This interpretation could be true just looking at 2001, but in 3001 the vibe was that humanity had to be ready to hold off those aliens when they get here, so that at least the humans felt the aliens had a malicious intent. This can of course be attributed to the humans simply being the paranoid survivalists they became.
I don’t think it’s quite fair bringing in Clarke’s novels into a discussion of 2001 the movie. The books are much, much different than the film. For one thing, Clarke is essentially a optimistic writer - something that cannot in any way be said for Kubrick.
I’ve always liked thinking that, really, it was HAL that should have made it to the monolith. I’m cynical enough to think that HAL wasn’t really malfunctioning at all - rather, his actual mission was to make it as far to the monolith as he could, kill the crew via a “malfunction” and make contact with the monolith. Bowman had to go and screw all that up.
Uh, well, Clarke wrote 2001 at the same time Kubrick filmed the movie. They worked pretty hand-in-hand, moreso than any other novel writer/filmmaker that I can think of, so I think it’s fair. Of course, all bets are off in subsequent novels and the film sequel.
But the endings of the book vs. movie are totally different. There’s no indication that the Star Child is destroying nuclear satellites at the end of the movie. There’s no indication that he’s even particularly benevolent, as far as that goes.
Waaaay back in undergrad, I took a fantastic comparative religions class in which we all watched and studied 2001. The professor took this very stance and, I must say, I have loved and nurtured this interpretation ever since.
He claimed that HAL was ready for the next quantum leap of species evolution…and humankind most certainly was not. Humans, who showed such promise, had become lazy, boring parasites that lived off of their creation (a creation which was, in the person of HAL anyway, curious, inspired, capable and inspired). I remember the professor cited a bunch of times in the film when you could really see what lame, sedentary blobs humans had become ("could you raise the headrest a little more, HAL?).
Anyway, I just really dig the notion that HALs “malfunction” may be nothing other than a manifestation of his drive and desire to advance himself. Or, as Bill D. would have it (and I think his spin on things gels nicely with the more murderous aspects of HALs little glitch), a manifestation of calculated, focused violent impulses.
Someone remind me:
Why does Jupiter implode?
Shame?
In the books, there was pre-sentient life on Europa (a moon of Jupiter). The godlike alien intelligences who made the monolith decided to turn Jupiter into a star to give those aliens enough energy to evolve into something more. Or something like that. It’s been a long time since I read the books.
Because it is theorized that Jupiter has all the makings of a sun, if given the proper astronomical “spark” to ignite all of its gasses. The monoliths facilitate this in order to turn Europa (a giant iceball) into an Earth-like, livable planet for humans.
EDIT: and that primitive life form, as Kyle said. The novel has other stuff, like some weird seaweed monster that attacks the Chinese expedition.
Of course, it’s also theorized (whether by Clarke or others) that the center of a Jupiter is a gigantic diamond due to the incredible pressure so, like, who knows eh?
I don’t know about HAL being ready for the next leap, but I always saw that stuff as being evidence that man was in danger of being supplanted by his tools. Hence, Dave needs to defeat HAL to reassert man’s primacy before he can take the next step.
Still, it’s a neat theory about HAL.
The monolith seeded self-replicating copies of itself in Jupiter’s atmosphere, acting to increase Jupiter’s density to the point that stellar fusion initiated. Thus, creating a local star to allow the life on Europa to develop further.
Of 2001? I guess I need to read it again, I thought that was the end of 2010. Either way, the book was written as the film was in development.
I remember this from the books but I’ve never seen it mentioned anywhere else. Jupiter has a really strong magnetic field, so at least a significant proportion of its core has to be metallic. Not sure how that jives with a bigass chunk of diamond down there.
Diamond is way cooler than “huge ball of solid iron and base metals”.
Back on topic: 2001 sucks. 19 hour snore-fest (or however long it was).
Pretty sure Europa wasn’t intended as habitation for the humans as well. If I remember correctly there was a huge issue about whether they should even attempt to explore Europa and they were avoiding it until in the third or fourth book someone hijacked a nearby spaceship and forced it to land on Europa.
I’ve seen speculation elsewhere about the giant diamond as well, the idea being that the presence of carbon and all that pressure would fuse one. This doesn’t seem any more speculative than it’s core having to be metallic.
Besides, Clarke makes good use of the diamond later on – what if diamond was suddenly very cheap?
The idea about the core being metallic is based on observations of the planet’s magnetic field which, according to the best theories at the moment, is generated by a metallic core. The diamond idea is based on…well…the fact that it’d be really cool?
I’m not saying the diamond thing isn’t possible, but there is actual empirical evidence for the metallic core. It’s not really just “speculative.”
Yeah. God dammit, I’m gonne have to re-read these books again, I’m starting to feel like Koontz up in this piece :(
The feelm has teh ayleeyenz sending a text message to all of humanity along the lines of:
ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA
USE IT TOGETHER
USE IT FOR PEACE
FREE LOVE
Ok, the last line was mine ^__^ but I guess the implication is the new life spawning on Europa was meant to progress on its own, thusly the Jupiter transformation was in order to allow the primitve life to evolve into greater things by turning Europa into a more evolution-friendly world. Like, sort of what ze aliens did for primitive man except on a far larger scale.
As a side note, the original score as done by Alex North in some ways would have been more awesome than what ended up being in the film. It adds much more life and vibrancy to the narration imo.
I am right there with you. To this day, I am haunted by the idea of that house, the monolith at the end of the bed, and the voice of the old man.
I have to say, I can still sit through 2001 and watch the whole thing. I am more enthralled than ever.
To the OP: Have you seen Dr Strangelove? It is another Kubrick classic. I also loved his version of the Shining, more than the book and other adaptations. One of the scariest movies ever.