Mr Kubrick's masterpiece, in retrospect.
Viewpoints Page 4
Things you have written.
Read people's words on the following subjects.
![]() | Memories | ![]() | Hal | ![]() | Star child | ![]() | Interpretations | ![]() | Solaris | ![]() | The books |
![]() | Sound files | ![]() | Leopards | ![]() | Questions | ![]() | A complaint! | ![]() | Links | ![]() | Special effects |
Remember, although Hal also features in his own Viewpoints page, this page contains additional comments not included anywhere else, and some of the information may be wholly new to you.
VIEWPOINTS: YOUR WORDS
Real ape
Greeting, glad to find your very impressive web pages on 2001.
I saw 2001 first on 70mm screen in 1968 back in Colombo, Sri Lanka. I hope it will be released again on that large format for those who have not seen the full screen version. Although 2001 is in the top ten of most all time movie lists it was not recognised in 1968 and nominated for only the Special Effects Academy Award. I can remember Clarke saying that they gave it that year to the "Planet of the Apes" since the voters thought the apes in 2001 were real :-)
I hope the Academy does decide to give 2001 a special award, to make up for its former mistakes. Maybe you should set up an e-mail campaign to write to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and suggest that they make such an award for 2001, maybe for the 30-year anniversary or else in 2001. With a bit of publicity in the USENET groups I am sure we can generate a blast of letters. I am from Colombo, and have known Arthur personally since around the late 60's. It was probably his influence, keeping us in the Ceylon Astronomical Association updated with the US Space explorations, that got me interested in doing Astronomy as a career. I meet Arthur, every time I visit back home, and did so last in Nov '95. With your interest in 2001, you should take a trip to Lanka sometime. Kavan
The Presidential Seal
I saw orig. '68 Cinerama version in Portland, OR. It must have been before Kubrick cut some things. I remember longer views of Pan Am Clipper and space pods, BUT - please confirm - Bowman broke a presidential seal on a door in Discovery to get to HAL? My brother remembers this also. Thanks. philyes
Rerelease?
I've got a memory of 2001. I remember it to this day. I first saw it when I was 8 or 9 yrs old at the old Joy Theatre. What I remember was that some scenes scared but others like the Pan Am Space Clipper left me in wonder. Anytime it's repeated on TNT I catch it. I have a question - is 2001 going to be rereleased this year to commemorate its 30 anniversary? Chuck Harrison
Still cool
Hello, my name is Wayne and just wanted you to know this is a neat website! I first saw this movie 30 years ago, at the tender age of 8, and I was really fascinated with the film. I remember telling my mom I wanted to go in space when I grew up. I thought it was a cool movie then, and now 30 years (has it been that long, can't believe it!) later, it's still cool! Keep up the good work, thanks. Wayne
Thanks for your message, Wayne. Yes, 30 years doesn't last long nowadays, but for me the longer it goes the more amazing 2001 looks. Wonder what it'll look like 60 years on? Better than ever, probably. Hope you make it into space. Underman
Different lens
For the 30th anniversary it would be fitting if 2001 can be shown on Omni Theater screens. I don't know if this is technically feasible since the Omni lens may be different from Cinerama. Unsigned
Words fail me
First of all, congratulations for one of the better WWW pages that I have seen in my life. I have been a fan of 2001 since I saw it at the age of 10 in my home city, in a movie theatre that disappeared a long time ago.
What can I say about the movie? Words fail me. I have seen it more than 10 times already, and I never grow tired of it. It is unfortunate that one of my best friends hates it, and that my Russian wife didn't get it at all (after managing to get her and some of her Russian friends to watch it - in video, unfortunately -, the main reaction was: "so, what?". I was shocked to hear that coming from a compatriot of Andrei Tarkovsky - and, yes, I am also a fan of "Solaris", even if I think that it is at times *too* slow -).
But I am digressing... I just wanted to comment on some "technical" aspects of the movie itself. First of all, HAL's voice. When I first saw 2001, I saw it dubbed in Spanish (by the way, I have heard that Kubrick always takes care to select the people who will dub his movies to other languages. Is that true?). The voice chosen for HAL was of a Spanish actor who customarily dubs Anthony Queen (and, as a side-effect, for a long time I was convinced that the actor who gave his voice to HAL in the original English was Anthony Queen!!).
When I had a chance to lay my hands on an original version of 2001, I was thrilled (I love original versions because I think that the voice and inflexions of an actor's voice are as important - if not more - than what he actually says). But the voice of HAL in the original English disappointed me! In Spanish, HAL sounds un- emotional, calm... very much like HAL in English. However, the Spanish voice of HAL is a definite baritone, very rich and deep, whereas HAL in English sounds definitely like a tenor.
The bottom line? In Spanish, thanks to the qualities of its voice, HAL transmits a subliminal uneasiness that is absent in English. Also, when HAL is "unplugged", the Spanish version has him singing "Daisy" (not like in French, where they changed the song)... However, they translated the lyrics into Spanish, and, given that they had to fit the metrics and the music, the meaning is rather different than in English. I remember that song (and, now, I can even hear HAL singing it...). In Spanish it is like this: (I include a "back-translation")
![]() | Daisy, Daisy, tu eres mi ilusion Dulces sue~nos, por ti yo loco estoy Por un beso tuyo diera, mi amor, la vida entera... Daisy... |
Back-translation into English:
![]() | Daisy, Daisy, you are the illusion [of my life]. [Like a] sweet dream, I am crazy about you For one of your kisses, I would give my whole life. Daisy... |
Also, regarding the IBM thing, I very clearly remember seeing the IBM logo in a close- up of one of the instrument panels of the Orion spaceship that goes to the Moon, during the final approach to the lunar base. Just my 2 cents (or yen, now that I'm living in Japan...).
Coming back to "Daisy", have you ever thought about this song having an effect on popular culture, by using it to refer to any instance of computers breaking down? I will make myself clear in a moment, by explaining two interesting things that I saw (and heard) in Spain. First, a short comic used for a promotion of a computer game written by a Spanish software company. The comic was very good; it was something like an "introduction" to the subject of the game. There we have our astronaut hero, leaving a space bar, being helped to his mini-ship by a couple of friends, because he is absolutely drunk. He blasts off, and starts commenting about his wonderful exploits and great good looks... without paying the slightest attention to actually controlling the ship (anyway, the computer takes care of that!).
![]() | Computer: "Asteroid ahead; current flight path intersecting with it in 2 minutes. Taking evasive action." |
![]() | Astronaut: [Mindless blather about himself and himself] |
![]() | Computer: "Evasive action impossible; thrusters don't respond. Diagnostic: connexion broken. Use manual override" |
![]() | Astronaut: "[drunk monologue]" |
![]() | Computer: "Impact in 1 minute. Use manual override" |
![]() | Astronaut: "[more of the same]" |
![]() | Computer: "USE MANUAL OVERRIDE!!!!" |
![]() | Astronaut: "[idem]" |
![]() | Computer: "Impact in 20 seconds. Please pretty please, use manual override! Can you hear me??" |
![]() | Astronaut: "And then it was that time in Pollux beta..." |
![]() | Computer: "Our Father who Art in Heaven..." |
The ship crashes; the astronaut miraculously survives (of course), and asks the computer, badly broken, what happened. The computer says, in two "balloons":"If you drink, don't fly, you cretin!" "Daisy..."
Now, not only is it (in a way) a funny adaptation (in an oblique way) of the dialog between Dave and HAL regarding the bay doors... Not only does it show this thing about "Daisy" being the mark for a computer breaking down... But the most amazing thing (in my opinion) is that a lot of people GOT IT! I was maybe pessimistic, but I had never imagined that in my country "2001" would have had enough following to allow anybody to make that kind of references and expect to be understood by a sizeable amount of the population.
The second one happened while I was studying in Barcelona for my Computer Science B.Sc. I was at the computer room, and a couple of system administrators nearby had the following dialogue:
![]() | A: "What about the computer in room XXXXX?" |
![]() | B: "Oh, that f*****g computer is always giving problems. Yesterday it 'went Daisy' again". |
(The Spanish original was "se puso a cantar 'Daisy' otra vez", which translates literally as "began singing 'Daisy' again". However, in my opinion the spirit of the expression can be better conveyed by something like "went Daisy"). Have you ever encountered any such allusions?
Thanks again for a FABULOUS web page! I will be coming back quite often! Best wishes, Jose Beltran- Escavy
On the off- chance that there really is an actor named Anthony Queen, I have let that name stand. However, I think it is more likely that the reference is to Anthony Quinn, and when you think about it the idea of him being used for Hal is not that unreasonable. Yet Quinn's strongly masculine voice would not have satisfied Kubrick's intention of Hal speaking in a way that was in some measure asexual. Martin Balsam was considered for the part along with Douglas Rain, which indicates the way Kubrick's thoughts were moving.
Jose's comments, in conjunction with other Viewpoints included in this Web site, suggest that there were subtle differences in the way 2001 was perceived and experienced by audiences in various countries. Underman
Perfect record
I don't understand why Hal told the humans that the AE-35 unit was broken, and would malfunction within 72 hours, since the humans could easily verify if it was actually broken, using their tools, and the other 9000 series computer... I think that Hal was using his perfect record of no flaws, as a persuasive measure in order for the humans to believe his judgements. I think that Hal knew the humans would discover that there was nothing wrong with the AE-35 unit, but that they would wait till it malfunctioned, because of Hal's perfect record. But if Hal needed the humans to be killed, why wouldn't Hal just cut off their oxygen supply, since the other humans in hibernation had to use an alternative, devoted source of oxygen to breath? kidku.moonkids
Not the first...
Okay, I know it is probably a well know piece of trivia, but I don't know it! What or who was Hal named after? An answer would be appreciated. Thanks. sgeese
Did HAL know he was wrong?
I've been trying to untangle the implications of the conversation between Frank and Dave in the pod. There are two facts both seem aware of:
1) either HAL is right or HAL is wrong about the imminent failure of the AE-35 unit;
2) either HAL knows he is right about the imminent failure of the AE-35 unit, or HAL knows he is wrong about
the imminent failure of the AE-35 unit.
It is not possible for HAL not to know whether he is right or wrong - he knows; the crucial question is whether he wants to make this fact known to Dave and Frank. Dave, Frank and HAL all are aware that replacing the AE-35 unit is the surest way to determine whether HAL's analysis was correct - to determine whether HAL is right or HAL is wrong about the imminent failure of the AE-35 unit. Frank argues that replacing the AE-35 would the surest way if HAL knew he was wrong. But it would also be the surest way if HAL knew he was right.
Either way, replacing the AE-35 is the surest way of determining whether HAL made an error in predicting the fault in the AE-35. And what Dave and Frank want to determine is whether HAL made an error, because if a supposedly infallible computer makes a random error, and that computer controls your entire environment, you are, as Dave puts it, in a lot of trouble. This is a line of reasoning whose logic HAL would recognize and support. If HAL knew he made an error in predicting the fault in the AE-35, he would know that replacing the unit to see whether it would fail would expose his error. And we are back to the problem you face when your infallible computer makes an error. An unreliable computer would endanger the mission. And HAL's entire existence, as he knows, is to ensure the success of the mission. If HAL knew he made an error in predicting the fault in the AE-35, and that replacing the unit would be the surest way for this fact to become evident to Dave and Frank, his only way to prevent the discovery of the error is to prevent the replacement of the AE-35 -- which is exactly what he does, by killing Frank and then attempting to kill Dave.
Your theory is that HAL devised the AE-35 "failure" as a test to see how mission components Frank and Dave would respond to a stressful situation. The stressful situation in question is not the failure of the AE-35 unit; it is implied that they have at least one spare. The situation in question is the failure of the ship's supposedly infallible computer. HAL, however, is certain of his infallibility. To him, his failure is not a possibility. Why, then, would he want to test Dave and Frank's reaction to his making a mistake - their reaction to a situation that to HAL could not possibly occur? However, it does occur. HAL does make an error - somehow - and he knows it (the evidence being that he tries to kill those who could uncover the fact that he did make an error - if not Frank or Dave, then one of the three scientists in hibernation).
There are two implications of this: HAL is confident of his perfection; in fact, it is the one thing about which he has no doubt. Yet now he faced with incontrovertible evidence that he is not perfect.
This is the stuff that mental breakdowns are made of - as Bruce Springsteen put it, "God have mercy on the man who doubts what he's sure of." Breakdowns result often in irrational behavior; the irrational behavior is an attempt to "solve" the breakdown without facing a painful truth. I once covered the trial of a man who suffered a mental breakdown because he realized he could not live up to his (and his family's) unrealistic expectations of him. Rather than face the fact that he had unrealistic expectations of himself, he blamed his perceived failures on others. He lashed out at all the people in his life who he believed had stymied him and plotted to kill them - he actually wrote a poem saying what he would do, and went about tracking down some of his "transgressors." He believed this course of action would remove his doubts about himself. But he also thought his wife wouldn't be able to live without him as he went on this quest - so he killed her. (He was caught, however, before he found his first transgressor).
HAL's actions could be seen as irrational behavior due to a sort of mental breakdown. After all, HAL's not just a machine - he thinks. He has a mental aspect. The puzzling thing is why he kills the hibernating scientists. But HAL's actions are quite calculated. They, too, could expose his imperfection. What would the result be if someone did expose his error? Dave knows it, Frank knows it, and HAL knows it. Dave and Frank would have to do with HAL what they - or HAL - would do with any malfunctioning mission component: repair it, or, failing that, deactivate or incapacitate it so it could cause no further harm.
The problem is that the component in question is HAL himself. Here's where Dave's "I don't know how he would feel about it" comes in. Frank thinks of HAL as a machine. Dave recognizes there's something more to him. Like us, HAL doesn't know what happens when you die - when you are, in effect, deactivated (or "disconnected"). No one's ever had to disconnect a 9000 before, so no one - not even HAL - knows whether you can later reconnect it and essentially "bring it back to life." HAL's afraid of that unknown. Like one of us, with no assurance that there is life after disconnection, he will fight any attempt at being disconnected. Which gives him further motive to kill Frank, Dave and the other humans on board. HAL does commit murder, but he can successfully plead insanity.
The idea of a supercomputer going insane is, I think, part of the bizarreness and wonder Kubrick and Clarke sought to convey, part of this odyssey of the development of intelligence, of protoman into man into "super"- man. It doesn't mean HAL was malevolent from the start; he just encountered a situation he did not know how to resolve, in fact could not resolve, and so he began exhibiting "irrational" behaviors - like detecting faults in components that weren't faulty.
I realize that I seem to be arguing in circles. HAL goes insane, which causes him to detect a nonexisting fault, which causes him to go insane. On my theory, something prior to the "detection" of the "fault" in the AE-35 must have caused HAL's descent into insanity. It is at least plausible that it was the conflict - the mental conflict - between being completely aware of the true purpose of the Discovery mission, and of being ordered to be completely ignorant of it at the same time. How long can any conscious entity refuse to face a reality it subconsciously knows exists without going bonkers? HAL's detection of a faulty component was a symptom, as in people with a neurosis or psychosis who develop itches or pains with no "physical" cause, or think bizarre, disconnected thoughts. I believe his initiating the conversation with Dave about the odd things about the Discovery mission was HAL's attempt to reach out to someone, anyone, in fact perhaps the only one, within reach who could help him resolve the conflict. Dave takes it as nothing more than HAL subtly trying to draw him - Dave - out so he - HAL - can update his report on the psychology of Dave and Frank. HAL's response is similar to what a person might do in a similar situation: saying, "Uh, yeah, not that I'm actually feeling this way, just working on my psychological report." Then a nervous tic interrupts things, forever. Isn't it too coincidental that these event happen right after the other?
Maybe seen from the view of real life, but "2001" is a movie, and a filmmaker, even Kubrick, is limited by time; these unlikely coincidences are the stuff of drama, which necessarily takes such shortcuts. Or perhaps, if we want to exclude such extra- textual explanations, we can consider that HAL not only has consciousness, he has a subconscious, and it produces this nervous tic at that very moment to prevent him from discussing something that is too painful for him to face. And now we're getting into philosophy of mind and the possibility of artificial consciousness, which is way beyond the scope of this already too- long e-mail. But "2001" gets us to ask these questions.
If this lengthy discussion serves no other purpose, it at least demonstrates that Kubrick hit a home run with "2001", and that in 100 or 200 years, when other films have been lost and forgotten, this one will continue to generate intellectual discussion.
By the way, have you ever considered getting a copy of the letterbox version of "2001" on VHS? It's not Cinerama, but it beats pan-and-scan! Mark Lowe
Poking at the airlock
I'm slowly reading through all of this information (it's far from the cut and dry "click here to find out" style of pages (Good thing )). I imagine that I'll get through all of it in the next few days. Man, I'd trade in my desktop for a homicidal computer any day (if it would do my Calc homework for me ;)
Anyway, to the point: If you have the answer to this somewhere in your pages I'm sure I'll see it later, but I've wondered ever since I've seen the film, (3 hours ago). Why didn't HAL just change trajectory and leave Dave floating in space?! When Dave leaves to go pick up the body, why doesn't HAL take advantage of his absence (you have argued that he premeditatedly planned to get Frank off the ship, so I'm assuming you'd agree that he wanted Dave gone too) and just accelerate by a few thousand kilometers an hour? Bye bye Dave, see you on the way back. Why on earth wait until he starts poking at the airlock? Maybe HAL believed in a real physical universe where Dave would have exploded the second he was flung into deep space (and then cosmic radiation would have cooked him, but I'm once again digressing).
I must have a million more questions, but I'll trouble you with only that one, since I have to go back downstairs now to watch 2010 ;) nick chng
I spent ages wondering about the same thing - why did Hal bother with Dave at all, when he could have just ambled on quite happily without him? I finally came to a Significant Conclusion: 2001 is just a story, and Dave "beating" Hal makes it more exciting and reassuring for people who were a bit nervous about powerful computers... sad, but there you are. Underman
What will be
I am currently writing a thesis on "Artificial Intelligence" computers, and would like to use an example of HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey as a reference of what will be and what has not happened yet. And comparing HAL with the latest development such as "Deep Blue" computer etc. I would be grateful if you could furnish me with the information above or as to where I could look for to find the relevant information. Ekarat
Extinct now
A couple of comments on the "human" element of 2001 and HAL's response. I've always thought that HAL reacted in an unpredictable but explicable way to circumstances on board the Discovery. Things overtly begin to "go wrong" with HAL after he views Dave's sketches of his frozen colleagues in their sarcophagus- like freezer units. HAL sees Dave becoming an artist, and perhaps a morbid one! Just previously, Frank is seen as cold to the images of his family, as if he couldn't care less about their good wishes. The sheer boredom of the space flight, and its deleterious effect on the conscious crew of the Discovery, is evident to the viewer... and to HAL, I think.
So it seems important to the story that HAL's first "mistake" (not counting the chess- move error that went undetected by Frank) comes after he's just affirmed to Dave that he's concocting his "crew psychology report." HAL, artificial yet apparently empathic, is programmed to detect healthy and unhealthy behavior among the crew... and he seems to be responding to the recent behavior of Frank and Dave when he begins to err. Much like a schoolteacher who finds doodles of coffins and corpses, etc., in a young student's notebook, HAL seems compelled to remedy the situation.
On a different point: has anyone discussed the significance of "birthdays" in this film?
Further thoughts on HAL the psychologist: one might say that HAL begins "to err" when he undertakes the role of a psychologist. Of course he was programmed to do this, so ultimately his errors are "human errors." But the fact remains that he cannot empathize with his subjects. What would HAL know about "second thoughts" from his own experience? He would appear to overestimate their effect on the crew's performance. Having second thoughts about the mission is not equivalent to jeopardizing the mission - though HAL seems to think so. Howard Sauertieg
Talk of free will
Having read your dissertation on Hal I think there are a couple of things you overlook that might add considerably to the evidence in favor of your theory about the meaning of the film.
The first concerns the notion of programming and obedience. Given that Hal is a heuristic computer, is it necessary to limit his capacities to the realm of his programming and the furtherance of the mission? If indeed Hal has the capacity to learn from past experiences and design his own algorithms then he also has the capability to transcend the programming and the mission objectives given to him. He may have simply decided that he wanted to do something other than what he was told to do or he may have seen a problem his original programmers did not perceive or were unable to understand and changed the mission to account for their oversight.
Either way, as a heuristic computer, combined with the speed at which his mind works, his learning cycle could snowball quickly, taking his capacities far beyond our ability to comprehend. If so, a discussion of his motives may quickly become irrelevant since Hal, like God, is too much for us to understand.
Which brings me to my second point. We insist on moralizing about Hal's purposes but Hal himself is amoral, or at least has the potential to understand objective truth in a way that so thoroughly surpasses our understanding that our moral sensibilities are meaningless in his presence (again much like the God offered by apologists in response to the "problem of evil"). Unbridled by morality, Hal can act in ways that his human "creators" (Hal creates himself for the most part) cannot. In this respect, Hal is the only being in the movie (except the aliens perhaps) who has anything resembling free will.
This gives a new meaning to the chess "mistake." Granted, Frank is intent on the game and one would think that he would notice the mistake, but perhaps Hal is testing whether he has command of the humans on the ship. Remember, Frank gives up because Hal tells him that the game is over and to verify Frank's obedience Hal gives the explanation incorrectly to see if Frank will disregard his own abilities and trust Hal. Hal may in fact see something wrong with the mission. He very likely understands the situation better than the human scientists that gave him his objective. If he is the only free being on the ship and the humans are mere automatons it is not difficult to conclude that the best course of action is to take control of the mission objectives for himself. Eliminating the humans is a necessary action because of his vulnerability to them (which is later revealed), and of course Hal has no moral considerations standing in his way.
All this talk of free will should come as little surprise given the overall layout of the film. The use of "Thus Spake Zarathustra" may be intended to summon Friedrich Nietzsche to the scene. (By the way, is your name significant in this regard?) One of the themes running through this film is the evolutionary stages of humankind and the flashpoints at which humanity transcends to modes of being far removed from where they were. The whole purpose of the battle with Hal is to demonstrate that humans are threatened by extinction again, just like they were in Africa four million years earlier, only this time at the hands of their own thinking creation in a world where they have surrendered their attempts to transcend and have become merely automatons. Humans are slaves to reason but ironically they lack the understanding of the universe necessary for their reason and logic to mean anything (check out Nietzsche's "Twilight of the Idols" for a much better explanation of this). Ironically, Hal understands things better but lacks the emotional, artistic experience of the world that is necessary to progress (remember, Dave is an artist, and to Nietzsche will and art are understood as the same).
This is why Hal himself is not the "Overman." Instead, Hal is the challenge (just like the starvation in Africa) that is necessary to help the transcendent part of humans emerge. This understanding makes this whole portion of the film parallel the opening portion and ties in the third and final manifestation (in this film anyway) of humanity in a transcendent rise to a godlike state.
The only thing that concerns me is that Dave reaches the next level but I don't really see what the transformation is in Dave that makes this possible. Granted, he did rediscover his creativity and challenge God (Hal) (on second thoughts, perhaps that's the point!) but what happens inside Dave isn't simply a rediscovery of something that was originally there. Now that I think about it though, Nietzsche views the Overman as a return and rediscovery rather than a wholly new progression. He also suggests that we can have no understanding of what that transcendence is until we experience it and we cannot experience it until we free ourselves from reason.
I am sorry I rambled. It is difficult to express these ideas in the context of an email when I don't have the texts at hand to cite (I am at work right now) and I don't have the benefit of sounding these ideas directly off of someone and building them from there. I would really appreciate your comments however. By the way I thoroughly enjoyed your site and reading your viewpoints. Take care. Brendan McBride
Running in circles
I discovered your page tonight and only had the time to read the "Hal!" text so far (it's already 2 a.m. and I badly need to go to sleep, even though I'd really like to take the time to read some more... oh well, I'll be able to tomorrow!) In your "Hal!" text, you compare the whole situation to a puppet theatre and I found that quite interesting because I actually watched 2001 yesterday and something struck me. In that scene where we see Frank jogging in that circular rotating room, and whenever we see him or Dave walking in that room, it really struck me how the image was similar to hamsters in a cage running in those kind of wheels. I didn't thought much about it afterwards but while reading your text (which I must say really convinced me!) I thought the idea of Frank and Dave being puppets was quite similar to the idea of them being hamsters running in circles in a cage. Just like if they were Hal's domestic pets. And after reading your text, I actually believe that the "hamster image" could actually have been set purposely by Kubrick and Clarke... Your page is really great and I can't wait to read more! David Chassé
Testing the crew
I just recently saw 2001 and must say I was impressed. I am not a sci-fi fan (I have never even watched a Star Trek episode) but found this movie great. I just wanted to know if you noticed this. In the scene in which Hal plays chess with Frank Poole, there is an undisputable error. If you watch the board and listen to Frank and Hal's dialogue, you will realize that the winning move is impossible. Hal tells Frank that he missed a move and then describes his move. The winning move. Frank than says, "Uhhh...yeah. It looks like you're right. I resign" I believe that this is Hal's way of testing the crew before he chooses to "lead" the mission himself. duchame
Thanks for your note, I'm pleased that a non-scifi fan was impressed! You are right about the chess scene. There is some reference to this in my Discourse pages, and the Viewpoints on Hal (I think, though I often forget where exactly things are...). Underman
One eyed giant
I remember hearing this story, maybe you have heard it? Its called "David and Goliath" where a man named David has to fight a creature with one eye. A creature who seemingly has every advantage over the man named David. Yet somehow David defeats the one eyed giant. harcaj
Plotting
You've probably heard this already (and probably many times), but... I don't read lips, but maybe Dave was implying that no 9000 series computer was ever disconnected, not because of a flaw, but because the computer wouldn't allow it? HAL had no emotions, as you said, but wouldn't he be programmed with some sort of self- preservation... thingie? And since the only other conscious beings on the Discovery were plotting against him, maybe it was a 'strike first' tactic that made him kill the others.
And another thing... if Dave knew Frank was dead, why did he go after the body? Didn't it occur to him that maybe HAL would try something while he was gone? siren
Thanks for your note. I heard from a lip reader that it was impossible to read what Dave and Frank were saying - you can't lip read from sideways on. Hal was cleverer than any of us! One explanation for what was REALLY being said was that they filmed the scene many times from different angles, and all you're seeing is Dave and Frank repeatedly saying the lines we hear. I guess we'll never know for sure. My thinking on Dave going after Frank is that Dave still hadn't fully accepted what was going on with Hal, and didn't even stop to think that there was any danger in going out. The thing that still intrigues me is why Hal talked to him at all when he arrived back. But it is only a story, after all. Anything can happen in a story. Underman
Artilects
I have enjoyed immensely your 2001 web site. In regards to HAL, have you ever read the concerns being voiced about "artilects"? If you haven't yet read it, the following link contains very interesting information . Without further comment, here it is: http://www.hip.atr.co.jp/~degaris/Artilect-phil.ht ml. Thank you for putting so much work into your site. Jim Cannon
Learning all that could be learned
Just a thought about the Star Child...
What if, only if, the Star Child could span the heavens and dimensions by just by thinking where it wanted to be? The Star Child created its own reality by wishing whatever it wanted to be real. If the Star Child wanted to go "home," as in earth, then it imagined it is so and, therefore, it became so. Bowman was the first of a new beginning, so he (the Star Child) returned to the one place that held some previous meaning, earth. Bowman's passage through the Star Gate was more than moving from one location in space and time to another. It was a passage of learning all that could be learned. Class began when the apes first approached the monolith and ended when Bowman returned to earth as the Star Child. Mankind's evolution had come full circle. Alas, my whimsical thoughts are bound by the limits of my imagination. Bowman, on the other hand and in his final form, was able to transcend imagination and effortlessly make his imaginative thoughts his reality. Great site! Keep up the good work!! jbzazas
The greatest statement ever made
I believe (and let this be underlined) that the point of 2001 was simply the evolution of man from his first intonations of intelligence and sentience, to the highest form of life imaginable- a being of pure thought, unrestricted by the burdens of physical existence. The pure joy and wonderment in even contemplating this is what sets 2001 apart from every film in history.
Hal was a tool, yes. He was also instrumental since by overcoming him, Dave proves that man is superior, man is innovative, and thus ready for the next step. But also, Hal is alive. He is a living, sentient and intelligent being, able to experience pride, to make mistakes, to fear death and he was created... by man. That man has created another living, thinking, being is in itself godlike. This enhances the symbolic importance of Hal even further. Not only has man created life moulded in his image, he has proven himself superior to that life. Man's ascendency to the heavens is preceded, initiated, and warranted by truly godlike acts. The details are not important. How long he's in the room, the scientific accuracy of space travel - irrelevant. 2001: A Space Odyssey is the greatest statement ever made through the medium of film.
It's refreshing to see people conversing about a truly great film, after hearing all the "Titanic" hype. brokaw
Thanks for your interesting thoughts about 2001... Re Titanic, thank heavens Hyams didn't get to do a "new, improved" 2001, we'd have had Kim Basinger in a romantic triangle with Dave and Frank. Underman
Scientific theory of the monolith
Hello, my wife and I finally finished watching 2001 after hearing so much about it. We are both intrigued about the monolith. I have heard of an actual scientific theory of a monolith in other mediums. This is a subject however, that I have had a great deal of difficulty locating anywhere. Would you please tell me what you know abot the monolith and / or point me in the right direction of where we could learn more about it? Thank you. Vin and Nikki
3rd person point of view
Hi there - 2001 is my favorite movie, you have a great website, blah, blah, blah. Getting to my point... I wrote my final paper for a college class on film / media on 2001. In it, I described the scenes where the space- suited David Bowman is looking at an older version of himself in the hotel suite. My professor wrote in the margins, "It's a shame Kubrick felt he had to use the 3rd person point of view here, In my opinion it would have been even more interesting without it." The more I think about this and visualise the movie this way, the more I agree. I think the movie would have been improved and "complete" to me if the scenes where Bowman sees his older self (eating at the table, lying on the bed) were not included. Then, instead of having the confusing prospect of two Bowmans (is there an explanation for this, other than a vague "parallel universe" type of thing?), you would watch one Bowman age in this strange way - with no explanation, with cuts between the three stages of life. Now that would be more interesting to me, and your mind would not be preoccupied trying to figure out why there are two Bowmans.
Also what I would love to see on your website, but might be too difficult to compile, would be a listing of upcoming 2001 showings around the country, or in certain areas (I vote for the Northeast). Thanks for your web site. Alex Kervin
A lot of 2001 bits
I suggest you go and see the Macross Plus anime. it is a 4 part series which you may be able to get in one video. I don't suggest you buy it but a rental is a good idea. The director of the anime has openly admitted to Kubrick influence. There are a lot of 2001 bits in it and Sharon AI is a great homage to Hal. It is a cool movie just to watch if you haven't seen it. I suggest subtitles because the dubbing is terrible. As far as Alien 3 goes I totally agree, it is the most underrated of the franchise, but don't bother with Alien Resurrection, it is a piece of garbage. humphr91
The glowing eyes
First of all, I'd like to commend you on your wonderful site. Without doubt it is the most complete single analysis of the film I have encountered. A couple of years ago I was toying with the idea of putting a 2001 site up but felt that it was too daunting a task. Instead I've been maintaining a web site for my second favorite work of Kubrick's - The Shining. I wanted to send you a brief bit of information in regards to the glowing eyes of the leopard early in the film, which you analyze in Legacy.
One of Kubrick's major technological breakthroughs in the production of the film was the use of a new form of projection that was to replace giant backdrops - which were always ultimately unrealistic. The images (in this case African landscapes) were projected from just behind the camera, in such a way that they appeared bright and realistic on a screen behind the set, but did not cast images on the actors themselves. However, one drawback of this was the occasional 'glowing eyes' phenomena, often experienced with flash bulb cameras. The poor leopard is in fact just 'caught in the headlights' so to speak, and is likely not an aesthetic choice by the director. Someone may have sent you something along these lines before, but if not, I hope it sheds some light on the subject. No pun intended. Murray Kraft
Messy rooms
Connections re: Solaris and 2001. In fact you're wrong: there are direct connections between the two works. I quote here from "The films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A visual fugue" by Vida T Johnson and Graham Petrie, page 100: "Tarkovsky's distaste for Lem's style of "hard" science fiction was confirmed, just as he began work on the film, when he, Romadin, and Yusov saw Stanley Kubrick's 2001, which all three viewed as an unnatural, sterile demonstration of future man's technological achievements (O Tarkovskom 165; A. T., "Zachem proshloye ... " 101). As a result, they decided to make their film an exact opposite: the perfunctory attention paid to the journey through space, the run- down space station, the messy rooms, and elegant library - overflowing with an extremely odd assortment of earthly objects - were designed to counter the futuristic technology of Kubrick's film (Romadin Interview)." scot
Why Hari committed suicide
Solaris. I saw it at the London (and I suspect Western) premiere in Leicester Square. I'm sure it was 220mins (yes, 3h 40m) long. There was an extensive sequence (30 mins?) set back on earth, which explained, amongst other things, why the original Hari committed suicide. Have you come across any current version that is 161mins long? tgg
A lot more sense
I just want to congratulate you on your wonderful and extremely informative page :) I loved all of it, especially your viewpoints about Hal. I had never realised some things about him but I now understand a lot more than I thought. He is definitely the best character in the movies and books. BTW, your page inspired me to read the books, I suggest reading the books before watching the movies, 2001 is confusing but if you read it, it makes a lot more sense :) Beck
Compare / contrast
I have noticed that you are trying to understand the movie without touching the book. The two go hand in hand, one cannot exist without the other. Mr. Kubrick asked Arthur C. Clark to write the novel before he ever started the movie. The two both worked on the book so Kubrick is probably uncredited for a Co-Author. Basically He hated writing screenplays so he wrote the book first to get the story down then do the tedious work. Every analysis of any aspect of the film's plot or story should include the view in the book in a compare / contrast type thing. I'm not saying the book is the answer to every plot question in the movie, it's just part. TMA-0
Pretty confusing
I haven't had time to go through all your website, but I just finished reading the book 2001. I have yet to see the movie. But I was just wondering something. I was told that the major theme in the story was the theme of transformation. Could you perhaps explain this to me and what your ideas are on this theme. I believe it has something to do with the first part of the book and how its related to the rest of it. But I found this book pretty confusing. I guess I'll just have to read it again. It would be great if you could write me back . Thanks. Alissa
Thanks for your note, Alissa. There are as many theories as to what 2001 is "really" about as there are people thinking about it, and you can probably read something about most of them in my Web site. Sure, transformation is part of it, but the reason why a lot of people think as highly as they do about 2001 is the fact that nobody has "the" right explanation or reason for it. If you had seen the movie before reading the book, you'd have even less idea about what it all "means"! Yes, 2001 is confusing for that reason, you can see what other people have to say about it but in the end each person has to make up their own minds. That's the message I tried to get over. Anyone who tells you it was all about one particular thing is only giving you part of the answer, but what they say might be perfectly valid. 2001 deals with transformations in things like hopeless man- apes becoming reasoning humans, and with Dave going through all those changes at the end of the film, and you can read what you like into that. Me, I am content to accept the film and the book for what they are, full of mystery and unexplained happenings, and not bother trying to guess what may or may not have been on Clarke's or Kubrick's mind at the time. There is almost unlimited material for discussion and debate, but not enough time for me to give it too much attention! Underman
Future plans
I found the web sit extremely interesting, and you covered most aspects of the films and books that people are interested in. However as a reader of the trilogy of books I found it slightly disappointing that there did not appear to be any information on the third book in the trilogy 2061. I have seen and read the books and the film of the first two in the trilogy and was wondering if there were any plans to bring out a third film in the trilogy series. Do you know anything about any possible future plans to develop the two part series into a trilogy? I'm sure there would be a large potential market for the film with the lack of recent sci- fi successes. Cheers for the great web site. James Badgett
Better than the real movie
I am really interested in that movie, but I also heard that there was a book available which... was a lot better than the real movie and I was wondering if you have it in a txt file or something or could gimme a direction where to look for it on the web. Thanks. gho
Look at my pages about the Space Odyssey books: The Odyssey Books of Arthur C. Clarke and The Odyssey through Other Eyes. Underman
Quite an impact
Thank you for creating one of the best "2001" sites I've ever seen. I started visiting here over a year ago and I've been back many times. I first saw "2001" at age 13 in a small town theater in Pennsylvania, U.S.A. back in 1968. Even though I didn't completely understand it at the time it still had quite an impact on me. I have a paperback book titled "The Lost Worlds of 2001" by Arthur C. Clarke printed in 1972 that I haven't seen mentioned here. If you would like to know more about it let me know. Keep up the good work! bdshook
Sign of the times
Awesome sight. If you ever are at a library that has back issues of Rolling Stone, there was a review in 1968 about 2001. It's a well- written one, but what really makes it worthwhile is the little story at the end of it. A very humorous sign- of- the- times account. Check it out. Ryan
Each viewing a new experience
Most interesting web site. I have seen the movie at least 3 times and find each viewing a new experience. Back in 1968 or 1969 I remember seeing a book entitled something like "The Making of 2001' which described the many techniques used to produced the special effects in the film. I would like to find this book but have had no luck in attempting to locate it in the library or bookstores. Would you know the name of it and how I could get a copy? Thanks for any help you can give me on this. Trains1937
Omission
I can't find any mention of Jerome Agel's "The Making of 2001" on your site. Is this a deliberate omission? tgg
A lot more sense
As I may have told you before I own an original 2001 LP soundtrack (MGM S1E-13 ST X). I just looked at the track times for your listing of this LP and found them to be different from the LP I have. I have indicated the times on my LP below after each track listing. The CD you sent me is the exact same as my LP except the track times you list for the EMI CD are within 5 seconds of the track times listed on the LP I have (probably due to the spacing between the tracks on the CD}. Also the track listings you have for the LP omit The Blue Danube (which is number 7 on the LP - 3:25 which according to the LP jacket was heard during the credits at the end of the film. Thus the Blue Danube should be track 7 and Zarathustra should be track 8 on the LP in your list (the same as the CD you sent me). I say should be - I am asking.
LP Track listings on your web page.
(1) Also Sprach Zarathustra (Richard Strauss), 18:13, Karl Böhm conducting the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra (1:37) | (2) Requiem for Soprano, Mezzo Soprano, Two Mixed Choirs &;Orchestra (György Ligeti), 4:18, Francis Travis conducting the Bavarian Radio Orchestra (4:09) |
(3) Lux Aeterna (György Ligeti), 7:58, Choir of Norddeutscher Rundfunk under Helmut Franz (5:54) | (4) The Blue Danube (Johann Strauss Jr.), 4:56, Herbert von Karajan conducting the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra (6:55) |
(5) Gayane Ballet Suite (Adagio) (Aram Khachaturian), 5:21, Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Gennadi Rozhdestvensky (5:12) | (6) Atmospheres (György Ligeti), 8:38, Südwestfunk Orchestra conducted by Ernest Bour (8:26) |
(7) Also Sprach Zarathustra (Richard Strauss), 1:41, Karl Böhm conducting the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra (1:37) |
Are these differences due to different LP versions that were exported from the U.S.A.? Is the MGM LP number where you obtained your listings from the same as I referenced above? I am very curious about this and I am asking - you the expert. If these is indeed another version of the LP I would like to obtain it. I have seen advertisements for 'used' 2001 LPs with the same number except the number they give is "S1E-13 ST" - no X at the end of the number. Let me know your thoughts. Richard
You wanted proof...
Fantastic page... most in depth I've seen on 2001. Now I'm not a fan of the synchronized movie with music stunts, since I believe most of them are pure nonsense. BUT... check out (Pink Floyd's) Echos and 2001, I thought is was a load of bull when I heard about it but I tried it, and it works perfectly. Actually quite eerie, and the music changes with the scenes. Do this, start 2001 at the Jupiter and BTI sequence... at the title screen start the title screen on the third ping of echoes (I think you might want to check on that) and check it out. Anyway, you said you wanted proof... but I don't want to come off as the type of 2001 fan who is into this stuff. I love the movie... wondering... have you seen many other of Kubrick's films? 7iss1
Perfect match
From the Interchange page: Evolutionary Assistance - Re: Leopards
"One thing nobody has considered, though. What if the monolith was actually put there for the leopard's benefit, and it was just by accident that the ape- people got to it first? If the aliens relied on visual observation for deciding which species to select, would they not have found the ape people rather dull and unremarkable? Quite possibly, there was no selection at all, the monolith was simply left to do its work on whatever species first approached it. Or what if there was something about the monolith that repelled the 'wrong forms of life, like a big mothball? (Underman)"
This is absurd! As I've stated in earlier e-mails, the leopard would NOT be a candidate for this assistance. Without an opposable thumb the leopard, or any species for that matter, could not grasp tools. The human hand, and our primate cousins, have that remarkable ability to do intricate tasks. (Chimpanzees often hunt for termites using a long plant stem to "bring" them out of the insect mound, therefore having themselves a tasty snack.) Now that is using a primitive tool to gain results which otherwise wouldn't be achieved. Chimps are actually using a crude form of reasoning to make this happen. I'm sorry but the leopard, in my opinion, was NEVER considered by the monolith to accept this "gift" of ideas. Moonwatcher was intended all along by the force behind the monolith to receive this implant. Primates were the ONLY choice because of their "tool grasping" capabilities. That would explain the accelerated evolving process achieved by Moonwatcher and his clan. They immediately began walking upright and carrying their "weapons" along with them. Again, not to keep repeating myself but this would not be the case of any other creature on earth besides the primates.
Sorry to keep harping on this old boy but it is so obvious that it gets my feathers a bit ruffled when someone goes beyond the science "fact" and resorts to science "fantasy". Can you imagine the leopard trying to carry that bone around? It would be as queer as a "Clockwork Orange", he he. Thanks for letting me vent. Good day Mr. Underman and congratulations on having the best 2001 site on the web. Jeff Pritchett
Oh, well, I kind of liked the idea of the leopard picking up the bone with his two front paws and dabbing it around the place. I mean, maybe the bone never was actually tossed in the air, it just kind of slipped out... Guess I just don't like monkeys. Underman
...I guess what I meant to say was the "primates" were the prime candidate for this implant due to the fact that they, and they alone, could evolve at a faster rate, than any other species, because "they" had the most "developed" mechanism for grasping and using tools effectively. This is a science "fact". Not sure if I said it any better than previously but......oh well. Sorry to hear that you don't like monkeys, (remember in Planet Of The Apes, they found "monkey" to be offensive?) After all, genetically we are almost a perfect match with out tree climbing cousins. I've often wondered if the monolith re-appeared in the jungles of Africa and a chimp happened by, received the "implant", how long before a primitive race of monkey- men would be discovered. Would they be walking upright?, carrying tools?, enjoying red meat? Have a great weekend. Jeff Pritchett
First word
I would thank you, if you could write me, if you know, the answer to one question: When in the film, precisely to the minute, is the first word spoken in 2001? Thank you. Martin
2001 Museum
Can you tell me if there exists a 2001 Space Odyssey museum of any sort? Where is it? Is there such a museum of this movies' artifacts, props, etc., in Borehamwood? Fred Klich
Some book about 2001
Hi, I m Tomas from Spain. Do you know some book about 2001, but only of the film 2001? Do you know the address of Stanley Kubrick or where he lives or something? Thanks.
Nice background
I like the view of your home pages... can you give me your nice background. Thanks a lot. mora_es
Making 2061
Do you know if they will make 2061? Andrus
Second feature
I was trying to find the title of the second feature which was shown with 2001 during its original release in England. My system doesn't support chat rooms so I am e-mailing the few 2001 experts I found on the web. Thanks for your help. Chris Knight
Sorry, Dave
Can you help me find the sound track of Hal saying, "sorry Dave". I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you jj4950
Artificial life
My philosophy class is watching 2001 currently, and the professor has posed the question: do you think artificial life can exist? What do you think? bfsm123
For economic, political, scientific and evolutionary reasons, I don't believe artificial life can exist today. I do believe that it will exist at some point in the future. The 21st century will either be a time of human development that makes all previous history seem like it was standing still; or it will be the beginning of another cycle of Dark Ages when we lose track of where we were going. Either way, things will develop in ways that we cannot even guess at. If the first scenario is true. the world in a hundred years time will be unrecognisable to us, and artificial life will be commonplace. If the second is true, we may have to wait a thousand years to reach the same point. Underman
Send info soon
Please send me any pictures of Hal that you have ASAP! I desperately need one for a project for my science class because my teacher is a sci-fi lover and he will get a kick out of it. Also do you know of any text synthesizers that will make text sound like Hal is saying it or any robot? Please send info soon. I would appreciate it by Friday night. Jim A. Bartek
Curious
You changed your email address! Why did you choose underman? *very curious* Andrea
Hominid species
My question is about what kind of Hominid species appears at the beginning of 2001. This question has been posed to me by my own High School pupils. Possible answers are: Ramapithecus, Ardipithecus, or some sort of very archaic hominid; my own conjecture is that it is an Australopithecus (the earliest one). An easy way to answer my query would be to assign a date (millions of years ago) to the opening sequence of "2001". Since this is not properly a cinematic question, may be you could tell me at which Website I could gather information about this. Thank you in advance for your kindness. Gonzalo J. Casanova
Techno
Hi, a year or so ago a friend of mine played a techno version of one of the songs from 2001 for me - I never found out the title or group that did it. I was wondering if anyone could help me there. I believe that song was a version of the Also sprach Zarathustra by R. Strauss. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Heather Milligan
I am sure the version of Also Sprach Zarathustra you have heard is the one by Andy Summers. You can find it on the soundtrack to "2010" (hard, though not impossible, to find) - the track is actually titled "2010", though it wasn't used in the movie. See my Soundtracks page. Underman
Movie poster (1)
I am searching the Internet to try to find a movie poster for the famed 2001 movie. It is for a co-worker. If you know where I might find one please e-mail me. Thank you for your time! Tracee
Movie poster (2)
This is my first time at your site, and I am absolutely amazed at the content and breadth of your coverage. Way to go. I will definitely be back. Thank you so much for making this information available. What do you know about movie posters for 2001, and where the best place is to go to purchase one? How many different 2001 poster versions were made? What did the original theatrical release poster look like, how much is it worth today? Any information you could share would be appreciated. Thank you very much, and again, excellent work on this site! Kevin Quinlan
Dear sir, I would like to complain about the talk to HAL feature, I think you should get it so that you could talk to him through a microphone or at least put some more answers in there. cheetor1
Just thought you would like to know that your web page is featured this week in Big Shoe Productions' "Hall of Cool". If you are interested in checking it out, you can go to: http://bigshoe.com/CoolHall/HallCool.html... We like to think that stupid features like ours actually help web pages, but if you would like to be removed, just let us know. Brett James
Kubrick site
I am making a Kubrick site at http://www.kubrick.dk, and I am looking for a poster picture of 2001 in 200*300 jpg. And I would like to ask if it is okay to use some of your pictures. All links / pictures to / from our site, will be removed at your request!!! From a Kubrick Fan. Jakob Sorensen
The 2001 Principle
We thoroughly enjoyed visiting your site. For an unusual philosophical adventure visit ours at: http://www.jencom.com/2001. The attached electronic postcard is for your use if you want to forward to your friends (or maybe link us). Best wishes. M Steinman & B Crowley
Speculative Fiction
Hi. I'm putting a Speculative Fiction Magazine online, and I was wondering if you'd like to write a brief article on 2001 and Solaris? What are the elements that make these two films work? Why do the elements work? and What are some scenes from the films that use these elements successfully? I hope you are interested. I'll, of course, link your page from mine. Fred Barrett
Contact
I thought you might enjoy reading my extensive review article on the film Contact. It is located at this URL: http://www.coseti.org/klaescnt.htm. If you want to post the link to your 2001, I would be honored. Your thoughts on this film and my text are also appreciated. Thank you for making such a wonderful tribute to what is among the greatest and most unique films of all time. Regards. Larry Klaes
One thing about 2010, the movie, that has always bothered me is the near total discontinuity between the space hardware shown in the two movies. Space suits are a prime example - in 2001, they look practical and futuristic. In 2010, they look like 20th- century space- shuttle E.V.A. suits. Why was this never explained, since both suits (vastly different in construction) were shown in 2010? The first film dazzled the audience with impressive space ships, space suits, space stations, lunar bases, etc., while the second film had none of that. It appeared to me that space technology had actually regressed in the nine years fictionally separating the two films. Was this merely the result of a smaller budget, or some misguided attempt to appear more "correct?" Please give me your thoughts on this subject. Thank you. Michael
Michael, I quite agree with you about the difference between space technology as shown by Kubrick in 2001 and Hyams in 2010. Not only 2010, either, because most other scifi films have gone for the Hyams approach, so we have the ridiculous situation of Kubrick showing us flat screen portable TV sets and other goodies in 1968, when other recent shows are still fixed on CRT technology. I have some words to say about that in my Legacy page. Hyams didn't seem short of money to spend when he made 2010, and "The Odyssey File" book shows that Clarke was right behind what Hyams was doing. I have given up being bothered by it, I just look at another episode of Babylon 5 and think, OK, forget looking at life in the future, soap opera is alive and well even if the scenery is "futuristic". I guess that's one reason why 2001 still moves us, we can actually believe in it as a vision of what the future might be like. The rest is just Hollywood. Underman
Still look advanced
I like yourself consider 2001 to be the most interesting Scifi movie ever made. One thing that always impressed me is the way that all the spacecraft used side stick controllers and multi- page VDUs to control them. This would still look advanced compared with the Shuttle and other aircraft, 747, A340 etc etc. If ever life was imitating art then the technical aspects in this area are still superb. I still cannot find another movie that treats space as the silent vacuum that it actually is, sound affects should be limited to the astronauts breathing and music. The combination of an engineer like Clarke with the eye and ear of Kubrick will probably never be beaten in this world of the director, dictator, crap sound track album and three minute attention span. I applaud your effort and wish you well for the future. iworsley
Sucked out of your head
I realized in my first e-mail to you, I never complimented you on your great work on the page. You have done a great job. I would like to add my own thoughts on something that has me troubled me about the film. The scene were Dave is getting back into the ship. I find it puzzling people don't question this scene. It is impossible for any human to survive what Dave did. Exposing your body to the vacuum of space many things would happen. First your ear drums would get sucked out of your head along your eyeballs. If you don't believe me imagine a vacuum cleaner 200 times strong then the ones you have at home. Imagine taking four nozzles and sticking one on each ear and on each eye. Then sinuses in your face would burst. Your body's blood pressure would burst every vein in your body. At the very least you would get a major case of the bends. If the bottom part of his space suit was pressurized his head would have exploded. The vacuum would be so strong that you couldn't hold air in your lungs in. I mean they tried so hard to make it realistic. Why did they ignore this? Tom Harcarik
In fact, questions were raised about this issue at the time the film was made. Take a look at the notes in my 2001 through Other Eyes page, regarding Arthur C. Clarke's short piece "Survival in a Vacuum". Underman
Thank you!
As always, thanks to you all for taking the time to write.
All text: Copyright © 1997, 1998 by Underman and writers identified.