2001: A Space Odyssey: EXPLAINED
About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery
A classic that still remains relevant today. The monolith, a cinema screen? Or a sentinel? Or maybe just a rectangular black thing. (Expand for more) Theories mentioned: http://www.kubrick2001.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSo6s_xrj4c Welcome to YouTube explained! The show that tries to make sense of YouTube! Post suggestions and theories here: http://www.reddit.com/r/youtubeexplained Support me here: https://www.patreon.com/VincentKav Twitter: https://twitter.com/VincentKav Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/VincentKav Instagram: https://instagram.com/vincentkavv/ Second channel: https://www.YouTube.com/Vinny ----------------------------------------------------- YouTube Explained merch store: http://shrsl.com/?~87l7 Awesome t-shirts by TeePublic: http://shrsl.com/?~87kp ----------------------------------------------------- My gear: Nikon D3300 - http://amzn.to/1ftyabI Rode NTG2 Shotgun Microphone - http://amzn.to/1KU3MEx Zoom H4n - http://amzn.to/1HoJn3o Proline Tripod - http://amzn.to/1GbwpVI YouTube Explained is a mix of analytical and comedic content covering YouTube videos (duh), movies, songs and pretty much anything that can be explained. Who am I? Well I'm an eighteen year old student studying Digital film Production in London. I love films and everything internet and hope to make YouTube my career. I've been on YouTube for 4 years and don't plan on leaving anytime soon. If you like Doctor who then we can most definitely be friends. Thanks for watching the video, and be sure to leave your feedback in the comment section down below!
Comments
-
Dont bring up interstellar. That is not a film of quality
-
Sorry you missed alot in your analisis. The biggest one is the fact that hal killed the astronauts because he was forced to lie about what the real mission to Jupiter was. Him lieing made him neurotic and paranoid and he had to kill the astronauts to cover up his lies. This is covered in the book and the movie 2010. Big fail
-
I'm sorry, but I can't let you do that.
-
What if the monolith is just a small piece of Laboratory equipment in a 5th dimensional Lab being used by 5 dimensional beings to record data from the 4 dimensional universe (our universe) that they created in their 5 dimensional 'petri dish' as part of a 5 dimensional 6th grade science class experiment? If you think about it, time (which is the 4th dimension of our world) would be a physical dimension to these beings, so the monolith appearing in these two points in time could be two ends of some kind of measuring equipment.
-
Phidias (490–430 BC) made the Parthenon statues that seem to embody the golden ratio.Plato (427–347 BC), in his Timaeus, describes five possible regular solids (the Platonic solids: the tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron, and icosahedron), some of which are related to the golden ratio.
Euclid (c. 325–c. 265 BC), in his Elements, gave the first recorded definition of the golden ratio, which he called, as translated into English, "extreme and mean ratio" (Greek: ἄκρος καὶ μέσος λόγος).
Fibonacci (1170–1250) mentioned the numerical series now named after him in his Liber Abaci; the ratio of sequential elements of the Fibonacci sequence approaches the golden ratio asymptotically.
Luca Pacioli (1445–1517) defines the golden ratio as the "divine proportion" in his Divina Proportione.
Michael Maestlin (1550–1631) publishes the first known approximation of the (inverse) golden ratio as a decimal fraction.
Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) proves that the golden ratio is the limit of the ratio of
consecutive Fibonacci numbers, and describes the golden ratio as a "precious jewel": "Geometry has two great treasures: one is the Theorem of Pythagoras, and the other the division of a line into extreme and mean ratio; the first we may compare to a measure of gold, the second we may name a precious jewel." These two treasures are combined in the Kepler triangle.
Charles Bonnet (1720–1793) points out that in the spiral phyllotaxis of plants going clockwise and counter-clockwise were frequently two successive Fibonacci series.
Martin Ohm (1792–1872) is believed to be the first to use the term goldener Schnitt (golden section) to describe this ratio, in 1835.
Édouard Lucas (1842–1891) gives the numerical sequence now known as the Fibonacci sequence its present name.
Mark Barr (20th century) suggests the Greek letter phi (φ), the initial letter of Greek sculptor Phidias's name, as a symbol for the golden ratio. -
Who came up with the theory that the monolith is a "television" screen. I think this argument is NONSENSE!
A little history of the "golden ratio" also known as the "golden mean" - "golden section" the "DIVINE PROPORTION" and 'DIVINE SECTION"
In mathematics, two quantities are in the golden ratio if their ratio is the same as the ratio of their sum to the larger of the two quantities. The golden ratio is also called the golden mean or golden section divine proportion, divine section
Some twentieth-century artists and architects, including Le Corbusier and Dalí, have proportioned their works to approximate the golden ratio—especially in the form of the golden rectangle, in which the ratio of the longer side to the shorter is the golden ratio—believing this proportion to be aesthetically pleasing. The golden ratio appears in some patterns in nature, including the spiral arrangement of leaves and other plant parts.
One sees the monolith all throughout the film! Consequently, the monolith is more akin to the "all seeing eye" of the enlightenment. consequently, it appears to me to be more akin to a representation of deism - the infinite creator who is unknowable of deism. -
A lot of things wrong with your "theory" when comparing to what the actual makers of the film intended.
-
I think this was a very good explanation and I'm happy to get the meaning of this movie now. Firts I thought this movie was very fucked up and wierd. Now I think this movie is amazing and very meaningful. Thanks a lot for that explanation.
But I think that this movie could have been inshorted much more, it was too long at some parts; everything happened too slowly. -
Your theory's are useless. There are two more books after 2001 that explain more things
-
If you read the book, which is very good, you would know that the monolith is exactly what caused human evolution
-
I respect that you disagree with the second theory by collaterative learning but Stanley Kubrick referenced "breaking the 4th wall" in almost all of his films. Spartacus' early gladiator scene involves a gladiator refusing to fight and throwing a trident at the audience. The pov is just behind those watching and as they dodge the throw the trident strikes what would be the camera. The monolith is a symbol as much as it is a physical "thing" in the film. To only take things literally and ignore metaphor seems obtuse at best. Should then cinema's most famous jump cut of a tossed and spinning bone visually transformed into a weaponized satellite be taken literally only as something inexplicable that just happens in the narrative? Or should we subconsciously connect the dots? Why does the movie start with bizarre noises and a blank screen for several minutes? Why is there an intentional intermission placed in the film (a time when audience members go use the bathroom and refill their food and drinks) followed by more weird sounds and a blank screen just before the final act? Does that happen anywhere else? Do audience members ever view themselves performing on screens for...themselves? Does anyone else view themselves in the film and then shift pov to feel like someone's watching them? Is the narrative self conscious? Literally yes. So what about metaphorically?
-
I think the fact that the machine chose to kill the humans wasn't to replace them. If we look a the machine as a tool then his purpose is to serve the human life so when the humans decided to go to Jupiter it meant that they will necessarily evolve into another creature like the monkeys did to become men. So by becoming another creature other than humans they will later overpower the humans like the humans did towards the monkeys. Knowing this, the machine is obligated to end the mission because it goes directly against its purpose (being to serve the human life), of course in opposite to the AI the humans on board never imagined the purpose of the mission and it's correlation to evolution, wich is why we can say that the machine was multiple steps ahead of the humans.
-
You are wrong in your analysis about HAL not being able to make a mistake; though it is true our current computers don't make mistakes that is because they are simple machines that follow a linear protocol without any rational decision making process. If HAL is truly a case of Artificial Intelligence, then this means he must engage in evaluating pro's, con's and probabilities. The very fact that random events exist in our Universe make it impossible for HAL to never make the wrong decision (in retrospect) even if the current information he has would lead him in a certain direction. This raises another dilemma; would HAL ever choose the objectively less rational decision based on another factor, such as emotion for example? If not, then he is still in many ways thinking in a linear fashion in the sense that if someone had access to all of his data they could predict with 100% certainty how he would act. That brings us back to the question, is HAL a true case of AI or is he just a very convincing simulation or 'mimic' of it, as they suggest at the beginning of the movie. HAL is definitely more informed than any human seeing as he has access to an exponentially larger amount of data with much faster processing power; though if he is a true case of AI there is no way of completely ruling out he could make a mistake. Even if he knew everything about the universe he would still only be right 99.99 (repeating) % of the time.
-
I found this movie incredibly boring... it was 2 hours and 28 minutes long and about an hour of that was completely useless scenes which dragged on far longer than they needed to. What I am referring to are all the scenes in space where a spaceship is slowly flying across the screen for 5 minutes and then it cuts to some pointless asteroids flying around as classical music plays.
-
Machines do make mistakes. And they are being improved to make better error-correction.
-
There is no IBM product placement in the movie - they withdrew their support when HAL becomes dangerous. They did not want to be associated with a movie where a computer basically kills nearly all of the crew. An urban legend claims that HAL's name is as a result of this - HAL is one letter shift from IBM.
I actually read the book several times before seeing the movie at the cinema and the book certainly has the monolith interacting with the men-apes, teaching them such things as how to tie a knot. When Moonwatcher throws the bone he made into a weapon in the air, it transitions into an orbiting nuclear missile. -
Computer AI make mistakes all the time. And it's not always caused by mistakes in program. There are a lot of other reasons: Overfeeding in neural networks, local maximal, corelation vs cause, wrong learning data, etc. Computer do make mistakes even if programs they run do not have any.
-
I think the claim that the monolith exists to observe evolution rather than trigger it is not very convincing without some argumentation on its behalf. Observation at just that moment, requires enormous insight to predict, especially from across the galaxy; absent that, its a pretty big coincidence. However benevolent monoliths accelerating evolution around the galaxy might be saving millions of years of suffering. I also think the tiger mauling scene kind of stands against the idea that they were at peace with nature, it seems much more like they were subject to it.
P.S. The monolith screeches at the humans when they try to record it. -
My only problem with the movie is: It just played in Los Angeles tonight... Everyone was applauding and cheering when it started, intermission took place about 1.5 hours in. When film resumed about 20 percent of people were gone. Point is: I don't want the film to be "Contact" or (what's the newer one where matt damon is stuck on mars and they time travel?... whatever). Point is: I LIKE that it's very abstract, but it seems like it could have been a tad shorter, and a tad less abstract story-wise. I'm glad the story wasn't spelled out... but the fact there's so many videos and essays on what the fuck it means is a bit telling that it's too abstract. "The Sentinel" made sense yet was still abstract and you had to think about it. 2001 went to the brink of not even making sense or at least way too interpretive.
-
3:09 I agree... the monolith didn't cause the evolution to use tools, weapons, make war, etc... It was pretty clear that the primates didn't understand what it was, and therefore were yelling at it in confusion. Going back to "The Sentinel" (A.C. Clarke's short story)... the reason the aliens put the monolith on the moon (it was a pyramid type thing in the short story), is because they needed humans to be evolved enough where they could even get to the moon, so they (the aliens) could come back and communicate with us and we'd be evolved enough to understand. So, showing the monolith during the primates time I believe was only to illustrate that they still couldn't understand what it was, and that it was not of this world.
14m 56sLenght
2163Rating