• hirihit640@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Not the commenter you’re replying to, but for me the ending of “2001: A Space Odyssey” is clearly some abstract artsy metaphor, so it’s ok that it has zero scientific basis. Like ending on a dream.

    The ending (the falling into the black hole part) of Interstellar is actually part of the plot, it actually impacts the other characters. If you want to sacrifice all logic for some emotional ending, there’s plenty of fantasy movies like that, but it’s not my cup of tea.

    • pet the cat, walk the dog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      17 hours ago

      clearly some abstract artsy metaphor

      Hmmm, not really — it actually has elements similar to those in ‘Interstellar’. It’s just that the happenings are delivered in a much more vague manner. From what I’ve heard, Arthur Clarke’s novel describes them clearer.

      • JamesTBagg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        The novel is more clear. Dave has evolved, literally. The monoliths are mile markers set out by ethereal aliens; the first teaching apes how to use tools, the other monitoring our progress to becoming space-faring.
        Aliens ushering us into a next plane of evolution is a recurring them with Clark. Childhood’s End has the extraterrestrials taking a much more deliberate role in our species transition.

        • pet the cat, walk the dog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          I’d say spoilers dude, but this is all sorta common knowledge around ‘2001’ the film. Afaik the novel also has some stuff about missiles and whatever, in the end phase. I should probably get through it someday, looks like it’s quite short even.