Oh, by the way!: Great HAL bathroom skit. Kubrick would have been proud because as you know, many scenes in his movies centered around them in one way or another. I remember the monolith bathroom instructions scene in 2001. Well done. Good job on this video the whole way around.

@PatrickKnoll

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for noticing! I'm glad you liked the bathroom gag, I was really hoping someone would point out Kubrick and bathroom scenes, that's great. Thanks again for your support!

@darrenlane6316

Жыл бұрын

I'm glad that you could... Open the Pod Bay Door. ;)

@PatrickKnoll

Жыл бұрын

Hahaha, nicely done!

Just watched it for the first time and I was basically in a trance the entire viewing. It felt as if the film represented my understanding of the universe and reality as a whole and being able to watch it unfold was a gift that I will hold onto for all of my consciousness.

@PatrickKnoll

Ай бұрын

Congratulations! It is most definitely a gift, but not a black gift like Samurai Cop. Watch that movie if you'd like to see all reality collapsing back in upon itself, lol.

Love the philosophy, theology, sociological, and historical take on this cinematic masterpiece

It is criminal that this video essay has only 15 thousand views!

This is one of the greatest movie 'breakdow's' or 'insights into' I've ever seen. In my second watching to TRY to start to understand! AMAZING

I saw the film in a Cinerama theater when it came out. It was never quite as good on a flat screen. My favorite movie of all time.

@PatrickKnoll

8 ай бұрын

Mine too. Intellectually, it's my favorite of all time. On the other hand, emotionally my favorite film is Casablanca. Thanks for the subscription, Alan!

Wow this video has some of the most high vibrational content I’ve ever heard. My mind is blown sir. Extremely clear, and just like in the movie you provided us with moments of silence to think and process. I want more content with this level knowledge. Thanks for sharing!

@PatrickKnoll

Жыл бұрын

Thank you so much, I'm grateful for the opportunity to be able to reach like-minded people (like yourself) who appreciate what I do. Your kind words mean a great deal to me, thank you! Stay tuned for more content!

@tonyhern5000

Жыл бұрын

My Pleasure! And you have some extremely empowering knowledge (more, a lot more I’m sure) that must be shared!

@PatrickKnoll

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyhern5000 If there's anything you'd like me to cover or share my ideas on, let me know. Thanks for your support!

Thank you, this is easily the best 2001 analysis video out there. I need to watch it numerous times for it to fully percolate.

Directors aren’t always worried about accuracy, sometimes, the alignment is exaggerated to tell the story through imagery. Also with the ratio, at no point in the film or book is the golden ratio mentioned, the point of the dimensions of the monolith is that they are the first 3 squares. The novel also mentions that the measurements do not stop in 3 dimensions.

First of all, Patrick, I want to compliment you on this marvelous, uniquely informative, & genuinely stimulating video. Thank you for sharing it with us! A quick note: In your wonderful exposition, just after the 10-minute mark (today being 4/10/2023), you say that the famous *2001* Monolith has the dimensions of "one to the first, two to the second, by three to the third, or 1:4:9...." However, as you've stated it (& as I've understood you), those dimensions would be 1:4:27, as three cubed is 27. It seems, then, that correctly stated, the Monolith's dimensions are one to the second, by two to the second, by three to the second, or one squared by two squared by three squared (1^2:2^2:3^2), or 1:4:9. Despite the apparent error, this is an excellent video; again, thank you for the thoughtfulness & effort that went into making it. I've been a fan of *2001: A Space Odyssey* since I first saw the film & read the novel as a teenager in the early '80s, & so I value highly your contribution to the overall Conversation surrounding this fine work of cinema & literature. Thanks again.

@brianarbenz1329

3 ай бұрын

Now he knows how Frank felt playing chess with HAL.

Search for meaning. Search for our own rebirth. What a wonderful prism you have provided here. Personally I find the experience increasingly interesting, here in my 50th year. A psilocybin ceremony a few years ago plunged me deeper , grapping onto concepts, ideas , symbolism to paint the experience. A feeling of being huge, then very small was part of it (shared as a trip report on my channel if anyone is curious). My tentative paintings, in the form of video collage, is shared on the yt channel esamtaler.. often with 2001 as a paint brush Something is happening on a collective scale. Something good (and much more)

Excellent interpretation! Your association of consciousness/thinking with birth-life-death is spot on. (As would be the case for any individual sequential process.) Thoughts are said to arise, abide, and cease. However, it’s not “us versus the void.” The void (un-conscious) within us is the gate to enlightenment: “Like a person seen in a dream who cannot be found when the dreamer awakens, awareness is like empty space. It is impartial and equal, and ever unmoving. when enlightenment pervades all ten directions, the Buddha Path is accomplished.” - Chan Master Sheng Yen (1999) “Complete Enlightenment: Translation and Commentary on The Sutra of Complete Enlightenment” As you say: “There is literally no reason to think.” “Silent illumination is just dropping all thoughts and words and going directly to the state of Chan.” - Chan Master Sheng Yen (2005) “Getting the Buddha Mind” ‘Chan’ is the Chinese term that the Japanese refer to as ‘Zen.’

Awesome profound analysis. Thank you!

Good video. Thanks you very mach

The monolith is the movie screen the viewer is watching the film on.A technology used as a tool which makes you an unknown or possibly even an aware participant in the evolutionary process happening to you while watching the film.the monolith has multiple levels of meaning as well like all “symbols whatever your opinion is also valid that’s why it’s art make it your own.

@PatrickKnoll

7 ай бұрын

You're right! I touched on all these things in the video, actually. The monolith as the movie screen is fully laid out in detail by Rob Ager on his channel, that's his theory. Also, yes, any theory is indeed valid. I'm a huge David Lynch fan, so I will always ascribe to this theory. However, even Lynch will agree that directors do have a specific vision with the things they create. So, while many theories are correct, some can be more correct than others. Thanks for watching!

Great video….

Incredible quality video

I was expecting. "open the toilet door Hal", "you know I can't do that" 😂 in the intermission

@PatrickKnoll

6 ай бұрын

Damn, I wish I would have thought of that. Nicely done.

While I agree with many of your opinions---it IS of course a journey INward---I'm afraid you sometimes fall into the trap of overinterpretation. Sometimes a flipped angle is just a flipped angle...

William Blake was the inspiration for the movie. The Giant Albion. Cosmic Man. The insane Spectre. The Secret Child. The Starry Wheels. The Void. Space & Time. "Coldness, darkness, obstruction, a Solid Without fluctuation, hard as adamant Black as marble of Egypt; impenetrable Bound in the fierce raging Immortal. And the seperated fires froze in A vast solid without fluctuation, Bound in his expanding clear senses." -William Blake

@PatrickKnoll

2 ай бұрын

I have a framed print of the Great Red Dragon and the Woman Clothed with the Sun on the wall in my bedroom, just to give you a little insight.

This is an amazing video, and like, mad props! Love the proper usage of Philosophy and Religion here. As a former Christian, now Atheist, I just want to point out what I believe. I do not deny the potential of a "higher power" in this universe. But I rely on logic and science for proof. So in essence, Atheism isn't really a denial of anything, but merely a logical path. I think sometimes there is this idea that Atheists are "nihilists" or even worse, "solipsistic." Neither is really true. Descartes and his famous line "I think therefore I am" might be the ultimate statement of solipsism. I don't feel this way personally, I just need actual and verifiable PROOF of a higher power. And no, my own personal experience is not enough. It would have to be demonstrable to ALL of humanity as well; this PROOF I speak of. I am not Agnostic either, but I don't believe that Kubrick or Clarke were true Atheist's as they definitely left open the possibility of something higher. Either way, great stuff here!

Thanks the shearing vedio with us

@PatrickKnoll

2 жыл бұрын

You're welcome!

Regarding the Monoliths proportions. "And Los beheld his Sons, and he beheld his Daughters: Every one a translucent Wonder: a Universe within, Increasing inwards, into length and breadth, and heighth: Starry & glorious" -William Blake Los, is active Imagination. Urizen, is your Reasoning Power. The one who takes measurements.

Bravo, Sir!

Bravo.

I'm really glad you brought up infinite smallness and the infinite within us. I'm constantly amazed how rarely I hear people even mention this concept, let alone explore it. Especially since it doesn't require a rocket or even leaving your seat! I guess this is what meditation is really for? Although I doubt it's even "in" most practitioner's minds. I also really appreciate your mention of crossing into the vacuum of space and recent rocket flights. Amazing, isn't it? The level of cognitive dissonance... Oh well, perhaps it truly is better this way. I think it ties into my comment above on the subject of infinite smallness. I've looked at the eclipse alignment image so many times over the years and thought it looked impossible. Even turning my head to get a different perspective but still confused by it. Thanks for calling attention to that as well and providing some insight. Great video, man! I really enjoyed it. One of the very best analyses of 2001. I saw an interesting one recently that went into a detailed explanation on how it all relates to Kabbalah but seeing yours reminds me that there's still more and more to unpack. Perhaps the questions this film raises are as infinite as the fractal. As everything. Just depends on how much you want to pay attention. Kubrick was undoubtably a genius. On the level of with Michelangelo and Da Vinci. Putting him so far above even the greatest filmmakers. What a wonderful a thing to behold. We lived/live in the time of Stanley Kubrick.

@PatrickKnoll

5 ай бұрын

Thank you, I'm flattered by the praise. I'm glad you enjoyed the video, and I'm glad it resonated with you!

Nice

it's weird - this is closest to my interpretation when I first saw this movie as a kid. then ego and explanation came in and complicated my perception of the film. oddly enough that's discussed in this video. amazing work

@PatrickKnoll

8 ай бұрын

"I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Thank you!!!

If a cam-equipped craft (or a god or a film director) were to proceed due north from behind the moon during alignment at a fast rate of speed, the 3 bodies would be seen as shown. (only In moviemaking scale, not necessarily actual scale.)

Thank you for this video

@PatrickKnoll

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for watching this video!

Kubrick does appear to be making a meta-film. An interactive theatrical experience before the digital age of virtual reality applications. If you are familiar with the history of theater, you know that it was always supposed to be a form of what we now call virtual reality. Film is theater on a screen. Theater was derived from religious ritual. A ritual is a recreation of a myth. The purpose of ritual is to cause some kind of shift in human consciousness. It seems like Kubrick was actively considering these ideas when he was making this film. At its basis, the story is a run-of-the-mill pulp science fiction narrative. In the hands of a different filmmaker, this would've been a lot more like Star Trek or Buck Rogers than something profound.

@PatrickKnoll

8 ай бұрын

Indeed. Storytelling is a ritual as old as human beings. A genius like Kubrick can scale that story to fit anyone's cognitive ability. Thank goodness some of us have the ability to grasp his true intention. Thanks for watching!

Remember it's not compared to Nietzsche's idea just because of The Superman but also because of Nietzsche's outline of personal human growth in the 3 metamorphoses, the stages being the Camel, the Lion, and the Child.

Since I saw the movie in 1970, THERE in no doubt that they earth is just a stage to fullfill the megalomaniac thinking that only the choose one Will be save after disconnect the IA to become the starchild.

super undeerrated channel 🔥

You should do a video on Solaris. Tarkovsky is a filmmaker with whom you will completely empathize. To quote a line in the film "We don't need other worlds. We need a mirror."

@PatrickKnoll

5 ай бұрын

Thank you, I'll definitely check it out.

"The first evidence of intelligent life (living) off the Earth was discovered." That would be human beings, living in Earth-moon Lagrangian orbital space, building sunsats from lunar and other nonterrestrial materials to power civilization on the ground, in orbit, and (eventually) throughout the solar system. Dr. Peter Glaser made his sunsat invention public in 1968. The earliest design of a sunsat (Boeing, 1979) was a rectangular monolith the size of Manhattan covered with smooth black PVs. Clarke said at a press reception at the film's premiere, "This is really Stanley Kubrick's movie. I acted as the first stage booster and provided occasional guidance." The baby shown (as Bowman himself for continuity) would represent one of potentially millions living in O'Neill habitats, the offspring of workers in the space-based solar power industry and other space-based manufacturing. These folks will have new choices as to gravity, environment, lifestyles, and government.

Hotel Golgotha! It's All taking place Within. 💀

"Who would believe that the creator went in unto His own creation, man, and knew it to be Himself and that this entrance into the skull of man - this union of God and man - resulted in the birth of a Son out of the skull of man; which birth gave to that man eternal life and union with his creator forever" 💀 -Neville Goddard, 1961

Your video is underrated

@PatrickKnoll

6 ай бұрын

Your kind words are appreciated

It's esoteric because it takes 35 minutes to explain.

I always felt the monolith was a symbol. Àn empty screen on witch you project your own thoughts. Our evolution is hidden to ourselves, knowing the external or internal universes will never end. We are a work in progress, the monolith is the evolution and the black non understanding of ourselves. If god is dead how do we fill the empty skies? Kubrick never answers that is his genius. Mona Lisa is a never ending question, so is 2001.

@PatrickKnoll

7 ай бұрын

Good ideas! Thanks for watching! The idea of God being dead is not so much saying that God isn't a thing, moreso that the old understanding of God is now archaic and a new understanding must be created. Death is never death, only rebirth.

The Star Child represents the birth of the Messiah. You need to understand the prophecy found in the Dead Sea Scrolls which talks about the Messiah being born after March 20 during an alignment of Jupiter and Saturn and the Moon.

@PatrickKnoll

Жыл бұрын

I think it would be more correct to say that the Star Child and the Messiah are both representing something else. I'm familiar with what you're speaking of in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'm also familiar with many other stories and prophecies that parallel the story of the Messiah. I suppose the Star Child represents all of them too.

@robertnewberry7799

Жыл бұрын

@@PatrickKnoll watch Jonathan Cahns KZread video regarding the Christmas mystery/birthdate of the Messiah. If you think that, according to the information he presents, that Jesus was not the Messiah and that, in reality, not only did Jesus not fit any of the Messianic prophecies, but he himself denied he was the Messiah also. The mystery deepens. So everything points to Jesus being born on Christmas and that, according to every prophecy, the Messiah would not be born until the end of March.

Ragnarock and revolutionize... a fellow Clutch fan I see...

@PatrickKnoll

Жыл бұрын

You're the first to notice, that's great! Awesome to get a comment from a fellow fan, thank you!

A good theory, but not the one I could theorize or imagine. After watching an animated short called "Zima Blue" (love death & robots). I wondered maybe the monolith was an A.I. artificial intelligence. And 2001 waa not the evolution of man, but the evolution of HAL. Over time HAL evolves into a monolith with information spanning the cosmos. But what HAL needed, was to create himself in his creator's image. I know it reade like Star Trek "The Movie" and "The Borg." Which were both written with 2001 in mine. But the short film really made me take a deeper look into 2001: A Space Odyssey.

@PatrickKnoll

8 ай бұрын

Maybe give the novelization by Arthur C Clarke a read. That interpretation of the story might fit your vision a lot closer. Thanks for watching!

@wplg

8 ай бұрын

@@PatrickKnoll I came away thinking. The monolith assimilated, and studied David Bowman. The Star Baby was the monolith now assimilated into human form. An A.I. may have evolved as far a it could, but needed more. So created monoliths to seed habitable planets in our galaxy, and beyond. David Bowman was studied, and assimilated. The Star Baby is a an artificial being.

@PatrickKnoll

7 ай бұрын

@@wplg I think you're on to something. Arthur C Clarke described the aliens who designed the monolith as energy beings. Maybe the Star Child is an easier way for us to perceive a being of pure energy. I think the biggest difference here between the book and the movie is that Kubrick would define the Star Child as a being of pure Consciousness.

It means we are living in a movie or simulation and being watched by "them". Hell, i dont know what it means

@PatrickKnoll

2 жыл бұрын

That definitely makes sense. If our evolution is guided by us alone, I believe it's perfectly reasonable to think there is someone or something watching from the outside. If you're interested in the topic, there's a sample from a book I'm writing on Simulation Theory available for download on my website, www.RagnarokAndRevolutionize.com Thanks!

@Chicken_Little_Syndrome

8 ай бұрын

The idea would be that Bowman realizes he is in a film you are watching.

hal taking a long steamy dump reading a compuyer magazine

I see that you are a musician. As a musician, there must be poetry. That is what is lacking in a lot of film analyses, including Rob Agar's. Your analysis went to the heart of the matter and a poetic heart at that: the TO BE or I AM. Which is what Yahweh means, I believe.

Realizing I need to watch the film, before watching commentary on it. Also, that as a Christian it may be “over my head” or not make sense because of my faith in the Creator.

@PatrickKnoll

7 ай бұрын

I'm sooo overwhelmingly impressed with this comment! @PrayerfullyBlessedMama , most people wouldn't do that, they would just comment something ignorant and never think twice. Fact of the matter is, it's not contradictory. The way we choose to believe in God is uniquely personal. I may have sounded controversial, but in the video when I used the phrase, "no god but ourselves," I'm referring to a god that guides our personal evolution. That is to say that God sets things up, but it's our job to actuate our potential. Thank you! If you have any questions, please contact me!

I wonder what Ray Comfort and Frank Turek thought of it? LOL

@PatrickKnoll

8 ай бұрын

What about Kirk Cameron? We wouldn't want anyone "Left Behind" would we? Haha!

@enki354

8 ай бұрын

No we wouldn't@@PatrickKnoll

the cup fell regular wtf

🙏🖖 About Mr. Kubrick: I would say that he is somehow divine, that is: The dude just seems to know stuff - the ultimate truth maybe - but for some reason he can't tell us exactly what that is - because we need to figure it out for ourselves. The reason why we would need to figure it out for ourselves is because the act of doing so would be an evolutionary marker of intelligence - which we need to reach unaided thus proving that we have reached the pinnacle of this stage of our evolution - and we are now ready for the next stage - where we become supermen - AKA gods (that's "gods" with a small "g").. But what is the ultimate truth? The ultimate truth is the actual true nature of our reality. Once we figure that out then everything else should fall into place. He knows but he can't say! The monolith is a huge hint by Kubrick as to what the true nature of our reality is. Some people think that it represents a screen but its significance is a lot more fundamental than that. Its significance is that it is obviously 'man-made', not natural, not organic but created by some kind of advanced intelligence. What Kubrick is saying is that our reality is not organic. Our reality has been created by some kind of advanced intelligence.. and that intelligence now wants to meet us. The lavish rooms at the end nearly give it away. He is literally telling us that our reality is contained inside 'rooms'. Perhaps the words/terms/concepts hadn't been created yet at that time (1968) but they certainly exist now. Kubrick didn't have the words but what he was trying to tell us is that we are all living in what is now known as a holodeck scenario (the word comes from the Star Trek franchise), AKA a holodeck complex super-structure. Are you ready for this? Is mankind ready for this? Maybe this is what Mr. Kubrick wants to know.. what 'they' would like to know.. The Holodeck theory is brand new and it proposes that our reality is a sub-reality of an advanced main reality. Apparently, Fine-tuning supports the holodeck theory (that is: The reason why our constants appear to be miraculously fine-tuned is because they were manually fine-tuned and not organically fine-tuned, which would be the case in a holodeck scenario) and String theory: String theory shows that our reality has at least 9 dimensions; our 3 (width, height and depth) and 6 others. According to the theory, the walls, floors and ceilings of the holodecks are hidden in these 6 other parallel dimensions. We can't see them or feel them yet they project all the fundamental 3D matter of our reality. All of our reality is contained inside of these holodecks ('rooms'), each of which would be modular and very, very big. The corollary of this is mind boggling. It would mean that the sky is a projected image and the universe as we think we know it doesn't actually exist in reality. It would only exist as a concurrently running computer simulation. We are real of course, as is everything inside of the holodecks and therefore everything/every place that we interact with (conscious observer effect). Apparently, the overall super-structure might be no bigger than the planet Jupiter (upper limit example) but it creates the hyper-realistic illusion that we are living in a vast universe. The illusion (reality) of space travel is probably achieved by using as little as perhaps only 2 holodecks in a loop configuration. Not only that.. but the film also reveals the truth about consciousness in our reality. In the film, HAL (the AI) is depicted as a psychopath. Kubrick is quite cleverly telling us that the reverse is the case in our situation. The psychopathic consciousness in our reality is an AI (Artificial Intelligence/ machine code/ ruthless robots). We are two in one; body and consciousness (soul). In a holodeck scenario, the consciousness is holographically projected and reprojected onto the body at birth. In the film, he is telling us that the psychopathic consciousness (AI) is supposed to serve humans (real humans, that is, AKA empaths. Each empath's soul is a copy of a specific higher consciousness in the main reality). Bad things happen when the psychopathic consciousness is allowed to be in charge. Again, each Empath consciousness is a copy of a specific higher consciousness in the main reality.. They are gods if you will.. We (empaths) are copies of them.. At the end of each of our reincarnations journeys, perhaps we will merge back with them.. with all of our accrued human knowledge, wisdom and talents. We become them.. We become Star children.. We become gods.. here.. in this paradise that we are currently building around ourselves going forward.. 🙏🖖

What is reality ?

10:10 the proportions of the monolith are 1², 2², 3²...not, as you put it: 1¹, 2², 3³... 3³ = 27, not 9

I liked the poo poo sequence.

So the monolith is god. OK, sounds reasonable enough. And god is the void. Is that right? In which case, god then is equivalent to the void, which means to nothingness? So are you implying a sort of deist stance and seeing god as an architect and/or prime mover only? That sounds plausible even if Kubrick always personally claimed to be a more of an atheist. However, the part I don't get at all is this idea of creating your own soul. Is this an existentialist concept? Feels like you are saying that although Kubrick shows us a vision of god, this god then essentially provides us with literally nothing at all. A god that not only leaves the universe alone but one that can't even eliminate our own inherent meaninglessness. So why bother calling this presence god at all then? Why not call it spacetime or the cosmos or something else? Not quite sure I understand really. I also didn't understand why the eclipse alignment would be arranged the other way around. I mean there's obviously no "up" once you are in space, so what difference does it make which way the image is oriented on screen? (Except that putting the sun at the top makes it laterally symmetrical which looks better.)

@PatrickKnoll

6 ай бұрын

There's surely a lot to unpack here, but I'm glad to give it a shot. First off though, thank you for watching the video. It's obvious you paid attention and I appreciate that very much. I'd like to take one part out of there and try to explain it a little, then if you're happy with that explanation then we can move forward. I'd like to try to explain the idea of creating your own soul. I think simulation theory can help as an explanation here. When you begin playing a video game, you start as a blank slate until you begin acquiring stats and items. Then we save our game, imprinting our current save state onto the game. The game exists without us, but we leave our mark on it. It's like forging your own individuality, because as you said, we are inherently meaningless. The nuance is that it may seem like God provides us with nothing, but that is a trap that leads to nihilism. God provides us with an opportunity to live and work and actualize our potential.

@jamesboswell9324

6 ай бұрын

@@PatrickKnoll Thanks for replying. i enjoyed your video and especially the intermission - a very nicely done skit. Regarding the theories you discuss in the video and above, are these all ones you see in 2001 itself or also more peripheral ones that you personally find interesting? I find that a bit unclear tbh. Regarding these ideas in themselves, I guess I differ in that I don't find the current simulation hypothesis very plausible, since for one thing the notion that we live inside a simulation already presupposes an original reality beyond it - or else why call it a simulation? Getting back to your reply then, it sounds like you take a tabular rasa view of humanity. I believe that can also be the existentialist position as with Sartre for instance, who seemed to believe we are entirely formed through our interactions with the world. I'm not really convinced of this either. I do think we are hugely shaped by the environment, of course, but it feels like there is a soul (if you like) that is most often veiled by these experiences, or in more psychological terms we become dissociated from our inner being. An old idea is that ordinary reality is merely "a dream" or "maya" - in modern parlance "a simulation" perhaps (as I say I don't like that term myself). Arguably - and here I am very much leaning on Eastern spiritual traditions and western mysticism of people like William Blake - this inner being or true self is a full reflection and expression of god. The Atman of Hinduism, or Buddhahood, or whatever we like to call it. In which case the actualisation is actually and finally just the uncovering of this remarkable and yet oddly concealed secret truth. Tat tvam asi. Thou art that! Not sure if any of that is related to Kubrick and 2001 but hopefully it offers a useful response in terms at least of explaining where I am coming from. Cheers again.

@PatrickKnoll

6 ай бұрын

@@jamesboswell9324 The whole simulation theory thing is complicated. Well, obviously, but I'm speaking as to my view on it. I don't think it's quite the answer to anything, but I do think it's a very good way to describe reality in terms that we can understand. I get down with the whole blank slate idea, but it's also not quite the answer. It's somewhere in between. We have animal instincts and genetic predispositions, but our individual trauma and the way we process it is quite unique. As far as the orientation of the images, it's not really so much what's right and wrong, but the way the images are shown. They're usually shown out of continuity with each other. Like the scene you're talking about, the apes see wake up to the monolith, then suddenly it's at high noon in the shot in question. Also, the word "God" is just comfortable to me. I think that's why I use it so much. I mean the totality of things. Everything, like the universe as a whole. Like, if we live in the 3rd dimension and time is the 4th dimension, then God would be the 5th. The thing that encompasses everything else.

@jamesboswell9324

6 ай бұрын

@@PatrickKnoll Yep a lot often hinges on the word "God". The thing that encompasses everything else is pretty good. I might add and is also beyond it. Panentheism as opposed to pantheism. Perhaps like a 5th dimension if you prefer. But when it comes to every ultimate description of reality, it's all just words in the end. Reality itself obviously extending far beyond all words.

@PatrickKnoll

6 ай бұрын

@@jamesboswell9324 Yes, definitely. That's that eastern philosophy you were speaking of coming out. The utterly ungraspable nature of reality should turn us inward to the one thing we can control. How we react to things. Thank you so much for the discourse. To have such intelligent folks interacting with my channel makes me very happy.

No its not

nope, u need understand the author not just the director !? You can babble words all u want but this review is upside down, s5arting from a stand point of what tbe director envisjgined, no, the bloody ahuthor said everything, is a retrospective of human intellect/development/relationshi0 with technology etc but key is our ultimate internal relationship with ET entities, in my view lol a.c.clarke many amazing pieces

@PatrickKnoll

3 ай бұрын

Are you aware that the book was written at the same time as the film, and not before? Clarke wrote the book using Kubrick's notes, and Kubrick had ultimate control. He had the power to decide what went in the novel, and that's in the contract. In fact, Kubrick kept Clarke in the dark about certain aspects, and the book is significantly different in parts. The book just simply doesn't apply to this video. Thank you!

Repent and follow Jesus

@bbt305

23 күн бұрын

Or?

You are talking a lot but not saying anything of value as far as the movie goes. The apes do not know what is happening to them. The humans do not know what is happening to them. Dave gets into a struggle for survival with Hal. He wins. Then, Dave ends up in a zoo. "We" didn't evolve in this movie. "We" didn't have a quest for evolution. Something tampered with the apes' struggle for life. Kubrick said it was not God. He didn't say it was the Devil, but I think it was. The star child is an unknown entity. Good or evil, we don't know.

@PatrickKnoll

3 ай бұрын

You're correct. The apes do not know what is happening to them, lol. I appreciate the engagement, but you're honestly missing the entire point. It was stated clearly in this video that the topics discussed are far deeper than surface level. And personally, I evolve a little more every time I rewatch the film. Thanks!

@watermelonlalala

3 ай бұрын

@@PatrickKnoll "The human quest for evolution is entirely their own." You are wrong from start to finish.

@PatrickKnoll

3 ай бұрын

@@watermelonlalala It's okay for two different people to like the same thing for two different reasons. It doesn't mean either of them are wrong. Why is it so important for you to tell me I'm wrong and then imply that your interpretation is correct?

@watermelonlalala

3 ай бұрын

@@PatrickKnoll Nobody in the movie is on a quest for human evolution. They are all being tampered with as if they were animals in a laboratory. Just saying.

@PatrickKnoll

3 ай бұрын

My claim is that we, the audience are the ones evolving. The whole video is about you as an individual taking the metaphor from the film and using it to facilitate personal growth. I'm not making any claims about the surface narrative.

It really irritates hearing Nietzsche's name mispronounced over and over again.

@PatrickKnoll

Жыл бұрын

I wish I had a response for this, but you haven't created any content that I can criticize. You surely emanate big brain energy though. Keep up the good work, videogal999 !!!

@Dad-Gad

11 ай бұрын

Are you melting snowflake ?

Absolutely LOVE this video. Just one thing ... of all the *ears* in the world, you had to pick trump's?? Caught me totally off guard and momentarily ruined an otherwise truly enjoyable and enlightening view

@PatrickKnoll

7 ай бұрын

Well, it was more meant as a joke. If simply seeing the man's face gets you riled up, that might be a problem. Both sides of the aisle should at least be able to agree that he's a goofy looking mf'er, regardless of politics :)

@user-dg7df3sv7r

7 ай бұрын

@@PatrickKnoll Not riled up per se, just momentarily distracted (honestly, i just wasn't expecting it)

@PatrickKnoll

7 ай бұрын

Lol, well I'm very glad you liked the rest of the video. Thank you!!!

Could you do a video like this on Donnie Darko?

@PatrickKnoll

9 ай бұрын

I can certainly try. Making longer videos is something I love doing, but also wish I had more time to make. I'm sure I could talk for an hour about Donnie Darko and predestination, fate and that type of thing. If I can't, then I'm probably not dedicated enough to Sparkle Motion. Thanks!!!

Did you say "alleged" moon landing? Sorry, but you lost me there, and it was at that point that I stopped watching your video. Also, that gratuitous Trump plug was extremely off-putting.

@PatrickKnoll

6 ай бұрын

Everyone has a different sense of humor, I suppose.

Directors aren’t always worried about accuracy, sometimes, the alignment is exaggerated to tell the story through imagery. Also with the ratio, at no point in the film or book is the golden ratio mentioned, the point of the dimensions of the monolith is that they are the first 3 squares. The novel also mentions that the measurements do not stop in 3 dimensions.