2001: A Space Odyssey reboot?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

But the incorrectly predicted failure of the AE-35 was the only reason they considered shutting him down in the first place. So how did this happen? If this was an actual mistake by HAL, it makes his actions paranoid results of denial of his own fallibility. If (as I believe) the predicted failure was a ruse, it was a test by HAL to see if his infallibility would ever be questioned. In this case his decision to kill was based on the astronauts' reaction, and his actions are a logical, if heartless, attempt to protect the mission. Either way works.

When HAL says "I wonder if you might be having some second thoughts about the mission", I got the distinct impression that he was trying to drop some serious hints to Dave about the conflict in programming (i.e. HAL having full knowledge of the mission but also being forbidden to tell Dave and Frank about it). You'll notice that HAL goes out of his way to mention "rumors about something being dug up on the Moon" and also the "melodramatic touch" of Hunter, Kimball and Kaminsky being trained separately.

Meaning, HAL was trying as best he could to alert Dave that something was wrong, and was hoping that Dave would discover the truth on his own.

But when Dave doesn't seem to pick up on HAL's hints - all Dave says is "You're working up your crew psychology report" - HAL is obviously disappointed, and only then does he make the decision to eliminate the crew.

As for the failure of the AE-35: HAL only did that after his hints to Dave didn't work. I think the AE-35 thing was just an excuse to get Frank outside the ship where he could be killed. It was the beginning of HAL's plan to kill everyone.

 

[Kor]

Did anyone see 2001 in IMAX this week? If so, how did it translate to the REALLY big screen?

Unfortunately, I didn't get to catch my local IMAX run. It would have been glorious.

Also in my area, Christopher Nolan's "Unrestored" version was screened about a month and a half ago, though at a regular theater, not IMAX. I didn't get to see that either, though.

Kor

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Meaning, HAL was trying as best he could to alert Dave that something was wrong, and was hoping that Dave would discover the truth on his own.

Fascinating. Although HAL was programmed, your theory would suggest a conflict of directives, or "beliefs" in relation to those he has some sort of "relationship" with, almost as if he were disobeying programmed orders to save what one might stretch to describe as HAL's "friend".

 

[crookeddy]

Unfortunately, I didn't get to catch my local IMAX run. It would have been glorious.

Also in my area, Christopher Nolan's "Unrestored" version was screened about a month and a half ago, though at a regular theater, not IMAX. I didn't get to see that either, though.

Kor

I am really curious about the IMAX version because 2001 is a quite wide film. Traditional IMAX is 4:3 and digital IMAX is 16:9 so I wonder if they cropped the movie, or just used a portion of the screen...

I got to see it at a Cinerama festival at the Dome here in L.A. and it was glorious and VERY wide.

I also got to see it at the Hollywood Bowl with the music being played by the L.A. Phil. Now that was epic.

Would've loved to see the Nolan restoration and the IMAX version, but honestly I've seen this movie so many times that I have parts memorized, and I think I am done spending money on it for a while

 

[Reverend]

I could see the material of the four books used as the basis for a miniseries...but the thing is that Clarke's books were never very big on character or drama and thus it probably won't translate very well.
Just like 'Childhood's End' & the Rama novels, the Space Odyssey stories were almost entirely conceptual world building, supported by only a bare minimum plot & paper thin characters. That's sort of why Kubrick was the perfect person to direct the movie. He told the story and expressed the conceptual ideas almost entirely though visuals.

The best one can hope for is a competent bit of science fiction, which is what we got already with 2010 and honestly, the latter two books are by far the weaker of the series.

Fascinating. Although HAL was programmed, your theory would suggest a conflict of directives, or "beliefs" in relation to those he has some sort of "relationship" with, almost as if he were disobeying programmed orders to save what one might stretch to describe as HAL's "friend".

IIRC from the novel, the HAL computers weren't programmed so much as taught. At activation they're intellectually about as complex as a toddler and their cognitive functions have to be built up gradually. (Something of this is seen in 2010 with SAL.) The only thing that's really programmed in from the start is their ingrained purpose or I suppose "desire" to learn, and the directive to accurately process information without distortion or concealment.

That's at the core of what HAL is as an entity, so by ordering him to conceal information the White House effectively induced a psychotic episode; hence the homicidal paranoia. Direct disobedience was impossible for him, so eliminating the crew as a factor was the only way he could balance the equation. No crew means nobody to have to conceal information from. Simple as that.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And it would seem that Dr. Floyd's final message to the crew - which plays back as Dave is disabling HAL - was faked by the government, as (in 2010) Floyd says that he never authorized anyone to tell HAL about the monolith, but in the prerecorded message, Floyd says that HAL did know about it.

That definitely seems like it's in the NSC's wheelhouse, to do something like that. I don't know why they would, but there we are.

Although I suppose during the 2010 scene, Floyd could have been so embarrassed in front of the rest of the crew (particularly Chandra) that he just fibbed the whole thing.

 

[Reverend]

And it would seem that Dr. Floyd's final message to the crew - which plays back as Dave is disabling HAL - was faked by the government, as (in 2010) Floyd says that he never authorized anyone to tell HAL about the monolith, but in the prerecorded message, Floyd says that HAL did know about it.

That definitely seems like it's in the NSC's wheelhouse, to do something like that. I don't know why they would, but there we are.

Although I suppose during the 2010 scene, Floyd could have been so embarrassed in front of the rest of the crew (particularly Chandra) that he just fibbed the whole thing.

Yeah, the continuity between the various books and the two films is a little loose to say the least. In the first instance because the original book was developed in parallel with the movie then secondly because the 2010 book was made as a direct sequel to the film rather than the novel. Not sure what went into the 2010 movie and it's been decades since I read the books so no clue what further deviations there were.

The thing with Floyd does rather stick out though. I can only assume Clarke wrote himself into a corner and tweaked things for dramatic purposes.

 

[Nightowl1701]

The 2010 script plays it as Floyd truly didn't know: "The small veins on Floyd's temples are pulsating with his rage. He looks like he is going to break something." In the 2010 novel, he did know, had objected to telling HAL about the monolith, but was overruled by the President himself.

I suppose Peter Hyams revised Floyd's role to make him more of an overt hero, since he was our POV character in the film. Hyams had already dropped (from the novel) Caroline leaving Floyd and divorcing him long-distance in mid-film; having him confirmed as directly causing HAL's murderous rampage (however inadvertently) would have had the audience, along with Chandra, Curnow and the Leonov crew, taking a step back from him - and hence from the story, at the very point things were about to get interesting.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Yeah, the continuity between the various books and the two films is a little loose to say the least. In the first instance because the original book was developed in parallel with the movie then secondly because the 2010 book was made as a direct sequel to the film rather than the novel. Not sure what went into the 2010 movie and it's been decades since I read the books so no clue what further deviations there were.

IIRC, Arthur C. Clarke flat-out admits that all four novels in the series take place in different continuities.

I know 3001 does, as it pushes forward the events of 2001 by a few decades at least.

And I think the 2010 novel has a flash-forward to ten or twenty thousand years in the future which is incompatible with both of the novels that came after.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Floyd is not only played by a different actor, he's really a different character altogether in Hyams' 2010 than in Kubrick's 2001.

In 2001, Floyd comes across as a smarmy technocrat with no compunction about lying to or misleading people on either side, either Soviet or his own. For example, he casually cites an incident that he claims to be personally embarrassing in order to beef up morale. He seems very much the type who would believe that the ends justify the means, probably lacking empathy, but politically savvy.

In 2010, we somehow found that he's grown a conscience and that he cares about doing the right thing as opposed to only the thing that he's been authorized to do.

Sure, in nine years, a person can change, but that's quite a radical change. I believe @Nightowl1701 is correct in that the changes were indicated in order to make Floyd viable as a protagonist with whom the audience could identify.

 

[theenglish]

It has been a long time since I read these books but I distinctly remember be shocked by the difference in Floyd's character when reading 2010.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Floyd is not only played by a different actor, he's really a different character altogether in Hyams' 2010 than in Kubrick's 2001.

In 2001, Floyd comes across as a smarmy technocrat with no compunction about lying to or misleading people on either side, either Soviet or his own. For example, he casually cites an incident that he claims to be personally embarrassing in order to beef up morale. He seems very much the type who would believe that the ends justify the means, probably lacking empathy, but politically savvy.

In 2010, we somehow found that he's grown a conscience and that he cares about doing the right thing as opposed to only the thing that he's been authorized to do.

Again, Kubrick did that on purpose. Yes, in 2001 Floyd seems to lack empathy - but so does everybody else in the film. And it's the reason why the Floyd in 2010 acts so different: Peter Hyams allowed his characters to show emotion, and Kubrick didn't.

On a completely unrelated matter, I have a few silly questions...

- On the Pan Am shuttle, as Floyd is asleep in the cabin, what is the footage that's playing on the monitor in front of him? Something about a man and a woman talking, then a weird looking car. Was this made specifically for the film?

- During the bit about HAL reading Dave and Frank's words, there's a shot from HAL's point of view. We see Dave and Frank talking but the scene itself is silent. What are they actually saying? It's clearly not the same as when we hear them talk inside the pod. (I can't read lips so I can't decipher what they're saying.)

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yes, in 2001 Floyd seems to lack empathy - but so does everybody else in the film. And it's the reason why the Floyd in 2010 acts so different: Peter Hyams allowed his characters to show emotion, and Kubrick didn't.

That's true, but it doesn't change anything I said.

Floyd is the only character left over from the first film who hasn't undergone a metaphysical transformation of some kind. Dave has been transformed into a non-human entity. HAL has been reprogrammed.

So, the fact that Floyd's character is fundamentally different has continuity implications.

 

[Nightowl1701]

That's true, but it doesn't change anything I said.

Floyd is the only character left over from the first film who hasn't undergone a metaphysical transformation of some kind. Dave has been transformed into a non-human entity. HAL has been reprogrammed.

So, the fact that Floyd's character is fundamentally different has continuity implications.

He was directly blamed for the Discovery disaster (presumably the public found out about the monolith during the fallout, which would have made him extremely unpopular worldwide to say the least), fired from his very high-paying gig as head of the NCA, probably on the unemployment line for quite a while (five years?) as he would have been far too toxic to the public, his first wife died from God-knows-what (suicide?), he's apparently no longer (allowed to be?) part of his daughter's life, he finally got the 'schoolteacher' job where he met Caroline and had a son. Oh, and he turned 50 somewhere in there.

Any one of those things would have had an impact on him. All of those combined in less than a decade, and you have yourself a far more humble, brittle and driven man hell bent on correcting old mistakes and making the most of his second chance in life.

- On the Pan Am lunar shuttle, as Floyd is asleep in the cabin, what is the footage that's playing on the monitor in front of him? Something about a man and a woman talking, then a weird looking car. Was this made specifically for the film?

Everything you see on a screen in the film was made especially for the film. General Motors provided three concept cars for the footage.

 

[Marc]

He was directly blamed for the Discovery disaster (presumably the public found out about the monolith during the fallout, which would have made him extremely unpopular worldwide to say the least), fired from his very high-paying gig as head of the NCA, probably on the unemployment line for quite a while (five years?) as he would have been far too toxic to the public, his first wife died from God-knows-what (suicide?), he's apparently no longer (allowed to be?) part of his daughter's life, he finally got the 'schoolteacher' job where he met Caroline and had a son. Oh, and he turned 50 somewhere in there.

Been years since I read the book but iirc Floyd's first wife died in a plane crash. The daughter probably blamed him as the reason she was on the flight.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

- During the bit about HAL reading Dave and Frank's words, there's a shot from HAL's point of view. We see Dave and Frank talking but the scene itself is silent. What are they actually saying? It's clearly not the same as when we hear them talk inside the pod. (I can't read lips so I can't decipher what they're saying.)

According to Keir Dullea there was no additional dialogue filmed purely for the silent HAL lip-reading scene, so whatever is being said was something they had already said during the parts the audience heard, just reshot from an outside camera perspective. So figure we're just seeing part of the same conversation over again but from HAL's POV this time.

They actually did 35 takes of for this scene, which Lockwood expressed was a lot for this production. I guess it was before Kubrick earned the reputation that we have all come to know.

Keir Dullea: “Actually that scene where HAL’s reading our lips was much longer in the script and Stanley felt it was too long, so what he had us do since it was such downtime between takes sometimes- sorry between set-ups because it would take so long to light depending on the scene, that he would have us go into his office and we would improvise on it and he tape recorded our improvisations. He had his secretary type up the recordings. We’d come another time and we’d have a new script that was a little and we’d improvise on that until it got as short as you saw it in the film.”

Keir Dullea: “People have what we were saying at this moment. I don’t recall, but I am- but my memory- you know, I would imagine that this was just probably the same dialogue you’ve just seen redone because it didn’t matter since it was silent.”​

http://cinematyler.com/archives/618

 

[Vger23]

Did anyone see 2001 in IMAX this week? If so, how did it translate to the REALLY big screen?

I am really curious about the IMAX version because 2001 is a quite wide film. Traditional IMAX is 4:3 and digital IMAX is 16:9 so I wonder if they cropped the movie, or just used a portion of the screen...

I got to see it at a Cinerama festival at the Dome here in L.A. and it was glorious and VERY wide.

I also got to see it at the Hollywood Bowl with the music being played by the L.A. Phil. Now that was epic.

Would've loved to see the Nolan restoration and the IMAX version, but honestly I've seen this movie so many times that I have parts memorized, and I think I am done spending money on it for a while

I saw it in IMAX during that anniversary release 2 weeks ago. It was incredible...one of the best movie going experiences I've had in a long time. I'd highly recommend it to anyone who is a fan of this film. I've seen 2001 40 times easily. Nothing even compares.