I dunno – hasn’t Michael Bay been overtaken as the most craptacular director by Roland Emmerich?
What I was getting at it, we know that because we’ve been told that by the “supplemental readings”. I’m not sure that’s the only interpretation of the movie that can be taken away.
I hadn’t really thought it through before, but the idea I have in post 48 fits the movie, too (note: I don’t believe this is what Kubrick intended, but I kinda like it). That the entities behind the monolith are trying to guide us to our full potential, but the teachings are not taking. Despite everything they try, we keep going back to killing each other. First the bone, then the nuclear satellites, then HAL killing the crew, then finally the Star Child blowing up the earth. (the sequel has him hunting down the Monolith creators and killing them all. 2002: The Reckoning! Coming soon.)
Or, maybe that’s exactly what the Monolith wants - better warriors!
I don’t think you’re being a dick. I perhaps didn’t choose the best word. Whether 2001 is or isn’t abstract isn’t what we should be disagreeing on.
I was postulating that 2001 could have been created as a movie where the plot is not at all relevant. The “point” of viewing the film is the feeling the imagery invokes. Getting bogged down in discussing the story would be missing the point. But, since the reality of the cinema in the 60s wouldn’t allow such a movie to be made as anything other than a low budget art film that no one would ever see, Kubrick made a compromise. There is enough plot there to keep reviewers happy, but the true point of the film is the gestalt.
That’s why people who watched it stoned actually got it. They left their preconceptions at the door and took in the whole of the film. And why, going full circle back to the OP, some people find it boring.
I can’t see any reason to ignore the plot. It’s right there. The ending is what we used to call “psychedelic” back in the day. As for folks “getting it” when they are stoned-- I once discovered the meaning of life when I was stoned.
For me, the slow pace of 2001 makes it better. For example, there’s a very long scene where not much is happening and all you hear is the guy breathing. Boring in a way, I suppose, but it’s the length that makes it feel real to me. After a while, I switch from thinking “Why can’t they cut out this five minutes of breathing in space?” to just being there and immersed in it.
On the other hand, I don’t feel that way about everything in the movie. The hominids in the beginning? I only need two minutes of them, thanks. We get the point.
I’ll toss in a quick and half-hearted defense of Barry Lyndon.
It’s a pretty movie. It’s a delight to look at. Also, the music is spectacular; it’s one of the best sound-tracks around. The battle scenes were excellent.
And…it’s a hell of a lot better than the book! In the movie, Lyndon was a “likeable rogue.” A scoundrel you can grin along with. In the book, he was a pure-s stinker, a total shit, a murderous rapist, and not likeable at all.
Yeah, many people never understand it, and feel that way. Others get it, and enjoy the movie.
In case you were wondering, that’s not the reason you’re not in with the in crowd. 
I’ve never read the book, but saw the movie for the first time just a few years ago. I’d known about its reputation for nearly 40 years, and so avoided it.
But I really enjoyed it.
The man-apes in 2001 tend to get short shrifted in my opinion in the makeup area. It seems Planet of the Apes (same year) gets all the hype for makeup, but I think 2001 is about the most believeable ever filmed (including, or not, the recent CGI PotA films).
The Urban Legend is that the Academy Awards voters thought that the “apes” in 2001 were real animals, and so didn’t vote for them for make-up.
I have zero idea whether this is true, but it’s a lovely UL.
(I just did a quick search on snopes and didn’t find it.)
Didn’t really mean to be calling anybody names, was trying to keep the term idiot in a more colloquial sense, as in if an adult told me they thought that Armageddon or *Independence Day *were two fantastic movies a thousand times better than 2001, whether I said it outloud or not I’d feel compelled to believe that their taste in movies was a tad idiotic.
Don’t know if that sounds any better, but there’s not much more I need to add anyway. To each his own… 
How Dave got to that room was pure Kubrick. What happened to Dave in the room was pure Clarke.
There was nothing in the genre at that time that came anywhere close to 2001 in accuracy and beauty.
The Sentinel was a far more important precursor story than the one about surviving in vacuum - though the roadshow program had an insert about this, since it was one of Clarke’s little bugaboos. I’d say Childhood’s End, though not directly a source, was even more important.
The Starchild did not blow up the earth. In the book, and in an early version of the script, he blew up the orbiting weapons that we saw in the Blue Danube scene. However Kubrick thought this would be too much like the end of Dr. Strangelove.
Anti-war? Moonwatcher became human after discovering weapons and murder and Bowman (get that name?) won the right to the next stage of evolution by “killing” HAL.
I saw it as an anti-war statement.
Mankind only survived because the first Monolith interaction taught us to kill.
But now, we’re too damned good at it, and we, ourselves, are the most likely cause of our own extinction. The next stage was, among other things, the Monolith touching us again, so that we aren’t the bloody-handed apes the first interaction made us into.
(Einstein and many others have said essentially the same thing: we, as an aggressive species, must put war behind us, because we can no longer afford the harm it brings, and we might very well not be able to survive the harm it brings.)
Stanley Kubrick is overrated.
Even if you don’t like 2001, it seems a stretch to opine that it’s the most or second-most boring movie when the competition for such honors is so intense. Someone’s already mentioned Terence Malick, for God’s sake.
Here’s another film that’s substantially slower-paced and manages to be even more boring despite having mysterious aliens, murder, and Scarlett Johansson naked:
Seriously. ScarJo is running around…well, walking really…getting undressed and killing people, and it manages to be both dull and disengaging. Talking about 2001 is more interesting than watching Under the Skin. And there are LOTS more movies like that.
Pretentious and boring. the human characters are vanilla-no interest in them at all. And the idea that Hal would be able to kill the humans (in suspended animation) is absurd. Finally, why Saturn? Why didn’t the mysterious monolith makers decide to put the thing on Mars? Impressive special effects for the time, but poor story. say, what became of those earth-moon tickets that PanAm sold?
I liked that movie, although admittedly, Scarlett Johansson doing the full Monty probably swayed me to some degree.
His movies insist upon themselves?
Sounds to me like you might want to watch it again and take some notes. 
It’s not Saturn, it’s the moon Europa around Jupiter. It’s there because, of all of the places in the solar system, Europa is the most likely for life to exist. Certainly more likely than Mars; even the rovers we’ve sent looking for life there are mostly hoping to find evidence of past life, not present life. Europa has a giant liquid ocean under the icy layers, and orbital mechanics with Jupiter provides internal heat.
The movie starts with an obelisk appearing on Earth, which allows early hominids to become more intelligent. So the obelisk appearing around Jupter/Europe implies there is something there still developing, and the story ends with a warning to humans that they can go anywhere they want except Europa. That’s the story - there is a parallel, intelligent (or soon-to-be-intelligent) life form on Europa that is being guided and protected by the obelisks in the same way that humans were.