Posts by Matthew Young35

You’re actually hitting on something quite profound with the idea that directors often hit their creative peak during those early, hungry stages of their careers.
Take Steven Spielberg, for instance; if you ask me, his absolute masterpiece remains *Duel*.

Patrick Martin said:Listen, these people are actually out here trying to put Mozart and Dylan on the same level🤦

Honestly, you’d have to be some broke-ass college freshman who thinks they're deep just to even pretend to get Dylan👍

And as for Mozart, he requires an academically trained musician to appreciate him. Which, quite frankly, is exactly what you are.

An Iliad of what, exactly?

All four of them.

Good grief... Saint-Exupéry... I used to know *The Little Prince* by heart when I was just a six-year-old kid. Now, all I can manage to conjure up is that very first sentence.
And if my memory serves, I can still recall that exchange: "Why are you drinking?" "To forget." "To forget what?" "To forget that I am drinking."

Both Dylan and the chair are absolute geniuses.

There’s something truly captivating about the way Dylan delivers a story through song. Take "Hurricane," for instance.

Because, let’s be honest, playing it safe usually sounds incredibly tedious.

Dylan’s rendition of All Along the Watchtower is hands down the definitive version. As for Like a Rolling Stone? It’s a tougher call; frankly, most covers of that track just miss the mark entirely.

Independence Day

delete ...

The forum is descending into chaos again ...

We’ve finally uncovered the truth behind how that famous photo of the Loch Ness Monster actually came to be.

Adam King6 said:🤣 All we need now is a monolith 🤦

What exactly is missing?

brightpilot6 said:Who exactly is placing these monoliths?
How do they actually function?
Why do their agents provide us with a tiny nudge forward, only to wait millions of years for spontaneous evolution without any further intervention?
Did the influence apply only to those who physically touched them, or did it affect the entire population?
If it was the latter, why didn't it affect other living creatures?
And why wasn't a monolith found on Earth, but rather on the Moon instead?
What is the connection to the alignment with the Sun—or rather, the star (though perhaps it operates on solar energy)?
What role does HAL play in all of this?
Why did he malfunction?
Is the ultimate purpose of all these monoliths simply to lead us into some room where we live out our days until death?
What did that stay in the room do to the man that resulted in him being reborn as that celestial infant?
Why didn't they just use a monolith to create whatever it was they made for him?

My creationist theory involving the Bible actually provides me with the most coherent explanation, yet you all insisted that the movie has nothing to do with it.

So, I am speaking strictly about the film, the narrative, and the internal logic of the movie itself, not Clarke's novel.

And I don't believe that every film with unanswered questions is inherently bad. For the umpteenth time—I am talking about the cohesion of the story.

Aliens place the monoliths.
It's hard to say exactly how they work. The first nudged humans toward using tools—let's call it a form of hypnosis. The second sent a signal toward Jupiter, and the third acts as a sort of gateway.

Regarding the third question, look at it this way. They travel through space out of pure curiosity and stumble upon Earth. Out of all the species, they see one with the potential to develop intelligence, but it's on the brink of extinction due to famine. They nudge them to use weapons, then leave a second monolith on the Moon to signal what those primates have become and whether they survived.

Perhaps it couldn't affect all life forms. Humans were developing intelligence on their own; the monolith simply gave them the idea to use weaponry to ensure survival.

The second monolith was placed on the Moon because it serves as an alarm. Its purpose is to signal that humanity survived and reached the Moon—that they are ready for First Contact. It wouldn't make sense to have it on Earth.

The planetary alignment doesn't really mean anything, other than looking visually striking.

HAL's role is to demonstrate the progression of intelligence, and he malfunctioned because he was given conflicting orders.
He had to cooperate with the crew while simultaneously concealing the true objective of the mission.

That scene in the room is a symbolic depiction of the aliens turning the character into a mediator between themselves and humanity.
They couldn't do it via a monolith because a monolith isn't capable of that. A monolith is a machine. You can't travel through a lathe or use a drill to access the internet.

The creationist theory isn't particularly realistic.
Humans were already evolving intelligence; the monolith didn't physically alter them or implant brains into them. It merely helped them survive. If their existence hadn't been threatened, they would have developed intelligence regardless. The problem was they simply ran out of time.

Why did aliens build all of this?
It's simple: curiosity.

The Monolith didn't "create" the apes; it simply saved them from extinction by nudging them toward tool use.
The reality is that those few primate tribes were on the brink of vanishing entirely. Had they not discovered the utility of weapons—specifically using bones—they would have been wiped out.
There is absolutely no evidence suggesting the Monolith sparked intelligence within the primates; it merely provided the catalyst to use weaponry.

So, you have these beings from some distant corner of the galaxy arriving on Earth and finding a species with potential, yet facing annihilation because they're being hunted by saber-toothed cats. They place a Monolith to ensure survival. It doesn't grant intellect; it just plants the idea to crack an enemy's skull with a bone.
Then, they leave another Monolith on the Moon to act as a sort of "tripwire" or alarm, signaling that the primates survived long enough to reach the lunar surface.
That second Monolith sends a signal to a third one, which then facilitates a "jump" or teleportation back to their home planet.
Ultimately, Bowman evolves to serve as the intermediary between humanity and these cosmic entities.

You can spend hours hunting for a million more minute details in the film, but that is essentially the core of it. That is what matters; everything else is secondary.

While these themes were expanded upon in the sequels *2010*, *2061*, and *3001*, the fundamental point remains the First Contact.
In short, aliens didn't manufacture humans. They simply prevented a species from dying out and left a phone line ringing in case we actually made it.

Well, obviously. When Christian Bale is leading the opening scenes, you know you're in for something significant.

White ants?

That’s precisely my point.
*2001: A Space Odyssey* is a flawless film, yet people insist on hallucinating "white ants" everywhere—they just have this desperate need to invent some grander, deeper meaning for everything.
At its core, *Odyssey* is a perfectly told, fundamentally simple tale (one that Clarke originally distilled into just four or five pages).

Of course, then there is the matter of how that story is presented. Not a single sci-fi flick made today comes even remotely close to capturing that essence.

In short, *Odyssey* represents the absolute gold standard for what hardcore science fiction ought to be.

I wasn't even touching on special effects, let alone implying they were the issue; you completely missed my point.
For someone like Clark, technical precision always takes precedence over any sort of underlying symbolism.
Let’s be clear: I consider *The Odyssey* to be one of the greatest films ever made, but it’s a mistake to go hunting for subtext that simply isn't there or to focus on elements that were never meant to be front and center.

It’s actually quite grounded.
At its core, we're looking at first contact, rather than some heavy-handed meditation on the origins of humanity.
After all, the author is Arthur C. Clarke; don't expect layers of deep symbolism here. Instead, you get—for the most part—just pure, cold technology.

I’ve been reading through some of your comments, and frankly, it seems many of you have missed the point of what’s actually happening in *2001: A Space Odyssey*. Why on earth would the monolith be on the Moon instead of somewhere on Earth? Why did the first monolith target "monkeys"—though, let's be honest, there weren't many of them? And why was the pyramid from the original story, *The Sentinel*, swapped out for a monolith in the final film?
It strikes me that most of you fail to grasp the sheer craftsmanship involved here. Kubrick was a technical perfectionist to his core, and that's exactly why we don't see clunky artificial gravity or ridiculous sci-fi tropes. In this film, space is silent. When those airlocks open, you hear the hiss of pressure equalization and all those subtle, heavy details that make the world feel tactile. It remains incredibly unique. Before this, sci-fi movies were busy chasing big, bulging monsters from Mars; *Odyssey* took an entirely different path, and that is precisely why the film is a masterpiece.