The monolith was not envisioned as a tombstone. It’s origins are as you described. It meant by the authors, and so therefore it’s creators, as a catalyst for change where change would happen naturally, but encouraged to take a different direction. I’m not a fan of “if it looks like it, it must be it” school of thought. That’s how you get stubborn literalism. Great video!
or as someone whose name I cannot remember said in the 70's (or was the 90's?), its a film screen turn 90 degrees, which is why the plants/moon/sun always are 90 degrees from where they should be and in a line straight up over the top the of monolith. A youtuber ripped it off the idea, or tried to at first.
I remember the dimensions being important in the books, but it's been a while since I've read them. Other monoliths, specifically the ones that transformed Jupiter into Lucifer were different sizes, but still in the ratio of 1x4x9.
I use this movie quote myself from time to time: *_"This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error."_* - 2OO1: A SPACE ODYSSEY [1968]
Wow, I never thought the monolith would fit among tombstones like that. Maybe it truly simbolizes the end of mankind as an animal species and a new beginning as a stellar people. Food for thought. Thanks!
"Coldness, darkness, obstruction, a Solid Without fluctuation, hard as adamant Black as marble of Egypt; impenetrable Bound in the fierce raging Immortal." -William Blake
Well I always took this in one of 2 ways. 1. It is the Alien's for of Reproduction and the Star Child is a emblematic hybrid of Alien (possibly non-corporeal Alien or even artificial ) intelligence. This also would explain why they uplifted HAL too (late on). 2. It is a way to preserve something of Humanity while also giving them a warning / threat that they have a new thing to watch over and it is another sentience in the Sol System and if we mess with it they/it will extinguish us. That they don't really give two hoots about Humanity is shown by them making the Jovian-Micro-system and then telling Humanitiy they can't touch it. When the resources of the Jovian System are pretty much essential to farm to go interstellar. Unless Humanity learns enough to replicate a Stargate or other FTL themselves that is ( I forget what happens in that regard in the later novels that don't have a Movie about them ). It wasn't something I was in a hurry to read again really so those sections have faded now. There is a implicit capricious threat in the "entities" actions though when they find their new toy that isn't us. I suppose the long term way to look at it is the alien saying we are watching you watch them.. don't screw it up, with the intention being we slowly evolve to replace them and so become the child of the entities/entity. That might work especially if it is a non-corporeal intelligence or even a virtual one that can't really easily reproduce in any normal way unless it did and well that is us.. and that was just a long ol' gestation from ape to starchild.
On page 63 of Piers Bizony's book "2001 filming the future" there's a front-on pic of Old Bowman in the bed looking at the Monolith, and my ruler shows that the Mid and Long edges of the Monolith measure 24 mm and 56 mm, respectively, which reduces to 3:7 . . . and NOT the 4:9 that Clarke's novel states. A similar but smaller pic on page 469 of THE STANLEY KUBRICK ARCHIVES (smaller-sized edition) shows the Monolith head-on with the dimensions 13x31 mm : going by the 3:7 dimensions from the 1st pic, 7/3 = 2.333... and 13 x 2.333... = 30.333 ... whereas 31/2.333... = 13.28571429... The 13x31 figure reduces to 1:2.384615385 Going by freeze-frame images from the DVD, I've found a SIDE-view of the Monolith to have its Short-by-Long side to have the dimensions 9:130, and a FRONT-view to have its Mid-by-Long dimensions of 54:130, which would make the 3-dimensions of the Monolith 9:54:130 [Short:Mid:Long]. Clarke obviously wanted to stress the dimensions as being the first three Square Numbers, 1:4:9. But the actual Monolith prop seems to have had different dimensions than what Clarke established in his novel[ization] of '2001'. The Short:Mid dimensions (9:54) obviously reduce to 1:6, making the Monolith 6 times wider than it is thick. If we were to shave off that '130' figure for the Height down to '129.6', then the Height-to-Thickness ratio would be 9:129.6 = 1:14.4 = 10:144, otherwise 130/9 = 14.444... I kinda dig the idea that the Monolith was 144/10 times Taller than it was Thick, since 144 = 12 squared, and '10' would represent Base-10 and also be equivalent to 1+2+3+4. If we were to go with that 9:54:129.6 set of dimensions, then it would be equivalent to 10:60:144. The ratio 144/60 = 2.4 (which is one-tenth of 24, '24' being twice 12, the square root of '144'. I doubt if any of the Monolith props survive from Kubrick's production, seeing as how he destroyed all his spaceship model-props -- to prevent MGM (or whomever) from re-using the designs he'd had made for '2001'. It would sure be nice to be able to measure an actual Monolith prop, so as to ascertain exactly how Thick, Wide, and Tall it was. So . . . was the Monolith really '1' by '4' by '9', as Clarke would have us think? Or, rather, was it '10' by '60' by '144' instead? If we postulate a 'Unit' used by the Beings who made the Monolith, and then suppose that they made one particular Monolith TEN units thick, SIXTY units wide, and ONE HUNDRED FORTY units tall, then we would have the implied importance of the numbers '1', '2', '10', '12', '60', and '144' . . . since 2+10 = 12, 12^2 = 144, (2x12)/10 = 2.4 = 144/60, etc. etc. . . . AND, hey, it just occurred to me: 10 x 60 x 144 = 86,400 = the number of SECONDS in one DAY on Earth! As intriguing as Clarke's notion of the squares of 1, 2, and 3 might be, I think that -- going by the actual dimensions of Kubrick's Monolith prop, as best I can determine them -- there just might be more significance in the actual numbers (i.e. 10, 60, and 144), as well as those implied by them (i.e. 1, 2, 12, and 86,400). It's too bad both Kubrick and Clarke are both deceased, and neither of them can be questioned about these discrepant dimensions. 1 : 4 : 9 versus 10 : 60 : 144 . . .
Cool, though the 1:4:9 dimensions of the monolith are not used in Kubrick's film; they are strictly an invention of Clarke's for the novel. Kubrick's monolith is very close to the dimensions of a movie screen, rotated 90 degrees obviously. This is probably not a coincidence.
I suggest - The black is solid and could represent tranquility but also absorbing and containing knowledge. I suspect any alien species will mess with the progress of life on any world they encounter. It may be because they want to see the development to intelligence. Could be because all life follows similar or same paradigms throughout he universe and again, this is a way to study themselves by contrast. Could be that they’re just lonely and want companionship. Another thought, they fulfill a role much like angels in Judea-Christian-Islamic religions.
The monolith in '2001' is too thin to be 1×4×9. '2010' makes those dimensions explicit, and so its design for the monolith comports with those dimensions.
Yes and no. Until the final portion of the film, the influence of the Monoliths is indirect-they don't create humanity out of thin air, so much as provide an inspirational jump-start to a species that could make it to sentience and spaceflight... if they could survive long enough to make it there. But they are not a constant presence in human existence, shaping them every step of the way or acting as a traditional deity would. The Firstborn (Monolith-builders) aren't gods, but they're practically indistinguishable from a human perspective. Humanity (and its ancestral species) still had plenty of heavy lifting to do over the eons without outside interference.
I always thought it was the aliens' intention to do a test on humanity, as we would test amoeba. Oh and black is NOT a colour, it is both the absence of colour and a shade, but not a colour.
Another great video!
The monolith was not envisioned as a tombstone. It’s origins are as you described. It meant by the authors, and so therefore it’s creators, as a catalyst for change where change would happen naturally, but encouraged to take a different direction. I’m not a fan of “if it looks like it, it must be it” school of thought. That’s how you get stubborn literalism. Great video!
or as someone whose name I cannot remember said in the 70's (or was the 90's?), its a film screen turn 90 degrees, which is why the plants/moon/sun always are 90 degrees from where they should be and in a line straight up over the top the of monolith. A youtuber ripped it off the idea, or tried to at first.
I remember the dimensions being important in the books, but it's been a while since I've read them. Other monoliths, specifically the ones that transformed Jupiter into Lucifer were different sizes, but still in the ratio of 1x4x9.
I use this movie quote myself from time to time:
*_"This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error."_*
- 2OO1: A SPACE ODYSSEY [1968]
Wow, I never thought the monolith would fit among tombstones like that. Maybe it truly simbolizes the end of mankind as an animal species and a new beginning as a stellar people. Food for thought. Thanks!
"Coldness, darkness, obstruction, a Solid
Without fluctuation, hard as adamant
Black as marble of Egypt; impenetrable
Bound in the fierce raging Immortal."
-William Blake
I love these symbolism-laden videos of yours :)
Hey!!! That was fun.
Well I always took this in one of 2 ways.
1. It is the Alien's for of Reproduction and the Star Child is a emblematic hybrid of Alien (possibly non-corporeal Alien or even artificial ) intelligence. This also would explain why they uplifted HAL too (late on).
2. It is a way to preserve something of Humanity while also giving them a warning / threat that they have a new thing to watch over and it is another sentience in the Sol System and if we mess with it they/it will extinguish us.
That they don't really give two hoots about Humanity is shown by them making the Jovian-Micro-system and then telling Humanitiy they can't touch it.
When the resources of the Jovian System are pretty much essential to farm to go interstellar. Unless Humanity learns enough to replicate a Stargate or other FTL themselves that is ( I forget what happens in that regard in the later novels that don't have a Movie about them ). It wasn't something I was in a hurry to read again really so those sections have faded now.
There is a implicit capricious threat in the "entities" actions though when they find their new toy that isn't us.
I suppose the long term way to look at it is the alien saying we are watching you watch them.. don't screw it up, with the intention being we slowly evolve to replace them and so become the child of the entities/entity. That might work especially if it is a non-corporeal intelligence or even a virtual one that can't really easily reproduce in any normal way unless it did and well that is us.. and that was just a long ol' gestation from ape to starchild.
On page 63 of Piers Bizony's book "2001 filming the future" there's a front-on pic of Old Bowman in the bed looking at the Monolith, and my ruler shows that the Mid and Long edges of the Monolith measure 24 mm and 56 mm, respectively, which reduces to 3:7 . . . and NOT the 4:9 that Clarke's novel states. A similar but smaller pic on page 469 of THE STANLEY KUBRICK ARCHIVES (smaller-sized edition) shows the Monolith head-on with the dimensions 13x31 mm : going by the 3:7 dimensions from the 1st pic, 7/3 = 2.333... and 13 x 2.333... = 30.333 ... whereas 31/2.333... = 13.28571429... The 13x31 figure reduces to 1:2.384615385
Going by freeze-frame images from the DVD, I've found a SIDE-view of the Monolith to have its Short-by-Long side to have the dimensions 9:130, and a FRONT-view to have its Mid-by-Long dimensions of 54:130, which would make the 3-dimensions of the Monolith 9:54:130 [Short:Mid:Long].
Clarke obviously wanted to stress the dimensions as being the first three Square Numbers, 1:4:9. But the actual Monolith prop seems to have had different dimensions than what Clarke established in his novel[ization] of '2001'. The Short:Mid dimensions (9:54) obviously reduce to 1:6, making the Monolith 6 times wider than it is thick. If we were to shave off that '130' figure for the Height down to '129.6', then the Height-to-Thickness ratio would be 9:129.6 = 1:14.4 = 10:144, otherwise 130/9 = 14.444...
I kinda dig the idea that the Monolith was 144/10 times Taller than it was Thick, since 144 = 12 squared, and '10' would represent Base-10 and also be equivalent to 1+2+3+4. If we were to go with that 9:54:129.6 set of dimensions, then it would be equivalent to 10:60:144. The ratio 144/60 = 2.4 (which is one-tenth of 24, '24' being twice 12, the square root of '144'.
I doubt if any of the Monolith props survive from Kubrick's production, seeing as how he destroyed all his spaceship model-props -- to prevent MGM (or whomever) from re-using the designs he'd had made for '2001'. It would sure be nice to be able to measure an actual Monolith prop, so as to ascertain exactly how Thick, Wide, and Tall it was.
So . . . was the Monolith really '1' by '4' by '9', as Clarke would have us think? Or, rather, was it '10' by '60' by '144' instead? If we postulate a 'Unit' used by the Beings who made the Monolith, and then suppose that they made one particular Monolith TEN units thick, SIXTY units wide, and ONE HUNDRED FORTY units tall, then we would have the implied importance of the numbers '1', '2', '10', '12', '60', and '144' . . . since 2+10 = 12, 12^2 = 144, (2x12)/10 = 2.4 = 144/60, etc. etc. . . . AND, hey, it just occurred to me: 10 x 60 x 144 = 86,400 = the number of SECONDS in one DAY on Earth!
As intriguing as Clarke's notion of the squares of 1, 2, and 3 might be, I think that -- going by the actual dimensions of Kubrick's Monolith prop, as best I can determine them -- there just might be more significance in the actual numbers (i.e. 10, 60, and 144), as well as those implied by them (i.e. 1, 2, 12, and 86,400). It's too bad both Kubrick and Clarke are both deceased, and neither of them can be questioned about these discrepant dimensions.
1 : 4 : 9 versus 10 : 60 : 144 . . .
Cool, though the 1:4:9 dimensions of the monolith are not used in Kubrick's film; they are strictly an invention of Clarke's for the novel. Kubrick's monolith is very close to the dimensions of a movie screen, rotated 90 degrees obviously. This is probably not a coincidence.
I suggest - The black is solid and could represent tranquility but also absorbing and containing knowledge.
I suspect any alien species will mess with the progress of life on any world they encounter. It may be because they want to see the development to intelligence. Could be because all life follows similar or same paradigms throughout he universe and again, this is a way to study themselves by contrast. Could be that they’re just lonely and want companionship.
Another thought, they fulfill a role much like angels in Judea-Christian-Islamic religions.
The monolith in '2001' is too thin to be 1×4×9. '2010' makes those dimensions explicit, and so its design for the monolith comports with those dimensions.
The actual dimensions seem to be 10 : 60 : 144 (as best as I can determine, using screengrabs and a ruler) -- see my other post here . . .
Always peculiar that a movie that on the surface is about evolution ultimately makes a case for intelligent design/intentionality, isn't it?
Kubrick said "I will say that the God concept is at the heart of 2001-but not any traditional, anthropomorphic image of God."
Yes and no. Until the final portion of the film, the influence of the Monoliths is indirect-they don't create humanity out of thin air, so much as provide an inspirational jump-start to a species that could make it to sentience and spaceflight... if they could survive long enough to make it there. But they are not a constant presence in human existence, shaping them every step of the way or acting as a traditional deity would. The Firstborn (Monolith-builders) aren't gods, but they're practically indistinguishable from a human perspective. Humanity (and its ancestral species) still had plenty of heavy lifting to do over the eons without outside interference.
Wow 😮
Ah, the Dark Forest theory emerges again!
It is the height of hubris to think mankind can ever become something resembling competition to such beings.
I always thought it was the aliens' intention to do a test on humanity, as we would test amoeba. Oh and black is NOT a colour, it is both the absence of colour and a shade, but not a colour.