It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ultimate 2001: A Space Odyssey thread

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

How about the aliens were none other than men from another time and another place, if we are well enough we all do our best to help our children.There are many ways of doing this and that is what Clark and Kubrick were doing.How they got the info is all part of evolution!





posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
OP Great post I truly enjoyed it!



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
ok

so what is the starchild ?

I've read explanations, and I still don't get it.

can anyone xplain it in one sentence ?



2012?



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by waltdisney
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Stanley only wanted to make one movie. 2010 was never in the plans. It was a sequel to keep viewers entertained, if not also distracted from the real meaning of 2001.

I mean look at what Stanley was trying to show us. 4 million years ago, Dawn of Man. Just a bunch of stupid monkeys. Then a smooth stone crafted by lasers or something not of this world, is placed amongst them???

Obviously pointing to the fact that a highly sophisticated group of people (aliens?) were alive and running 4 million year ago. Controlling Earth. This would disprove all religions, history, science, everything.

And Stanley did this all in one scene....



totally,,, well if relgious people dis believe in evolution,,, the scene would crash with their beliefs anyway,, by showing an earth with only monkies and no man,,, and then showing that man came from monkies,,

i dont like the alien explanation,,, because where did they come from? if you allow for aliens to naturally arise in the universe,,, then why cant man? ,.,.

but say the aliens naturally arose in the universe,,, and then created man,,, via monolithic suggestion,,,, thats still cool and believable,,, but I kind of felt like the monolith had more godly universal purposes..,,.,. what does it mean when bowman says,..,.,,. my god its full of stars,..,.. the monolith is huge and vast,,.,. what could it actually be?


Perhaps it represents fractal hologram in some way, hence the different monoliths and the huge starchild?



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Daisy....Daisy....Give me your answer do....I'm half crazy....all for the love of you...



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
When Bowman said "My God, it's full of stars." Was because he was staring into the monolith looking at all the stars in that other dimension. Btw i dont think the starchild was huge, i think we were just staring at a perspective that made it appear huge.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
there are four books about the series by Arthur C. Clarke. the first 2001 actually tells a lot although Kubrik and Clark actually disagreed on a lot. but for a big part of the explanation i really recommend it as well as the other three.

don't read past here if you want to be surprised.

as said before, the starchild is a transformed david bowman buy an ancient intelligence who had learned how to store itself in the fabric of space. the monoliths on earth and the moon are actually tools to help/gauge mans progress. the 3rd is one as well as a stargate.

the large baby is basically bowmans only way to visualize and adjust to the fact that he has practically become a god.

there's a lot more but as far as the actual cinematic version theres a great website that goes into kubriks symbolism. a lot has to do with the actual cinematic aspects having to do with some interesting signs.
an interesting view



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by waltdisney
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Stanley only wanted to make one movie. 2010 was never in the plans. It was a sequel to keep viewers entertained, if not also distracted from the real meaning of 2001.

I mean look at what Stanley was trying to show us. 4 million years ago, Dawn of Man. Just a bunch of stupid monkeys. Then a smooth stone crafted by lasers or something not of this world, is placed amongst them???

Obviously pointing to the fact that a highly sophisticated group of people (aliens?) were alive and running 4 million year ago. Controlling Earth. This would disprove all religions, history, science, everything.

And Stanley did this all in one scene....



Why is it obviously pointing to a sophisticated group?

All that one is able to gather from what is shown is that an intelligence of some sort played a part in placing the monoliths where they are.

To speculate that this intelligence is anything other than an intelligence is wild speculation, be it aliens, Gods or the smurfs.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Aw. 2010 was great! Not as good as 2001, but for a sequel made by a completely different person (and who wasn't Kubrick) I think it was pretty good. It also helped to explain some things that I didn't know. I haven't read the book
so 2010 helped fill the void of questions that I had after watching 2001.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrphenFire
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Aw. 2010 was great! Not as good as 2001, but for a sequel made by a completely different person (and who wasn't Kubrick) I think it was pretty good. It also helped to explain some things that I didn't know. I haven't read the book
so 2010 helped fill the void of questions that I had after watching 2001.


helped you explain things you did already know? like what?


eh,,, i honestly watched the first half,,, and then when it was "glue you to the edge of your seat in suspense will they make the slingshot around the moon" i had to fast forward to see if anything else in the film was interesting.,.,., I didnt care about the cliche characters and their relations,,, i didnt care about the "us vs russia" we are intelligent technologically advanced scientests but we are also as immature as babies.,,. I pretty much didnt care about anything,,, also the cinematographic techniques made 2001 look like it was more in the future then 2010,,, how can you say it was great! i was actually angry while i was watching it,



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join