Talk:Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey

another issue with The monolith section
"As it marks the beginning of the film's most cryptic and psychedelic sequence, interpretations of the last two monolith appearances are as varied as the film's viewers. Is it a "star gate," some giant cosmic router or transporter? Are all of these visions happening inside Bowman's mind? And why does he wind up in some cosmic hotel suite at the end of it?[12]" -I don't think encyclopedic articles are supposed to ask this many rhetorical questions, are they? And if these are rhetorical questions being brought up by another author, it should be made much more clear. --Okkusenman (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The monolith section
I'm having trouble understanding the 2nd sentence of the following: "2. After 4 million years but this time on the Moon. This begins the transition between ape-like man and a time traveler is embedded between the appearances of the monolith."

I'd edit that "between ape-like man and a time traveler is embedded" part, but I have no idea what the author's intended meaning was. Help revise? --Okkusenman (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The monolith is the Tree of Knowledge. It's obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.223.138 (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's axis mundi.--83.218.198.165 (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

HAL section
I feel as though this section could use citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinprovo (talk • contribs) 06:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Help editing the HAL section draft would be most appreciated! Dreadstar †  22:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Has there been talk about the letters of HAL being one letter prior to IBM? I don't know if that's junior high trivia, or if it has the obvious intention... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.113.190 (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It has been well-established (and is discussed somewhere in Wikipedia) that the HAL/IBM one-letter-off bizness is a coincidence and that Clarke meant HAL to stand for Heuristic ALgorithmic computer. In math parlance, an algorithm is guarenteed to give an exact answer, while a Heuristic gives a well-educated guess.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Supermen?
"Supermen" is an incorrect translation for the Nietzsche section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.204.145 (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not having the original, I assume "Ubermensch" is the word in question? Maybe a native German speaker could suggest a better term.  I have heard it translated as "superman" so many times my mind is blanked.  Wwheaton (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * According to dict.cc Wörterbuch :: Übermensch :: Englisch-Deutsch-Übersetzung: Superman is the most likely translation of Übermensch Diegoaac (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Although "Superman" is a correct translation, recent translations of Nietzsche use "Overman" to avoid confusion with the comic-book character.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * German native here. Over does sound a bit too literal for my tastes but probably works. How about (the) Man of the Future, (the) Man (of) Beyond or Greater Man, if you strictly wanna stick to a purely Germanic etymology? But keep in mind we're dealing with a philosopher here, so something Latin or Greek wouldn't sound too much out of place when translating it ino English. Superman is near-perfect (especially when considering phrases such as übermenschliche Anstrengung, übermenschliche Leistung etc., where the adjective AFAIK usually translates to superhuman), if it only wouldn't be for the comic-book character. Transman would probably sound a bit too LGBT for modern ears, but cf. transhumanism. Latin would also suggest Ultraman or make for Advanced Man. Greek would suggest Hyperman or Metaman. --87.169.94.205 (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ugly figure
There's no disputing about taste, probably. :)  Can someone suggest a better image?  Wwheaton (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gee, I kinda like it..but then I'm biased...;) If you think it should be removed or replaced, please be my guest. Dreadstar  †  04:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And I think it is fine myself; but perhaps a brilliant replacement would blow me away. If someone has one to suggest...?  Personally, I would not remove it in the absence of a better substitute, tho. Wwheaton (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Dreadstar  †  16:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

HAL infallible?
Under HAL there is this: "We are told that HAL is infallible early in the film." Even tho Dave and Frank sort of allude to this, it is only HAL who makes this declaration. AI researchers have pointed out that this is the first sign that HAL is fallible. The reason being a truly superior intelligence makes mistakes and learns from them. By claiming infallibility HAL is showing it already has a screw loose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Almost Everything is a Metaphor
It is all about power and control and deception. Power over the populace. Control over the populace. Deceiving the populace. It all has to do with solar events. Throughout the movie it is never an "alien" obelisk. HAL realizes they are going on a suicide mission and attempts to stop them - they were never supposed to survey anything. polpoint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.146.151 (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Either you've been reading wayyy too much Michael Foucault or else too much tabloid news. One or the other. --WickerGuy (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So the military industrial complex sets up a mission which is designed to fail. Could we possibly ask why? I'm with the StrawMan, it makes no sense. Greglocock (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is clear from the novel that ACC at least had a very clear, definite, and scientifically reasonable back story in mind, and Clarke's dairy of the writing makes it clear that he and Kubrick were in constant close communication during the writing. That back story could not be laid out in detail within the confines of a film of reasonable length, so it was essentially omitted from the movie.  (No doubt there were good commercial and artistic reasons for Kubrick to leave the details to the imagination of the viewer.)  But the two stories, in the novel and the film, fit together perfectly well.  Thus I claim they are complementary halves of a single work of art.  See the film for the visual and aural experience of awe; read the book to back it up with a scientifically respectable foundation.  Leave the rest to your imagining, since the reality of the universe is yet unknown to us.  Wwheaton (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Have to disagree with Sinebot. 2001 is entirely about human evolution; the development of AI as an extension of humanity, and the notion that aliens and technology have a stake in our evolution. Clarke & Kubrick's novel/screenplay collaborations investigated every aspect of the alien technology, and Clarke wrote many discarded drafts including some dubious alien characters. Though eventually Kubrick steered Clarke toward a more oblique depiction of the alien technology, the motivation for the Odyssey mission makes perfect sense in the film and the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.159.50 (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have thought for many years that the entire movie is primarliy about the evolution of human consciousness. HAL may represent a dramatic milestone in that evolution - when conscious, intelligent beings evolve to the point where they can make conscious machines. The monolith must then represent the monotheistic god that mediates the evolution of consciousness, appearing at crucial points in that evolution, not unlike the appearance of the great avatars who appear to help humanity evolve spiritually. Finally, I see a clear reference to Tibetan Buddhism at the end. The light show that seems so mysterious can be understood easily as a reference to re-incarnation. The protagonist dies and is catapulted though the Bardo states which, according to Tibetan Buddhism, are the soul's journey between incarnations. This would seem to be a reference to the Tibetan Book of the Dead. The fetus is then the protagonist re-incarnated, ready to begin life anew, more spiritually evolved. Again, the star child is a final metaphor for the evolution of consciousness. May 7, 2009 captinclearlight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captinclearlight (talk • contribs) 06:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:2001child2.JPG
The image File:2001child2.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --01:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Links Removed
Today I removed some links after that section was tagged as having too many links that don't conform to WP policy. Most were from non-notable sources. One was removed because the article really is about Kubrick's work as a whole even though titled "Beyond the Infinite" and not especially focused on "Space Odyssey".--WickerGuy (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Monolith -> Islam
No one else thought of the moslem Kaaba and the Black Stone?


 * Nope; not even me. Jason Palpatine (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries?
Another contributor recently excised this image. The image and its inclusion here. So I think the decision to excise it from the article should require a little more discussion than the four word edit summary "remove decorative non-free image".

Note, the same contributor the fair use rationale for the use of this image in this article from File:2001child2.JPG with the two word edit summary "decoration ther".

Both excisions have been reverted. There may be good arguments to back up both of these edits -- but they weren't offered for the rest of us to read. Geo Swan (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I note that that editor contributed quite a bit to the discussion at "FIles for deletion". Was (s)he not satisfied with the results?--WickerGuy (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This same editor has tried to remove the image from the article twice before in 2008 and in 2009. To me, this latest removal crosses the line of disruption, expecially considering that this same editor has been revisiting many articles and repeating the same behavior.  I'm thinking we need an RFC on this user if he continues his disruptive behavior.  Dreadstar  ☥  15:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * User is trying to delete the image as well. Dreadstar  ☥  16:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * At least move the image to the relevant section, where its meaning is explained. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see no discussion of this picture in the article. Either somebody points to where that discussion is (and then the image needs to be placed near it), or the image goes out. Simple. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As someone who rolled into the article due to a ANI thread I've looked at the photo, it's Fair Use rationalle, and the discussion here. Would the editors here be willing to accept a change to put the image in question where the fair use rationalle claims "With the conception allegory" so as to remove what appears to be the only problem? Thanks Hasteur (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Dreadstar  ☥  17:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And done. Dreadstar ☥  17:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And why do we need to use this non-free content on that section? I know the section mentions the passage in the movie captured on the image, but I fail to see why seeing the image is necessary for the understanding of the material on that section. --Damiens .rf 17:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bah, it would be okay, if only the article would make more explicit what the "star child" actually is. It's not being explained, which makes the article hard to understand for the reader who's not already familiar with the film. That's just poorly written. Once a word of explanation is given, providing visual support to it would make some sense, to me at least. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bah? Really?  Bah? Feel free to actually edit and make it so.  Dreadstar  ☥  17:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What the star-child "actually is" is not explained in the movie. It's sort-of explained in the novelization, and it's elaborated upon in the book and film sequels. Y'all really think some attempt at describing the star-child is good enough, without the visual??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose of an encyclopedic article about a movie is not to serve as a substitute for the experience of actually seeing the movie. We have no reason to describe the starchild. The section is actually about what some writers believe the allegory could mean. And none of those writer's intepretation seems based on visual aspects of the starchild. --Damiens .rf 18:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I did felt free and was repeatedly reverted. The article, as is, can not use the image. Since the image is used elsewhere and will not be deleted if removed from this article, what's the excuse for keeping this non-free decoration awaiting for an hypothetic rewrite that would turn the section incomprehensible without the specific image? --Damiens .rf 18:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear to be obsessed with this. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the free psychiatric diagnosis. You just saved me some money. --Damiens .rf 20:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't speak too soon. You haven't gotten my invoice yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And Damiens, please read the comment I was responding to, "if only the article would make more explicit what the "star child" actually is". I was not responding to your own edit war to delete the image from the article.  Dreadstar  ☥  18:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two valid things to do: Fix the text our remove the image. But you seem to accept only one (while still doing none of them). --Damiens .rf 20:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The text definitely needs to refer to the image in some way, if it's to be used. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No Damiens, I think the current text is fine and supports the image (both in the lead and in the individual section the image is currently in). My challenge is for one of those who dissent to add more content that will satisfy their views).  So IMHO, there's only one valid thing to do, leave the image in place.  Dreadstar  ☥  21:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I invite all interested editors to review the current text of the article. I don't see how the current text could remain without the image to back it up. It would make no sense. And copyright has no power to restrict commentary (a First Amendment right), so changing the text to make it possible to remove the image is the tail wagging the dog (as much as copyright holders would LIKE to wag the dog, they mustn't be allowed to.) --RussNelson (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue has now been listed here: Non-free_content_review. Dreadstar ☥  15:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing your mind about me, Dreadguy. --Damiens .rf 16:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

References to calendar systems
I'm surprised no one has mentioned one completely obvious interpretation -- the movie is an exploration of how human beings mark time. Space time imagery and references occur repeatedly, for example moon base "Clavius" could be a reference to the astronomer Clavius who was instrumental in the shift starting in 1585 from Julian calendar to Gregorian. Then something is dug up on the moon pointing to Jupiter, planet named after a god of Ancient Rome which used a lunar based system. Even Dr. Smyslov or whatever his name was uses phrases like "epidemic" and "unknown origin". Then HAL (reference to IBM, bookkeeping?) goes wacko on the trip to Jupiter, thus representing what happens administratively if you switch calendars. It must be this gigantic mess if you think about it.

Ironically, the actual year 2001 is most associated with the date 9/11... perhaps we could use a new discovery mission to figure out what happened? Jet fuel doesn't melt steel, Dr. Floyd....


 * Do you mean no one in the world, or no one at WP? If the latter, it's because no one in the world that constitutes a WP:RELIABLE source has mentioned it? If the former, it's probably because it really isn't that obvious.--WickerGuy (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the orbiting satellites
The article currently includes the following paragraph, "In the film, U.S. Air Force insignia, and flag insignia of China and Germany (including what appears to be an Iron Cross) can be seen on three of the satellites, which correspond to three of the bombs stated countries of origin in a widely circulated early draft of the script." In the scene cut from bone to satellite isn't the second vehicle marked with French insignia? 184.71.43.142 (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight in Wheat's interpretation?
How does wheat's interpretation give undue weight to certain interpretations? If this is considered so simply because his interpretation uses interpretations mentioned earlier in the article, it would be impossible to write about his interpretation without giving undue weight. (since you were the one who added the template) Skottniss (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

, it wasn't so much that his interpretation was given undo weight, because of course to mention it at all is to give it weight, and if I thought it was total nonsense I would've deleted the section. It's more that I think the concept of a triple allegory is more applicable to late Joyce than to Stanley Kubrick and that people overthink *2001*. But of course that's POV and doesn't belong in the article. I really think the whole article is unencyclopedic, but that's probably my own bias showing. So feel free to delete the template. ❃Adelaide❃ (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110321104428/http://www.chrissheridan.com/kubrick/2001.html to http://www.chrissheridan.com/kubrick/2001.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121216182533/http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/2001twodisc.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/2001twodisc.php
 * Added tag to http://www.2001exhibit.org/exhibits/france/exhibit/exhibit4.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100203172217/http://arapress.com/planete_s2.php to http://www.arapress.com/planete_s2.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20060627140436/http://scifipedia.scifi.com/index.php/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film) to http://scifipedia.scifi.com/index.php/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:African monolith 2001.jpg
File:African monolith 2001.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Nietzsche
God is dead! You have killed him! - Thus Spake Zarathustra. (nowhere cited. Is it possible PHDs who write the nonsense you quote on Wiki are unaware of this connection?) 69.158.176.133 (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

If you want supporting claims, there are dozens. However, I don't posses a PHD, neither have a I written about it. You'll have to wait another 10 years... 69.158.176.133 (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Removing "Allegory" section
This major section of the article gives undue attention to what is a single person's opinion of the movie. Leonard Wheat published one book that was never republished in later editions. In more than twenty years since the book's publication, no one has used his book as a reference regarding any interpretations of 2001. Furthermore, while interpretations of the movie are largely a matter of opinion, Wheat's book has influenced the opinions of almost no one, and has essentially been forgotten.

The references to Wheat's book were added to this article in order to move them from the actual article on 2001 itself (see | entry dated 10 May 2006, which were added by a user who insisted the allegory was really "what the movie was about". See: Special:Contributions/Motionrotarytoad, at the beginning of that user's edit history.

Finally, the "Allegory" section has not been developed in the sixteen years since it was added to this article. As such, this section is being removed. TeamEquestria (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)>