What do other Aspies think of 2001: A Space Odyssey?

Post Reply New Topic

It's one of my favorites. Why does there need to be a reason for HAL malfunctioning? Computers malfunction all the time for no apparent reason. HAL bragged about the fact that "no 9000 computer has ever made a mistake, they are fool-proof and incapable of error." Yet HAL clearly made a mistake and gave the crew a wrong report. HAL wanted to preserve his pride and eliminate any proof of the mistake by killing the crew.

The whole HAL thing just seems out of place without an explanation. Why even have it? Why not just have the ship get hit by some asteroid or comet fragments that does damage, kills the people in cryostasis, etc? Without an explanation, it just seems like a key plot point with absolutely zero pay off, which for me, is disappointing. There's no tie in between HAL and the monoliths, so why even have it?

My opinion of this movie can be summed up pretty concisely. Just three words:

Pure. Unadulterated. TEDIUM.

If you only see the film, you might conclude that. Clarke did many stories over several books, so you are never going to get the whole story in one read (or movie).

HAL was AI. Capable of doing everything in the mission without a living crew. Why he malfunctioned isn't even hinted at in 2001 but it is explained in 2010. That HAL has a "consciousness" that the Monolith can image like it did Dave Bowman (2010 and later books), begs a question promoted in the beginning of 2010. Is the HAL/SAL series of computers "alive" or just very precise reproductions of the human thinking process?

The explanation for the malfunction (2010) was that HAL was given full knowledge of the mission and told not to tell the flight crew about it. In truth, the scientists in stasis knew of the mission and would brief the flight crew when they were awakened. HAL was not told this. HAL was not told, "Keep this a secret until you reach Jupiter." As military men, the flight crew would have understood that, but that is not what happened. HAL was told to lie. Being logical, HAL was trapped. As Discovery got closer to Jupiter, HAL knew there were people on board who could not know the true nature of the mission. HAL was told to lie, but his programming was to collect, analyze and relate information without distortion. The order to lie was a contradiction to his core programming and he was trapped in logic. Solution, kill the flight crew, shut down the stasis pods. He didn't need anyone to complete the mission he was programmed with. This logically satisfied his core programming and the literal wording of the security directive programmed with at the last minute.

2001 is my favorite science fiction movie of all time. If you fail to understand the movie then don't worry, just purchase a copy of the book, read it through, and then watch the movie again.

Vanilla_Slice

The film was good. I'm not about to say that it's the best thing anyone has ever made or seen, but I'll agree it was good.

Well, it did change the direction of Sci-fi Space movies away from all that V2 footage... and you can see where they got the idea of the middle of 'Star Trek: The Motion(less) Picture...

Had the book, another one called 'The Lost Worlds of 2001', which does a lot more alternative versions, and explanations.

It hasn't aged too well; I remember checking at midnight 2001 to see if anyone had it on. Tried to show it to my (then), 16-year-old daughter, who lasted...oh...8 seconds...

I ABSOLUTELY HATED the movie, even the sequel. The books are SO much better. the third one i liked the best.

I watched this Sunday afternoon. I think it was a good film but I didn't get the ending, it made me confused

Best film ever made.

The film has no answers because humanity has no real answers compared to the cosmic scale of space and evolution. The film is open and interpretive because that is all modern humanity have since we learned utter insignificance. Self reflective without being even mildly pretentious. Genius.

soooooo emotionally dead...aspies who like this give aspies a bad name

The film is emotionally dead because modern humanity is largely emotionally dead. Satire.

if anything, people are excessively hysterical. you wrong.

I watched an interview with the main character Dr. David Bowman (Keir Dullea) on the blu-ray disc. Even he doesn't know what happened at the end of 2001.

One word: S H I T E
I'm sorry but it's extremely boring and some of the soundtracks are rediculous and don't even match the scenes, like the part where they're walking on the moon taking a photograph and there's that "wooowwooowoooo" so called music playing.

2001 was the first SF movie with realistic special effects.

As for the plot, it sucked.

When you read the next books in the series and the other books by Arthur C Clarke, you find the same plot.

The plot builds up so that you are expecting greatness and fantastic revelations but then it all turns to crap and is depressing. What the hell is wrong with that man?