Thread: 2001: a Sex Oddyssey?

I still don't know what the point of that interpretation would be other than humor. I'm still not a fan of that interpretation, but I can't deny it's just as legitimate as any other claim could be, that's how awesome the movie is. You have plenty of room to describe how the interpretation would be meaningful rather than assume I discounted it entirely, which I clearly did not. There's a difference between claiming something is false and that you cannot perceive its significance.

You also seemed to assume I was acting like the novel was the key to understanding the film when I said the film purposefully left out details be more open to interpretation. These details are not underlying the film and still true, if they're left out they no longer exist for the purpose of the film.

There are some obvious procreative symbols all over the friggin film, and it's about evolution so obviously he'll hint at them here and there but sex isn't exactly a perfect allegory, like I said. There's just hints at procreation to direct one toward the evolution theme. But it can't be simplified to represent sex, there are more allegories in play and the sex one doesn't fit every single detail of the film. The monolith isn't a vagina, either, moreso than the holy grail is a vagina. Rather, the vagina itself is humorously injected by the interpretation because it's a symbol for a doorway.