>I'm actually a big science-fiction fan, I was reading Arthur C
>Clarke when I was 12,
Just a reminder that 2001 the movie was a collaboration between Kubrick and Clarke.
>Science fiction is entertainment. Any film or book that needs
>pretentious wankers to tell you what it means has just got to be rubbish.
Entertainment doesn't preclude interpretation. Just read Zizek on Hitchcock. I say that even as I expect you'll dismiss Zizek as a pretentious wanker.
>Even, especially, if the interpretations reveal something about the
>story that an audience might miss,
Isn't that what interpretation is for?