It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by karen61057
That's all very interesting and all but Stanley Kubric didn't even write the story. The book was written by Arthur C Clark. Kubric only interpreted it.
Originally posted by timewalker
The story matches my avatar too, funny how things work out.
Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by homeskillet
my edit to add that youtube vid was after your post,
after the edit, i see now you are linking us to the same source of that video with more detail
Don't forget dear old Arthur.
The books go into a lot of detail.
Arthur was heavily involved with the production of 2001.
I recomend reading Sunstorm (Time Odyssey) by Arthur C Clarke & Stephen Baxter.
Opening rose buds, in art, are almost never about roses.
There is no missing the erotic intent Kubrick provides in the two sequences-- I dare you to watch it and try to ignore it. Yes, sometimes a space shuttle is just a space shuttle and landing bay doors (on the moon) are just landing bay doors; but in this case, they are not just those.
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by timewalker
This, apart from its visual quality, is the great appeal of the film: the story fascinates not by answering questions but by raising them. People have been arguing about its interpretation ever since it came out. Kubrick knew just what he was doing in refusing to ‘explain’ the movie; he knew that if he ever offered one, his magnum opus would lose all its power to provoke and mystify, and shrink to the dimensions of a comic book or religious pamphlet.
Besides, I am sure, there was nothing to explain. All that Kubrick had to say on the subject was said in the movie, and any further commentary would improve neither our understanding nor our appreciation of the film, but detract from both.
edit on 20/9/11 by Astyanax because: of eyes wide shut.