Chula Vista

You're on the right track except you're overlooking one key component - weapons. The aliens planted the concept of using the bone (tool) as a weapon (via the monolith) to Moonwalker as a means to stave off the extinction of his tribe.

And when he tosses the bone in the air and we get that great jump cut to the ship thousands of years into the future what's not clear is that the ship is an orbiting nuclear "weapon". Look real closely as they show the various ships and you'll notice that each has the emblem of a different countries' flag. The earth is at a stalemate with all sides being capable of wiping the other out via their tools.

Why did the aliens bury the other monolith beneath the surface of the moon?

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

Oriphiel

I think you're confusing "having a different interpretation" with "overlooking". I mentioned that I noticed all of the commentaries on tools, weapons, and life, even if we both took the message differently.

Anyway, there will always be people who focus on the monolith rather than the effect (those who mostly take the movie literally, and believe it's about physical items left by aliens, and that the intelligence given by the items is just a symbol for higher guidance), and those who focus on the effect rather than the monolith (those who mostly take the movie metaphorically, and believe it's about the development of intelligent beings, with the monoliths simply being a symbol of the defining moments that a species can eventually go through).

It's actually kind of an interesting idea that helps to explain the dual concepts of religion and atheism. Even though all humans live in the same existence, different people can look at that existence and see something entirely different than someone else (i.e. some people begin to believe in a higher power, and others see only chaos) when confronted with the same evidence (or watching the same movie ). But in this movie, I think Kubrick is trying to point out that it doesn't really matter either way. Religion and Science both serve the same purpose (to shed light on the nature of existence), and eventually lead to the same conclusion: whether the cosmos runs according to a series of laws, or by the hands of some mysterious puppeteer, the ultimate intellectual destination is the realization that life is transient, and locked endlessly with a concept of death that need not be feared (whether because of the comfort that comes from the belief in an afterlife, or because of the comfort that comes from the belief that life and death are simply apart of a beautiful and endless cycle that can't be contained or understood by the concepts of a "beginning" and an "end").

__________________
----------------------
|---Mic's Albums---|
----------------------
-----------------------------
|---Deafbox Industries---|
-----------------------------

Chula Vista

Ok. Before we go any further you need to read the novel by Clarke. It was written while he and Kubrick worked on the screenplay for 2001. In it he fills in all of the holes. Kubrick decided (as he always does) to make the film hugely ambiguous. But Clarke spells it all out in the novel.

Those were nuclear space ships. The earth was on the brink of an all out nuclear war (extinction). And the aliens intervened.

So why did they bury the monolith on the moon?

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

Oriphiel

No, I don't need to read the novel. We're discussing the movie, and quite frankly, I think if Kubrick decided to omit things from their collaboration that blatantly revealed the existence of guiding aliens, he did it for a reason. And since it's his vision that we're reviewing, not Clarke's, I think you have to admit that Kubrick's ambiguity is much more important to the movie than Clarke's specificity.

And stop asking why the monolith was on the moon. I already said that my interpretation is that the monoliths are just a symbol for intellectual achievements/development. In my opinion, the monoliths are wherever/whenever they need to be to best exemplify the metaphor behind them, being shown at every turning point (when we developed tools, when we achieved space flight, when we approached transcending reality, etc. Didn't they even find one on Jupiter right when a robot developed by humanity gained sentience (HAL)?).

I grew up watching Sergio Leone flicks. Long shots don't phase me in the slightest, as long as there's something meaningful or emotional going on. Also, this might reveal that i'm not really much of a film buff, but I don't know those two people you mentioned.

__________________
----------------------
|---Mic's Albums---|
----------------------
-----------------------------
|---Deafbox Industries---|
-----------------------------

Chula Vista

No.

The Aliens buried the monolith for a very specific reason. Care to take a stab?

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

Oriphiel

That's not exactly fair. We have different interpretations of whether there were aliens at all, so asking me about them won't get you any answer other than "the monoliths are just a symbol, popping up alongside developments in technology and intellect, simply to serve as a metaphor", and I've already explained the advancements behind the appearances of the monoliths. I feel like you have a very solid interpretation of the movie based on information given to you by the novel, which I haven't read and refuse to take into account, because we're examining Kubrick and not Clarke.

But since everyone is asking me questions, I think it's only fair that I get to ask a few. I have three of them: First, why did they find a monolith on Jupiter? Secondly, (spoilers) why did HAL sing as he was being killed? And lastly, why do you think Kubrick deliberately decided to not give us a concrete explanation?

__________________
----------------------
|---Mic's Albums---|
----------------------
-----------------------------
|---Deafbox Industries---|
-----------------------------

Chula Vista

First: The monolith on Jupiter (which is infinitely larger than the ones on the earth and moon) is the gateway to the Alien's home galaxy. The worm hole.

They buried the one on the moon because they rightly anticipated that by the time mankind had the advanced technology to discover it, they'd have also used that technology to develop weapons sufficient to destroy the Earth.

Second: Daisy was one of the first programs that HAL had implanted during his early stages of development. As Dave broke down HAL's memory he regressed back to being an "infant" and fell back on that early program. (a very sad scene in retrospect)

Third: Because he is Stanley Kubrick and that's the way he operated during his peak "mind f*ck" years.

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

grindy

Then it might just not be your style of filmmaking.
I enjoy a beautiful shot of someone walking down an empty street for ten minutes. I totally get why some might not. If I'm not in the mood, I don't enjoy such scenes myself.
Tarkovsky is actually considered one of the greatest directors of all time, but yeah, he is something for the film buffs, a casual viewer would be bored to pieces by his films.
Oh, and I love Sergio Leone. Kudos for growing up watching him.

__________________
A smell of petroleum prevails throughout.

Chula Vista

Kubrick was the first one to show space travel as it really is. The reality of the shuttle docking with the space station is that it would be an extremely slow and delicate process set in the absolute vacuum silence of space.

Him adding the Blue Danube to augment it was brilliant.

I saw 2001 on the large screen about a year ago with a packed house of all ages. During that scene you could hear a pin drop in the theater. It was equal parts beautiful and mesmerizing.

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

grindy

As it happens I just rewatched 2001 yesterday.
Amazes me each and every time.

__________________
A smell of petroleum prevails throughout.