Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 7/27/2012 19:41, Tim Cook wrote:
> > The book was written in conjunction with the movie, and quite clearly
> > explains what's going on in the scenes in the end sequence.

> There's a difference between "it explains what's going on" and "you're 
> supposed to understand it."

> Consider, for example, the typical time-travel paradox story. It can explain 
> what happens quite clearly without you understanding what's going on.

> The sequence at the end of 2001 is the hyper-intelligent alien whatever 
> magically transporting Dave. Even tho Dave says "it's full of stars", you 
> aren't necessarily understanding *how* or *why* it is full of stars.

Also note that the book was written *after* the movie, in other words,
the movie was original and not based on any book.

AFAIK Kubrick didn't have anything particular in mind when he made the
final sequence. Just randomness. Of course there's no way of knowing for
sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if Kubrick made it random on purpose,
just to "troll" the viewers and make them try to make some sense of it.

I haven't read the book (or if I have, it was really, really long time ago
and I don't remember anything), but AFAIK Clarke tried to put some sense
into the ending in the book, but that doesn't make the original scene in
the movie any less random...

Post a reply to this message