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.”

Oriphiel

First: The massive monolith was so large because it coincided with the final part of humanity's journey: the creation of artifical life (HAL) and attaining enlightenment (The astronaut).

Second: HAL is supposed to be the perfect being, and yet he breaks down into infancy (his most basic programming) when confronted with death. He symbolizes the final leg of humanity's intellectual journey: realizing that even though we are biologically programmed (just as HAL was literally programmed), biological life has the ability to override that programming. We, at our most basic level, exist to live and breed, and when confronted with death we resort our most basic instincts to survive. And yet we have the ability to overcome the fear of death, and even learn to understand and cherish it. We have the potential to change our programming, and to completely override the very things that are supposed drive us. HAL is a commentary on a rigid and mechanical way of thinking; cold logic can only take you so far, before you have to confront the idea of death. Whether you believe there is life after death or not, thinking about it is an act of trying to understand the unknown, and either way is an act of faith in the evidence we have been presented with (but can't ever be 100% known or proven).

Third: Rather than just rehash what Clarke was saying, Kubrick decided to offer up a completely different story from the same inspiration (which makes sense. Why bother having two people tell the same story in the same way?) Rather than come up with a story about aliens like Clarke, he made a story that lets the audience decide just what exactly is going on. Let me ask you this: Why do you think that they both wrote different stories, rather than just make one definite one in both the movie and the book? Why do you assume that both have to be companions to the other, rather than standing on their own as different interpretations of the same inspiration? Kubrick told the story he wanted to tell, and Clarke did the same. Stop trying to mix the two together, when they clearly wanted them to be seperate.

See? Even though we watched the same movie, and are approaching the same questions, we both have different answers. And the best part of the movie (which I still dislike, by the way =p) is that Kubrick made it so that neither of us is wrong.

Thanks!

Lastly, am I the only one here who's going to play the devil's advocate? Because if so, this is going to get pretty boring pretty fast.

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

Chula Vista

But they didn't. The story is the same. Kubrick told it ambiguously so that everyone could take stabs at their own interpretations. And then Clarke released the book (the novel was released after the movie had been out for a while) to clear up the ambiguity.

Ignoring the novel is doing a real disservice to the movie. Not saying that's a bad thing, just that the story is so much more satisfying having both to draw upon.

At the start of the movie you see a black screen for a few minutes with music playing. Then there's an intermission midway through, where again you see a black screen with music playing. What's the significance?

This is not in the book and is 100% pure SK brilliance.

__________________

“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 disagree. You might think that ignoring the novel is doing the movie a disservice, but I think it's the other way around; that taking the novel into account robs the movie of it's strongest point (the openness to interpretation). Anyway, knowing Kubrick, the darkness and music probably symbolized the underlying and perpetual nature of life throughout existence. The onward march of life, of trying to survive and make sense of the unknown, isn't all that dissimilar to a symphony in the dark. When humans prowled the earth as primitive tribes, and also when humans mastered technology and space travel, our motives and programming remained the same, and we were just as in the dark at our greatest cultural peak as we were when we first began. Until the astronaut reaches enlightenment, and the screen has a seizure (), which is probably a metaphor for leaving the darkness.

But I'll ask again: Why do you assume that both the movie and the novel have to go together? Kubrick wanted an abstract commentary, and Clarke wanted one that was solid. Because of their different natures, and the different intentions held by the different creators, each has to be examined on it's own. Why? Because reviewing the movie (an abstract effort) as if it were a solid effort is ignoring much of what it has to offer. And reviewing the book (a solid effort) as if it were abstract is trying to go against the way that the author was trying to inform the reader. If you gain enjoyment from combining the two, then that's fine. Go for it. But you have to realize that there are people who enjoy them both seperately, and there's nothing wrong with point of view either.

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

Chula Vista

(1) The width to height aspect ratio of the monoliths were EXACTLY the same as the width to height aspect ratio of the cinema screens the movie was first shown on, rotated 90 degrees. The movie screen monoliths are singing to the audience signifying that their minds are about to be blown in the same way that the monoliths in the movie are singing to Moonchild, and then the astronauts that their minds are about to be blown.

(2) 2001 was a joint collaboration between Kubrick and Clarke. It's not an assumption. They did that project as a team.

__________________

“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.”