2001: A Space Odyssey Sucks

[Godot]

Which would be logical ... especially if HALs programming also told him, to make it look like an accident

(so that, after his return to earth, no suspicion would arise with regards to HAL [and those who programmed him] as murderer of the crew)

[KerbMav]

And why did he not kill him on the first trip Poole made to recover the part for inspection?

[Dodgey]

Because at that point they hadn't conspired to kill him yet. I do think that HAL made an error due his conflicting instructions, which led to Poole and Bowman conspiring to kill him, and he reacting.

[KSK]

I don't think the antenna actually failed. When Bowman and Poole test the recovered antenna unit, it passes their checks. I interpreted the anomaly as a ruse HAL used to get one of the astronauts outside the Discovery alone where he could dispose of him.

Ah, so it did. It's been a while since I've read the book / seen the film. Thinking about it, wasn't that the point where Bowman and Poole started getting suspicious? I still think HAL saw it as an easier way out - a way to remove part of his conflict by breaking the link with Earth to cover up any breaks with his orders. Unfortunately, a computer programmed for honesty makes a useless liar.

[sal_vager]

In 2010 the crew of the Leonov discuss HAL's actions, one of them being HAL's maker Dr Chandra, it's a good read and Clarke uses their discussions to answer in part why HAL acted the way he did.

[IcarusBen]

Unfortunately, a computer programmed for honesty makes a useless liar.

This. This is why I program all my robots with a snark protocol. Makes it much easier to cope with this sort of thing.

My... my god. Did this thread... die? No. It's not possible. Surely, it can't be! I won't let it be true!

Err.... Um... Quick, what will rile the crowds?

STANLEY KUBRICK IS AN AWFUL DIRECTOR!

Edited June 7, 2014 by sal_vager

[H2O.]

STANLEY KUBRICK IS AN AWFUL DIRECTOR!

Yes he is, in your vision of cinema.

You think a movie just tell a story. Some awesome movies does just that.

Other movies are just contemplative, like this one, they don't tell a story, some don't even have characters or drama, but are awesome too.

2001 is a great movie, with a story, a few characters, a great soundtrack and some amazing visual effects. It is a dry, lonely and slow movie. It doesn't provide excitement, it asks questions.

To me it is a masterpiece, a classic that will never grow old.

[lajoswinkler]

Yes he is, in your vision of cinema.

You think a movie just tell a story. Some awesome movies does just that.

Other movies are just contemplative, like this one, they don't tell a story, some don't even have characters or drama, but are awesome too.

2001 is a great movie, with a story, a few characters, a great soundtrack and some amazing visual effects. It is a dry, lonely and slow movie. It doesn't provide excitement, it asks questions.

To me it is a masterpiece, a classic that will never grow old.

For some reason I can't give you tasty rep.

[Red Iron Crown]

Rep cannot be given in the Space Lounge, which is too bad, some people make excellent posts here.

Posts here also don't count towards your post count.

[Overjay]

I've read all books from this series. And had watched a Cubric's movie.

Problem is in that fact, that I've understood what happened in first book (2001) only after completing the second one(2010).

First book is boring, the only interesting thing was HAL's plans and how Dave (strange person, that totally lacks ANY emotions. Got me curious, if Dave was a machine too) figured to stop HAL. Which was boring too.

The movie's troubles are the same, because Cubric, for some reason, decided to follow book strictly. OP-dude said about wooden acting. That is true. Exept for Dave. He was same in the book