Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dalcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!dartvax!dalcs!y4101
From: y4101@dalcs.UUCP (Marcus Aurellius)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: Ending of "2001:  A Space Odyssey"
Message-ID: <795@dalcs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 4-Mar-84 13:28:18 EST
Article-I.D.: dalcs.795
Posted: Sun Mar  4 13:28:18 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Mar-84 02:16:17 EST
References: <6981@watmath.UUCP>, <371@ihlts.UUCP>, <79@eneevax.UUCP>
Organization: Dalhousie U, Halifax N.S.
Lines: 77


  A question like that will leave you open to an awful lot of versions. Here
is my reply ...

  First - read the book. Most movies are made so that you can simply walk in
and watch the movie without any preparation. Thus you are entertained solely
by the experience of the movie. Other movies require that you know a little
about the subject matter. Many of us will have read "The Lord of the Rings".
Now, if you were to see this made into a movie, which would you rather have,
a rewritting of the story so that it can fit into a 3 hour show and so that
people who have not read the book will understand, or a faithful representation
of the book (again in 3 hours) but with things left out and thus just
concentrating on the images of the main event. (Of course we would actually
want a 20 hour movie showing it all but we must be reasonable).
  Well, now we have "2001: A Space Odyssey". This is a movie belonging to the
second type. If you want to know what it is about, you read the book. Then, if
you want to see what you just read, you watch the movie. The movie doesn't
explain what you see, you already know because you read the book. But it does
give you a good visual representation of what you read. Granted, for all of the
people who did not read the book, this movie is not a very good one. But for
the people who know what is going on, its a visual fantasy.

  Now - to answer the particular question asked ...

  The book (caution - I am going from memory here) has Bowman arriving in
a rather colonial apartment which he recognizes because he was once in such
a room. The aliens have constructed the setting so that he will feel a little
more comfortable (now here is where the movie could have ruined everything
by having an alien pop in and say just that - but again, for those of us who
read the book, we know this, so the movie doesn't need to say it. Instead, it
simply shows what really happened. After all, Bowmen knows he say this place
before so it doesn't make any sense for an alien to come in and repeat the
fact to him).
  Bowman spends the rest of his life under observation (I don't know how long
but long enough for him to grow very old and die). Well, we can't sit through
all of that so the movie show the passage of time effectively by having Bowman
move around and getting older (yes, it does appear as if he sees himself but
its all images - really).
  About the breaking glass? Who knows!
  At the end, another monolith appears, he points to it and bingo, we see
a fetus appear along side the earth.
  Well, before I read the sequel I assumed that this was all symbolic of mans
first encounter with life forms in the rest of the Universe. Thus we would
have the Birth of Mankind. I still like that idea. However, for those people 
who read the sequel, we now know that the StarChild is a real thing. It is
Bowman and it does return to Earth on behalf of the aliens. So the end of the
movie can then be interpreted as Bowman as the StarChild approaching the
Earth. Why? Read the sequel.

  You really should read the book though, it explains alot (as does
"The lost worlds of 2001" which explains even more). For instance, after
Bowman gets into the ship through the emergancy air lock (non of this
Outlander sh*t of heads exploding - this is real science here) we next
see him walking around in full suit. Why? It won't say in the movie but
in the book, HAL has another go at trying to murder Bowman which results
in all of the air leaving the ship - thus he now walks around in his
suit. (By the way, the sequel does give a good reason as to why HAL
does all this).

  Now, for all you people who go on at length about how this technically
perfect film has this horrendous flaw of the liquid being drawn back into
the straw despite the lack of gravity. Consider, without a counterforce to
keep the liquid down the straw, removing your mouth from the straw could
force small drops of liquid out and into the air. So, keep a vacuum inside
the box under the bag holding the liquid. When you finish drinking, the
vacuum formed by your leaving mouth is canceled by the internal vacuum in
the box and the liquid does not come out - in fact it goes back down into
the box. (Sure it a patch up solution - but it works).

  And last, but not least. The movie of the sequel is expected to be out
this comming Christmas - alas not by the same producer.

  Sorry for the length ... hope my version answers some questions.

.. Marcus Aurellius
   Dalhousie University