with it, so he has to further
lie, and try to hide his mistakes. He finally tries to hide his error
by killing the crew of the Discovery.
This is my take of that seemingly innocent pause in answer to David's
question. Perhaps it is nothing more than reading something that is not
there, but that is how I see it.
Thank you for such an excellent site. I wish you all the best, and I
will recommend this site to my friend, Christina.
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 11:44:14 +0000
From: John S Goodson [Goods@fdt.net]
I've read your "Dawn of Man" synopsis from 2001. It is quite accurate.
However, there is one more point about the "Moon-Watcher" that was
overlooked. When the rival chief comes to attack "Moon-Watcher" at the
pond the second time, not only does "Moon-Watcher" have the tool to kill
his foe, but you will notice that he STANDS OVER HIS OPPONENT! He has
begun to walk upright, on two legs not with the use of his arms like the
other primates. This clearly is also to show human evolution.
Like you, 2001 is one of my all-time favorite movies. It is the most
accurate space movie ever made. "Slow and Silent" that is space! I am a
graphic designer, and as a designer, I clearly see the use of this
element in the movie. There is an overwhelming feel of early IBM
throughout this picture. (IBM actually backed this picture until they
found out the computer would malfunction). However, the reason I say
that is because, The IBM logo and much of the early corporate design was
done by none other than Paul Rand, one of the most well known and
celebrated Graphic Designers of this century. He also taught at Yale
One of the things that agrivate me most is that many people do not
understand and appreciate this movie, I often find myself having to
explain it to them. I'm glad to see someone else shares my feelings on
this and has actually devoted a web site to this end. By the way I read
in "Wired" that Arthur C. Clarke is righting yet another book call "3001
The Final Odyssey" but I am looking for more info, can you shed any
light on that? I'll be back later to finish reading all the rest of your
pages, until then...
Thanks, and take care
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:25:27 -0800
From: byron dipaolo [firstname.lastname@example.org]
I have first watched the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey this past summer.
It was on television again recently. I was very much impressed with the
direction of this film. It is impressive that a movie can leave such a
compelling image in one's mind- when there was hardly any speaking during
it. As a teacher, I have asked my students to watch the movie and write
their impressions on it as part of a journal entry (I teach science;
right now, we are studying machines). I was very interested to read your
critique of the film. Because I have not read the book, I believed, like
you, that man was losing his emotions and was turning more into a machine
(consider our society today- nothing shocks us anymore). This was
particularly evident to me in the scene where Dave is talking to his wife
and child. There didn't seem to be a lot of feeling in his conversation
with his daughter; much more was felt on her part. I also believed that
the monoliths represented some kind of creating force; eventually, I
thought that their creation (man) did not turn out as they liked. Man's
creations were not perfect and did not foster a sense of brotherhood
(like maybe they'd hoped). I felt that the end of the movie showed Dave
going back in time to the early stages of the universe and I thought that
we were watching the evolution of our own planet, from its hot beginnings
to the time when waters covered it. I thought that maybe that creating
force was giving man a "second" chance (now that Dave understood that the
sole meaning and purpose in his life lay not in technology but in his own
humanity. Well, thanks for your opinion; it makes a lot of sense when
you relate Kubrick's and Clarke's ideas and perspectives!
West Chester, PA
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:39:06 -0500 (EST)
MODEMAC and readers of the site -
WOW, Thanks for the inciteful comments, I do mostly agree with you, and I
belive I have some plausible explanations of a few points I differ with you
on. I don't think Heywood Floyd is lying....In 2010 it is explained that the
"lie to the astronauts" directive came from the White House, In his
"briefing" in HAL's memory center, in 2001, Floyd says that the information
was only known on board to your HAL 9000 computer, he never says that the
info was KEPT from them, I belive while Floyd advcated not informing them,
the White House specifically instructed the computer to LIE to them about the
monolith. In 2010, Dr. Chandra says one of HAL's main duties is to serve and
help the crew members, and not to misconstrue information, and so these
directives weree in opposition to one another. As HAL wants to be "friends"or
at least a good companion, he doesn't want to lie, and just before the AE-35
fault prediction, he talks of "strange rumours, just before we left, about
something being dug up on the moon" indicating the failure of the cover story
after an extended period, and HAL trying his best to interpret the
conflicting demands, he says he "gave these rumours no creedence" which is
obiously false, as we later learn that he had known about the monolith all
along, I simply believe that that was the best way HAL could concieve to
fufill his programming, when that failed - "you're working up your crew
psychology report" told him that Dave wasn't going to pick up on his clues,
or even continue that line of conversation, he 'lost it' and went 'psycho'
(not an elegant way of putting it....but quick), as to the final report from
Floyd in the memory center, I think that possibly messages will play
wherever the crew is detected to be. i.e. if Dave had been in the toilet, the
massage would have played there, or possibly all messages played at all
terminals, therefore, when we saw the messages, we weren't seeing everywhere
that they were playing. Also, for some in the messages that weren't clear on
this point, the buried monolith is as the essay says a "burglar alarm".
Remember that before they dug down to it, it was emitting stong magnetic
signals, it was meant to be found. TMA-1 was merely a progress marker,
showing that we had progressed to space travel. The reason we see the sun
over it is that whenever it is uncovered, the sunlight (black ABSORBS solar
energy) triggers the monolith and reports to the Jupiter monolith (which we
may assume reports to the "Aliens") by a single Radio burst, powered by the
IN DEFENSE OF 2010
I like 2010. It is based on the ARTHUR C. CLARKE novel, therefore, we cannot
blame Peter Hyams for the progression of the plot. Anytime in that movie you
feel they are trying to "explain" 2001, (I disagree that most of the film is
spent "explaining", it's just a part of a sequel, to refer back to the
original material!) it is ARTHUR CLARKE'S EXPLANATION, I feel the person that
came up with it ought to be given a little leeway when explaining HIS OWN
IDEAS (they were Clarke's as much as Kubrick's, though most forget or ignore
this.). We must also realize that in most respects 2001 is an ART film, and
2010 is a COMMERCIAL film, two entirely different animals. An ART film is
made for itself, to be beautiful and to be whatever the artist intends. a
COMMERCIAL film is made to MAKE MONEY. I think both do an excellent job of
experessing the ideas within the constraints of thier respective forms.
There are even several points in the film, where 2010 reaches out to the
level of the art film...the sequence withe Dave Bowman warning Floyd, is a
highlight, and an excellent way to express Bowman's new existance
cinematically, also the final sequance, parallells the "dawn of man"
sequence, it could be called the "dawn of the Europans" the "Aliens" as you
call them, as explained in the series, covet only one
thing - mind, or intelligence and they do whatever they can to encourge its
growth all over the universe, I think of the monolith as the flint that
sparked man's intelligence, and the monolith at the end of 2010 is doing the
same for the Europans, a presumably amphibian race. Also implicit, but
explicit in the novel, is that Dave Bowman is now the caretaker of the nev
Europan race, and along with the Europan monolith, keeps man from visiting
Europa. An interesting thing to note for those that haven't read the series
of novels (Expanding in March 1997 with the release of 3001) by the end of
2061, HAL and Floyd are both of the starchild race, HAL having joined when
the Discovery was incinerated by Lucifer (the sun created from Jupiter) and
Floyd by the end of 2061.
I hope that these comments add to the bouniful wealth of your site, should
you choose to post them, as I give you permission to do, please respond at
Thank You -
Ted Wilkinson (MovieTed@AOL.com)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 19:56:13 -0500 (EST)
I found your essay very informative and interesting. You obviously have some
kind of English background. Do you work for Coles Notes?
I have interested in 2001 ever since first seeing the movie. I don't remember
when exactly, but seeing as how I was born in 1974, it was probably on TV or
possibly video. I love the movie and seeing it again on Detroit PBS last
night revived my interest.
I read the novels of 2001 and 2010 (2061 was too boring). They provided me
with more insight into the plotline than a film can demonstrate. It all
seemed to make sense until I saw the movie again. I guess my explanation
was so complicated that I can't remember it. It is interesting how you point
out the differences between the novel and the film. I was of the
understanding that the film and the novel were written concurrently. From
what I've read now, it seems like Kubrick read the short story "The Sentinel"
from 1950 and approached Clarke to collaborate on the movie. I guess that
Clarke decided to expand on the novel after the movie was made.
The novel and the film defenitely stand on their own. The film is gloriously
intriguing and mysterious. Kubrick proves himself a subtle director with an
incredible vision. I'd love to see more of his films. The Shining is the
only other one I've seen so far. Unfortunately, without narrative the film
can be a little too much razzle dazzle and not enough meaning, unless you're
willing to spend the effort to uncover the symbolism. The book provides a
more academic look at the themes with a good narrative. I read it after
seeing the movie, so possibly I was only interested in guidance which the
Questions And Comments:
1 Isn't that Frank jogging and boxing?
2 Your explanation of HAL's malfunction stills confuses me. HAL's prime
directive is the success of the mission. Unfortunately his ego forces him to
ignore his own malfunction, kill the crew and continue the mission alone.
What is the mission exactly? Can HAL perform it alone? What if he
malfunctions? My understanding is that the crew is simply trying to discover
the receiver of the radio signal from the Monolith. How could HAL make the
trip through the Monolith? How would Ground Control react to news from HAL
that the crew were dead? Would they still be interested in HAL's report from
Jupiter. How does enticing the crew to discover the truth about the Monolith
help HAL. Does he want them to continue the mission without him? Does he want
the mission to be cancelled? Will it be cancelled if he is found to be
malfunctioning? (I thought they said that they could finish the mission with
a HAL on the Earth?) Is he feeling guilty about keeping secrets from the
OK these questions are going nowhere. I will attempt to summarize the
situation as I see and read it. Let me know what you think.
HAL is going to malfunction. He wants to satisfy two needs. One, the
mission must succeed. Two, he will not allow himself to be deactivated
(killed). Option one, kill the crew and finish the mission, malfunction or
not. Option two, force the crew to deactivate him and give them the relevant
information to continue the mission. HAL figures being deactivated for
insanity is better than being deactivated for error. By giving them the
appropriate information they may finish the mission without the HAL on earth.
HAL might be jealous of another computer taking over his mission (hence the
deactivation of the communication antenna module).
I like the ambivalence of the symbolism of the movie. But the book
(had) satisfied my need for basic motivations and explanations for minute
detail. I can accept any broad explanation for the last sequence of the
movie, but HAL's motivations are important to my acceptance of the plot.
I don't need to know why aliens left the Monolith or took Dave on a cool
roller coaster ride, but I do need to know why HAL did what he did.
3 An important point you might want to add to your essay to emphasize
HAL's control of the ship. When HAL is asking Dave the "personal question",
Dave asks if he preparing his psychological report. This is a small point,
but it demonstrates how HAL controls almost every aspect of the mission.
4 You sound like you know a lot about 2001. The original movie had 20
minutes more in it. Have you ever heard of this version being released after
Hope to hear from you
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:38:20 -0400
From: Alan King [email@example.com]
Wicked 2001 site! I've seen the film many times, and was encouraged
to look it up on the web after having seen it again this past weekend on
PBS. A more incredible film I've yet to see made, and what has always
amazed me about it is Kubrick's incredible vision to have made such a
film, as scientifically accurate and yet beautiful at the same time.
But I digress... I did have a couple of points;
1) Regarding the playing of Dr. Floyd's message to Bowman immediately
following HAL's disconnect, my assumption (and I do stress 'assumption')
has always been that there was most likely some contingency in place to
ensure that message was played to the crew in the event of a HAL
shutdown, perhaps using a backup computer who's only function was to
monitor HAL's operational status, and upon finding HAL 'off', playing
the message. After all it would be a considerable waste of time and
resources if after all the pains taken on this mission, were HAL to fail
and not play the message, the crew would never know what it was all
about. It makes sense that this would be the case. The fact that
almost immediately after HAL bites the dust, the message comes on
screen, tends to support this idea. It's obviously a stock message that
HAL would have played anyway, but triggered in the event of HAL's
shutdown. That's my guess. A friend had an idea that the message was
set to autoplay as soon as they were in "Jupiter space", which sort of
works if you overlook the incredible coincidence of when the message
2) Right after this, when Bowman hops on board a pod and leaves
Discovery, my guess here is that he was going back out to retrieve
Poole's body again, which he had to discard earlier during his attempt
to re-enter the ship. There is nothing to indicate that he was aware of
the monolith's presence prior to his leaving the ship (he knew there was
something there, from Dr. Floyd's message, and perhaps he looked around
first.. but this seems unlikely to me), and there certainly wouldn't be
any other reason for him to leave the ship. Once he gets out there, he
spots the monolith, and et cetera happens.
3) There is an inconsistency in the film which has always bothered me.
Once the determination is made that there is nothing wrong with the
'defective' AE-35 unit, why is it that Poole and Bowman make the
decision to EVA again and put it back in? I know HAL suggests this
course of action, but it would seem to me that they would likely not do
this, as they are already suspicious of HAL at this point. When the unit
was removed initially, it was obviously replaced by another working unit
(we clearly see Dave bring a replacement to the antenna), and it works
fine, as evidenced by the communication with Mission Control. So why
risk another EVA, especially when they aren't sure HAL's working
properly, when they have a fully functioning AE-35 in place? This has
never made sense to me. The argument could be made that EVAs were so
commonplace on this mission that they wouldn't give it a second thought,
but the circumstances are no longer commonplace at this point in the
Now some thoughts;
1) I don't think that the monolith plants the thought of using the
bones as weapons into Moonwatcher's mind; instead I think that the
monolith somehow enables Moonwatcher to come up with the idea on his
own. Sort of expands his consciousness, so to speak.
2) I don't think we were ever meant to understand the ending, I would
guess that Kubrick himself probably didn't at the time. Which is good,
of course. The only observation I have from it is the whole idea of
Dave aging and then reverting to the embryo suggests to me that time is
a variable concept in his new place, and he can pop from one level to
another quite easily. 2010 tends to support this idea (which sucked,
btw.. and if they ever make a movie of 2061, it will be a sign of the
Well that's about it. Once while watching with a friend, near the
scene in the end sequence where the diamond shaped objects are hovering
above the 'planet', my friend yells out.. "hey! those are the ships
from Close Encounters!". Hmm... some people just don't get it. =)
Last point... could Kubrick have picked a better voice than Douglas
Rain's for HAL? Not possible.. I loved him in the film, and his
contribution to 2010 was that film's only redeeming feature. I could
listen to him all day. (My email program notifies me of new mail with
HAL's quote "There is a message for you".) Do you suppose he ever got
tired of being asked to say "I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that" at
Thanks, and again, great site! =)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 07:55:29 -0600
From: Jim Lewandowski [firstname.lastname@example.org]
I am 35 now and saw 2001 when I was 7 or so. The most dramatic thing I
remember from the movie was the "big black lead door" (monolith). I wonder
if anyone else who saw 2001 at a very young age was "disturbed" by what they
saw and could not digest. I have only seen 2001 once as an adult and I was
flipping to other shows while I was watching it. I consider myself a very
aware and through provoking person. However, I just didn't get much of the
movie (actually it's kind of depressing that I didn't take the time through
move viewings, etc. to "read between the lines" with the brilliance you have
shown). I must give a ton of credit to Clark and Kubrick on how "advanced"
and deeply philosophical this movie is for the late 60's.
We will the there are species of creation that have created machines that
surpass them in many respects. A machine can create other more advanced
machines because machines are not bound by Darwinian evolution or biology or
understaning of DNA, etc. From my reading and contemplating the universe,
I have come to understand the following to be evolution of creations within
the complete original Creation (I hope this relates to 2001 et. al.):
1st density - earth wind fire water
2nd density - living reproducing (sexual or asexual) creatures that are
"autonomous" and instinctual
3rd density - creatures that "understand" they are alive and ponder the
universe (humans, dophins, and whales) with various 2nd density creatures
(dogs, cats, trees, etc.) that will begin to encroach on 3rd density
thinking which will propel them to incarnate into a 3rd density creature
upon their physical death (one of my dogs when she is outside will actually
look up at the stars and trees and planes whereas most dogs think the world
only exists below knee level leaving me to believe she will become 3rd
density). 3rd density creatures' only purpose for existence is to decide
whether to serve others or themselves.
4th density - a social memory conscious collection of previously 3rd density
creatures who can now experience true love because they know what everyone
else is thinking (if I know you are thinking you don't love me when you SAY
you love me causes me not to bestow true love upon you).
5th density - creatures that use wisdom to manage their true love capability
6th density - ?
7th density - ?
Upon "graduation" from 7th density, the social memory complex achieves
infinite mass upon approaching the speed of light causing a black hole to be
formed upon which "they" go on to other levels of existence.
Each level of density corresponds to the colors of light when shown through a
Basically, the ape-man that "thinks" and makes a bone a tool, is spiritually
evolving from 2nd to 3rd density. I've always been curious as to how an
"original" thought occurs. You are born with brain material with neurons,
chemical reactions, etc. How can your brain store x pieces of information
and produce a new "original" piece of information. I believe that because
the whole universe is "the Creator" and the Creator contains all the thought
possible, you are just incorporating one of the Creator's original thoughts
into your brain. When you serve others, because we are all "part of the
Creator" you are really serving yourself.
I believe, in some part, that 2001 provokes unanswerable questions because
if we understand all the ramifications of spiritual evolution we will be
"equal" to the Creator or will actually recombine with the Creator and become
Feel free to use these comments (unless they are too nebulous re: 2001) on
your excellent Web site. P.S. This is my first week on the internet. I am
thankful you are serving a very valuable purpose to other "thinkers".
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:04:10 -0600
From: raver [email@example.com]
While in the Navy, I worked closely with NASA in Spain. There are three
alternate landing sites in Southern Europe (2 Spain, 1 Africa), and they
require weather checks prior to a shuttle launch. We flew with an
astronaut each time, who would check weather and get a feel for the
strip in case an emergency landing ever arose. We would have direct
contact with Houston and enjoyed hearing everything live... neat to see
off T.V.. Anyway, I had been watching 2001 the night before a launch and
started talking to the astronaut. I've forgotten his name now, but he
was a decent talkative guy. Back to the point... I asked him what his
thoughts on the movie were, and what he thought it all meant. This guy
IS a spacefarer, no?? As I sat there waiting for some kind of educated
description of his thoughts... He told me he remembered seeing it the
theaters... parts of it, at least, because he fell asleep.
While we're on the subject, I'll tell you another little story. We flew
up on a different launch and entered the briefing cubbyhole... There I
found the astronaut... with a portable amplifier... for his electric
guitar... next to a surf board he brought... classic, huh? Too bad there
wasn't anywhere he could surf... within 300 miles.
All of this... and I am only 24...
From: "Stephen Anderson" [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 02:42:10 -0700
Hi there fellow 2001 fan...
Please do not take offense from the follow comments, but I felt I must
correct you on a couple of issues regarding your critic of 2010.
Kubrick's painstaking care to create a "realistic" environment was lost
in 2010. Spaceships "whooshed" through outer space, in the same manner of
the ships in Star Wars.
While you are obviously correct in that there were (unrealistically) sound
effects in open space in 2010; I would never go so far as to compare it to
Star Wars (a fine film in it's own right, but no 2001). The occasional
retro-rocket "whoosh" is not exactly the same thing as an X-Wing fighter
behaving like a WWII Spitfire in space.
The astronauts walked around in zero-G conditions as if they were back on
Not true. The Lenenov had a rotating mid-section where the crew spent most
of it's time... if you believe the Discovery's carousel could create
artificial gravity then you must forgive this as well. When the crew was
in a non-gravity area (like the pod launch bay) then you see examples of
0-g... (a Cosmonaut is seen walking on the wall in the background, while
Velcro-shoes keep everyone else in place).
scientific error of all may be this: When a new star is created and our
solar system has two suns instead of one, wouldn't this have a disastrous
effect on Earth's ecosystem? The enormous energies put out by a second
sun would almost certainly lay waste to our planet, as it would raise the
temperature of the atmosphere considerably, obliterate its fragile layers,
and even affect the orbit of the Earth as its gravitational pull changes the
course of the solar system.
While I agree/disagree with some/most of that... I think it is unfair to
criticize Peter Hyams' in one area and then not mention that the well
known/loved Science Fiction writer (and author of 2001: A Space Odyssey)
Arthur C. Clarke that wrote the book that the movie 2010 was based on and
thus this major technical error is his fault not Peter's.
movie by Roy Scheider) replies: "Those sons of bitches. I didn't know...I
didn't know!" But if Dr. Floyd is to believed in 2001, then he DID know
about HAL's deception. Not only did he lie to the Soviet scientists who
questioned him about the "epidemic" at the Clavius moonbase, but he even
stated openly that he was fully aware of the secrecy behind the true
purpose of the Discovery mission. In his final message
I believe you simply misunderstood this passage in the movie. Floyd was
not suggesting that *he* didn't know anything about the Monothith. His
comment before is the key... "I didn't authorize anyone to tell HAL about
the monolith". Just because other people in upper government did, does not
make Floyd responsible. If we can believe that Presidents are sometimes
not be fully informed in the real world (i.e.. Bay-of-Pigs, Iran-Contra,
FBI File-Gate) then one must believe that a even a senior official such as
Dr. Floyd can be "out of the loop".
The sequel reduces him to the level of an innocent "Hollywood Good
Guy," when in the original film he is much closer to a "real-life" human
I strongly disagree. I think 2010 makes Floyd *human*... the scenes with
his son and his wife are character building and make him into a real
person. As I'm sure you know that there were scenes cut from 2001 at the
Clavius moonbase involving the inhabitant's children... (and while I have
no kids myself) I think this would have served a useful purpose in making
2001 just slightly more accessible to average guy (or gal).
tools granted to him by the Aliens. In 2010, Man was unable to survive
without help. The Aliens had to intervene to save the human race and act
as caretakers of the solar system.
Again, as much as I hate to do this... you must take up this argument not
with Peter Hyams but with Arthur C. Clarke. I believe he is one of the
greatest SF writers of all time, but if you really have a problem with
these elements of the storyline then your argument is not only with the
movie 2010 but also with the book (and thus the novelist that created 2001
in the first place).
were believable; there have been worse science fiction movies than
There we agree 101% :-)
But what is the point of making a movie and calling it the successor to
2001, if the movie completely abandons the ideas of the first film, does not
advance any new ideas of its own, and even fails to tackle the questions
raised in the original work?
While all of that may be true (and I'd agree at some level) I ask this...
must a sequel eclipse it's original film? What is wrong with simply
continuing the story....?
As a sequel to 2001, then, 2010 is a failure.
Again I disagree. I love both films 2001 and 2010... but I love them the
same way a man can love both a blonde and a brunette... (at the risk of
sounding sexist). Each is wonderful it's own right, yet different from the
It cannot approach 2001 in terms of vision and scope, and it does not
advance the ideas of 2001 or even continue the themes begun there.
Perhaps it was not supposed to. The Korean War followed World War II...
not grander and better; just the continuation of the larger story... the
story of Mankind in the 20th Century. 2001 and 2010 (and 2061 and soon
3001) do the same thing... in the 21st Century.
But 2001: A Space Odyssey will always stand alone.
I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey for the first time in 1976 on TV when I was
11 years old. It forever changed my view of this planet, the solar system
and mankind's place with in it. I have read the book dozens of times since
and own the film on both VHS and Laser Disc. I am a major fan of 2001.
None-the-less I accept 2010 as a viable sequel to 2001 and I'm proud to say
I own it on VHS and Laser Disc as well...
(if nothing else the cameo appearance by Arthur Clarke feeding the pigeons
in front of the White House in 2010 is priceless...)
Thanks for listening... and thank you for an interesting critic.
~ Stephen ~
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 16:21:12 -0600
From: Todd Raymond Shaw [email@example.com]
To whom It may concern:
I was quite impressed with what I read. I did not read it all.
I would like to offer several ideas. (These ideas may be in areas I
did not read.) Did you notice that all the "killing objects" are white
the color of cleanliness and innocence and the two individuals killed
where dark in color(red suite and Black ape?) Even the "tombs,"
hibernation units, are white the spaceship is white, the color of death
in this story, the faces of the sceintis where dark and shadowed. I
have yet to form a theory about this but there must be some story behind
this. One week idea is that it somehow relates to intelligence. Also
the monolith seems to equall death or is the cuase of death perhaps the
end of mankind is near secnairo. e-mail address is firstname.lastname@example.org
I thank you for your insight into this film and I agree with your
anaolgies J.Shaw (sorry about spelling)