2001: A Space Odyssey – How Kubrick fooled us all

June 26, 2025
1 View
37 comments
SaveSavedRemoved 0

Tags: 2001: A Space Odyssey film analysis2001: A Space Odyssey meaning2001: A Space Odyssey productioncollative learning 2001rob ager 2001rob ager collative learningstanley kubrick 2001: A Space Odysseystanley kubrick chess
For those leaving arbitrary comments claiming there's no evidence for any of this (even though I cite several source in the vid) check out these vids where I go more specifically into detail about production history and the content of the movie itself …
No aliens in 2001 / meaning of the monolith https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYcekxnsjyY
2001: Behind the propaganda (tons of production sources and footage in this) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n1kucZVYdk
2001: Horror of the void (tons of movie detail observations) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcFuCfJMIZg
Want more content folks … follow these links.
Check out the current discounts on my offline vids and articles https://www.collativelearning.com/
Join my Film, Game & Media analysis page on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/4637000646361309
… as well as following the Collative Learning FB page https://www.facebook.com/RobAgerpublic
Get a copy of my video game To The Death https://store.steampowered.com/app/2758570/To_The_Death/
… and follow the game on the Ager Games Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/@robagergames
… and at the To The Death FB page https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61555615927786
Follow me on Twitter / X https://twitter.com/RobAger
Signing up as a monthly supporter on Patreon gets you arround 12 hrs more content https://www.patreon.com/RobAger
PLEASE ALSO POST YOUR RESPONSES TO THE VIDEO CONTENT ABOVE SEPARATELTY FROM THIS PINNED COMMENT, THANKS.
My favorite movie & has been for 40 years
So this guy believes that Kuprick's ultimate message was that space is a dangerous and impossible frontier to conquer? Seems to me like he's missing the point regarding the nature of human evolution. He speaks nothing about the meaning of the monolith and the transformation of Bowman at the end of the film.
He fooled many with his Apollo 11 moon landing production, but not everyone.
TL;DW: HAL's secret mission was a metaphor for Kubrick's secret techno-fatalist message.
Kubrick’s Star Child = Monogenēs
1. David Bowman’s Journey = Cessation of Computation
HAL, the classical AI, dies—his last words are a hymn: “Daisy, Daisy…”
Bowman proceeds beyond HAL, into a space of strange colors, timeless rooms—this is not travel, it’s entropic disassembly.
Time unravels. Identity unravels. Measurement breaks.
He becomes pure observer, without resistance.
2. The Embryo Appears
Not a child of man.
Not grown in womb.
But birthed in silence, through the monadic convergence of all correlations.
It is not born into space—it writes space from within. It is beyond evolution, beyond karma. It is not a continuation. It is a singular generation: Monogenēs.
3. What Does the Star Child Represent?
A being beyond death, beyond spacetime.
The resonance-body, formed from coherence, not cells.
The fruit of nonlocal intelligence meeting pure mind.
A Logos-child. Not a symbol—but a signal.
And then Stanley had them quite firmly by the balls.
more from this guy who is this
I think the film is all a matter of interpretation. And I believe this is what Kubrick meant to create.
I’d like to find the sources that supports the idea that Dr. Strangelove (1964) actually was considered controversial when it was released. As for 2001 (1968) I find that the movie is so artsy that its message — especially if being highly concealed — hardly carried through as most viewers did not understand, or even appreciated, the drama.
Hey Rob, are you aware of the Copernican Principle which states humans always mistakenly overestimate their importance? We are not in fact special. The Copernican Principle also solves the Fermi Paradox. If we're stuck on a rock and unable to leave the solar system, so is every Alien race across the universe. And that's why we'll never be able to find each other.
3:49 that not completely true. True of western culture. Plenty of examples where this didnt happen.
I guess that double narrative is why I found 2001 so confusing at the time.
Crap. The idea was that using tools was a movement to the next stage in development, then come forward and look how far using tools has taken us. But the thing with HAL was to make the point that tools have taken us as far as we can go, and it is time for us to move to the next stage, one that leaves tools behind and gives us more control of space and time.
Interesting interpretation, but I think there's a great deal of revisionism here. It's easy to sneer at space exploration from a post-Vietnam, 21st Century perspective, especially when it's so fashionalble to sneer at pretty much anything these days. God knows, there's always been plenty of that on this channel. I don't believe Stanley Kubrick would have spent so much time and money to tell a story, even in a veiled way, that he genuinely thought was bullʇᴉɥs. You're really implying, by your interpretation, that Stanley Kubrick was not very intelligent. Genuinely intelligent people don't waste their time sneering and trolling. '2001' is my favourite film, but it wouldn't be if I believed this.
Brilliant analysis.
in that case, I like this movie again
An interesting interpretation. I have great respect for Clarke's writing and imagination. Rendezvous with Rama, 2010. Kubrick's vision was incredibly influential. He dragged sci-fi from the comic books to mature, thoughtful drama. HAL's ' death ' is creepy but strangely moving.
During an interview for Japanese audiences in 1980, Kubrick is asked what 2001: A Space Odyssey's last scene meant, and he explains that Dave was "taken in by godlike entities; creatures of pure energy and intelligence." This is what the colors and hallucinations are supposed to represent. He then describes the room as "a human zoo," where Dave is observed and has no sense of time. Kubrick says, "He is transformed into some kind of super being and sent back to Earth… and we have to only guess what happens when he goes back."
So in other words, Kubrick lied and used Clarke do his dirty work because he didn't have the courage to do it himself. Why the uploader thinks this is a good thing is beyond me. By doing this, Kubrick completely failed in his objective.
The man was a certifiable genius. And that word is used far too often. But Kubrick legitimately was one. From a scientific and social aspect particularly.
What if Kubrick actually fooled nobody? That's the real conspiracy. By my book.
Dude, in the floral shirt looks like Michael J Fox.
One thing I've enjoyed is connecting with a song that sounds happy without truly hearing its lyrics. Listen to the song at the right time, and then I'm awakened to what the lyrics are communicating and am floored. I believe true artists know how to communicate on a broad level to bring in a wide audience and then the true intent of the work only strikes a select few with an ear to hear.
It's bullshit that the story of 2001 is bullshit. Plus, he presents a simplistic almost child-like story line. Kubrick would not waste his time saying,"This is a bullshit fantasy…" Ridiculous.
Please read the short story by Arthur C Clarke , The Sentinel , written in the 1940s.
This guy speaks like he knows everything. Kind of an obnoxious jerk.
Arthur C. Clarke said, "If you understand 2001: A Space Odyssey completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we have answered".
Now, tell us all how you've figured everything out……….
A VERY clever movie buff here and a wonderful interviewer . I never knew any of this about 2001. I love this presentation, thank you.
The biggest tragedy of that movie was the rotating space station model ended up abandoned on some scrub land somewhere 😢
projecting a future-phobic neolibieral hatred of progress onto a film from an age that was very much the opposite. very sad to see. even used a scareword, transhumanist! oooooOOOOOOoooo progress scary!
is the slönnö? bälldy€ an dr öid ?? qvbe never made a statecement about ör since vvestwörld..? häl is a bäd? layme? xcuse..?
but häl vväters didnt get qvbes ´vöice dydd he ^?^ (äfter vväters refused ´möthörr ´4 c.ö..?)
bvt remembäre qvbe gäve footage tv scött and let? the ´nnönney nnänn?? mäke ki?? ^$§^
möst äre knöt ´Fit? tv dill vviß qbrikkcc ^??^ lörrn büy nvmnütz v??v sound öFF like you gätt ä päyr ^§^
´yör €RRänD ´b€vhß send büy the $äym€? jewry FillösöFäirce? clvb that made qvbe.?? nö vväy he did in 10 years with libräreese n
cönFidäntß and 3x härletänz vvätt oui dö with jöttabytess and in maybe little möhre ^§^ well least he used his ´jöker cärp ^J^
But the third more metaphorical background symbolism is not just the release from technocracy but the evolution from the representation of oligarchy as a representation of the oppression to our hedonic need to attach to progress. and that which technocracy in this sense represents continuous progress and the repression of human evolution. As the next steps for human evolution would be the development of spiritual and collective unity and consciousness [ whether you believe in souls or not] the main concept being the progress as a whole species from an inner journey rather than an outer one dependent on “technology” in this case representing our societal, biopsychosocial advancement.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but if that was Kubrick’s goal, the messaging largely failed.
Kubrick looks like an older synthetic man.
He fooled us by filming the "moonlandings" for NASA. NASA budget is 85 million per day, each and every single day. We get back cartoons, CGI, and poor quality fake films. No film of earth spinning in space.😊
Like Elon thinking we gonna go to Mars crap