Pretty cool- thanks!

Here's one for you: http://www.misternicehands.com/

Before I click on these links, I'll just put out my explanation and see if it's similar.

The monolith is the evolutionist's equivalent of the Bible's The Tree Of Knowledge And Of Good And Evil.

Man discovers tools through the Monolith, uses those tools to advance and go to space. Advanced tool (Hal 9000) nearly destroys him. Man stops the advanced tool with a simple tool then has to transcend the use of tools and evolve to a fourth dimensional state.

Moral: Reliance on tools gets you somewhere, but in unknown space you might have to start over with new paradigms.

Close?

Everything but the first phrase is right on the mark with the video, Phil. Man discovers tools through its own traits. The monolith, if anything, is just an evolutionary mile marker, though it may have acted as a source of inspiration for the apes.

Seen the movie like 20 times. My wife hates it, thinks it's the single most boring movie ever made. Telling her that "slow" was part of Kubrick's point doesn't help.

Typical sci-fi watching binge for me: Solaris, 2001, Gattaca, Brazil, etc.

Typical wife ACTUALLY wants to watch session: Stars Wars, all episodes. Star Trek, all episodes. Spaceballs, etc.

So we watch like Planet Of The Apes movies or Dark Star or something. Maybe moron fun like Zardoz or Barbarella.

Don't forget Silent Running with Bruce Dern. One of my faves.

Yeah, Silent Running is great.

I also like, suprisingly, Robinson Crusoe On Mars. Though it's got some really cheesy 60's elements, the psychological elements are very good. It's like a bigger budget extended Star Trek episode with Pike instead of Kirk. Probably inspired a lot of the Enemy Mine movie, too.

I didn't go to the site, but I thought Clarke's book explained it pretty well: all a big experiment by aliens. Give the unevolved race a little push and then see if they find the thing on the moon.

Okay, read Sketch's post now. In the book it's very clear that the monolith that showed up on earth not only inspired, but actually forced a tribe of apes to use tools.

2001 >> Star Trek 1.

That's why the movie is better then the book. The reliance on the extraterrestrials/God/whatever to push apes into evolving is so trite. Kubrick's interpretation that the qualities were already inherent in them is much better. Clarke also wrote all those shitty sequels and touched lilttle boys. Fuck that guy.

That's an interesting take, and it's as plausible and correct as most any other well thought-out take. What I always got out of it was the the first monolith was presented to a set of apes that were on the boundary of figuring out tools and taking the species to the next level. The fact that the apes were curious about the monolith says a lot - they were not simply animals that reacted to a new thing in their environment by either running away or learning to ignore it. They were actually curious about it. I have always assumed that the monolith gave them an evolutionary push they might not otherwise have gotten - the use of tools. The second monolith served only as an alarm, nothing more - it signaled to the one orbiting Jupiter that mankind had progressed to the point where space travel was possible, indicating a level of intelligence that meant something to the makers of the monolith. The third monolith is like the first in that its presence is meant for those who are ready to take the next step, and it does so with Bowman, elevating him beyond the limits of human existence. Remember, in that all-white mocked-up hotel room he is given a choice - return to the simple human that you were, in the form of the ape, or move on to the next advancement, the "star child."

That's why it's my favorite movie. So many questions, and the answers are there, but they change depending on what you make of the movie.

Strange shit.

I just proposed to teach a freshman seminar on Cognitive Science and Science Fiction. I intend to have them watch or read Solaris, Gattaca, (not 2001 for length), along with classic eps from Star Wars TNG, Outer Limits, Twilight Zone etc..

Nice, Paul! Not precisely in the same vein, but what's your take on Philip K Dick's work (and its subsequent followers, film-adaptations, etc.)?

Yeah, the movie and book are a bit different which is odd because the book was being written as the movie was being filmed.

Arthur C. Clarke had already done his take on the next evolutionary step for man in the earlier (and superior) book Childhood's End.

For those of you interested in these kind of things:
The guy on the spaceship that HAL kills (Gary Lockwood) was in the very first episode of Star Trek.
The name HAL was derived from IBM
H>>>I
A>>>B
L>>>M

Im most likely going to also use some of PKD work in the course as well. I think he was a troubled visionary- not necessarily of things that will come, but of tracing out alternative possibilities of the mind and memory. Im still not sure what I will use but I *was* thinking of using Do Sheep Dream... instead of having them watch bladerunner, but time is always a concern.

For memory, I might instead use Memento.. Im not sure..

Was Clarke really a TT Monger?

All charges were dropped, the Sri Lankan government found no evidence of kiddydiddy whatsover.

The principal reporter for the Sunday Times story has since admitted he made up the charges.

He didn't have the Twinkle in his eye on that AC Clarke's Mysteries show... I would've been surprised if he really had been.

Did you guys see they're planning on remaking "Logan's Run" next year?

But it looks like they lost Leonardo DiCaprio so hopefully it won't happen now

Do you mean Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

No I mean the animal porn Do Sheep Dream... of fucking course I mean Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.....

snicker ^^^^

do you mean the 60's solaris or the cloony version? is there one you like better? how would you compare it to the book--which i thought was great in a very foggy, dreamy, far-off sort of way.