Not a bad first post. Can't recall if it's explicitly explained in the film (been a while; rewatch I must!), but if you're familiar with Arthur C. Clark's writings, you'll recognize the monoliths as a variation on a recurring theme in his fiction, that we are being monitored by a far superior alien race awaiting some sign that our species has attained a certain degree of intelligence before making contact with us. Here it's strategically placed monoliths... the one on the moon letting them know we're capable of space flight, then the ability to extract and decipher data... That idea had much impact on me as a kid!

Then the journey... I think you're pretty dead on with the conflict you describe taking shape from that point on, leading to mankind's rebirth. But was HAL conscious of this "mission"? I always saw the Dave-HAL conflict as a sub plot not fully impacting the conclusion so directly, as you suggest, though the result is the same: mankind reached that step because mankind conquered machines. Conversely, would machines have reached it or would it still be in wait for the right candidate? Incidentally, as you prob. know already, HAL comes from each letter that follows those in IBM.

AI is the future, no doubt there, but that wont supplant us. But AGI (Artificial General Intelligence, i.e. a sentient machines) that's a whole other thing, which may never be resolved. If it is, machines will represent the next step in evolution unless careful fail-safes are hard-wired and absolute objective care goes into the development of the initial learning algorithms and the corpus and data pool it's fed. But humans being humans... we'll screw that up! ;)
You familiar with transhumanism? A version of that is our next evolutionary step, IMO.

Also of interest to point out: The film can be visually interpreted as: Intercourse; a sperm's journey; conception. No. Not kidding, and it's intended. That spaceship penetrating the docking tunnel; the sperm-shaped spaceship on a mission...; the last is obvious.

I pretty much take what seems to be the standard view of this film's meaning: The story of mankind's evolution from primitive ape to advanced space-going species to fully-evolved intellectual/spiritual star-child. But this is a film--like any good film--which is very open to the interpretation of the individual viewer. It is a "show-don't- tell" movie. Personally, for me, I watched this on TV back around 1982 when I was about seven; it was a favorite movie of my Dad's. And it horrified me. I am still afraid of HAL. Ever since, I have had a deep-seated distrust of anything computer-related/technological-- ironic I know, since I am here posting on an Internet message board:)!!!

I used to be way into the "movie screen as monolith" interpretation and it pretty much makes perfect sense. But it's a sensory film, Kubrick himself said that consciously thinking about what it meant was self-defeating and missing the point. You've got to watch it each time and just let it take you away and get immersed in the visuals. That's what I do each time and I get something new out of it each time. That's why it's my favorite movie. It's just about infinitely rewatchable.

am going to rewatch it and find out.

I think maybe the movie shows the path to "enlightenment" is a bloody one. In this movie we have two types of intelligence, organic and electronic, on the same path. When the monolith boosted the early hominids' intelligence, the first thing they did was kill another group. Likewise, as the Discovery approached the "Big Brother" monolith it seemed to influence HAL's intelligence too. HAL killed Frank, the other astronauts in suspended animation, and tried to kill Dave.

This is just an idea I'm throwing out there. Feel free to debate/debunk as you like.

Whereas the film has multiple layers and is ambiguous enough to allow all kinds of interpretations, one of the themes that has stuck with me is a pessimistic view of human nature: the first discovery of the "enhanced" apes is a weapon, and even modern men are basically apes using more sophisticated and deadly tools (as shown by the 4-million year match cut). Even the best product of man's intelligence, HAL 9000, who is supposed to be foolproof and incapable of error, turns out to be inherently flawed and kills most of the crew before being dismembered in his turn. As I see it, man will never learn from his errors, and the Starchild will repeat what his ancestors did, before being wiped out in his turn by the next step in human evolution.

I find the book easier to get into.

I think it takes more than that to make 2001 Mecha

@Invidia said: Because no matter how much TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS is made, we still cling to and just keep dealing with the same old ANIMALISTIC kind of DEVOLUTIONARY ISSUES as the APES.

Sadly, that's the interpretation that seems to fit. I think Kubrick was showing that technology makes us more desensitized & clinical (For example: compare Dave's methodical 'killing' of Hal to the original ape's bloody frenzy. Another example: observe the polite passive/aggressiveness when Floyd and the Russians speak in the waiting area, compared to the shouting ape clans). But the overall point seems to be that humans have made no real moral progress in 10 million years. We are still driven by the same aggressive survival instincts that put us at the top of the food chain.

I'm not sure how to interpret the 'star child'. The book implies that he's some sort of superhero who comes back to save the planet by destroying all the orbital missiles and forcing world peace, but I'm pretty sure that was Arthur C. Clarke's solo input. Kubrick clearly left it open ended for us to decide if the next step of human evolution would produce a superhero? an impartial observer? ...or perhaps the ultimate destroyer--a careless baby with a bright blue toy?