Feynman was speaking to poets. He was allaying their fear that increased understanding would lead to less "wondering", and hence less creativity.
I find it hard to believe that Feynman would apply that argument to works like Kubrick's 2001. In all of Feynman's speaking, he never took the stance that something must be explained entirely in order to be interesting. Quite the opposite; Feynman was most interested in the things that hadn't yet been explained. The things that no one else could explain.
He was addressing the idea of the poets' that he could not appreciate the beauty of the stars because he understood why they worked. His delight in understanding how things worked increases his enjoyment of them.
The reason he was interested in things that hadn't been explained yet is because he wanted to find explanations - not because there is an inherent advantage to their remaining opaque.
I find it hard to believe that Feynman would apply that argument to works like Kubrick's 2001. In all of Feynman's speaking, he never took the stance that something must be explained entirely in order to be interesting. Quite the opposite; Feynman was most interested in the things that hadn't yet been explained. The things that no one else could explain.