Quite. Hal has his progenitor in the dawn of man sequence - the bone used to kill, which famously cuts to a nuclear weapons satellite. That, and the association with evolution being bound up in killing anything in the way. HAL is in a sense both, as a tool and an evolving mind.
No, it's there. This is my point. There is a coherent story and use of themes in 2001, it's just not obvious and spelled out. It does require the audience to interrogate the film a little bit; that might not be your cup of tea or something you find annoying but it's not the same as it not actually being there.
I agree, I think it's there too because I made the connection to "Childhood's End" which is also a more spelled out version of the "next" step in evolution. One of the things I remember most is the trip home explaining what I thought we had seen to my brother and his wife who both got really confused by that movie.
So, would you have understood the film even if you hadn't read Clark beforehand like your family?
That is an unanswerable question. I have no idea. I was all of nineteen at the time (which points out an error on my part, because all my brothers are younger than me, so John wasn’t married when we saw the movie. That means that the other viewer was my cousin who didn’t read anything but Conan then.) At any given point in your life you have a finite knowledge.
At 19 I had read Clark, Asimov, Heinlein and whatever else was in the Science Fiction section of my high school library and a lot of what was in the downtown library. That was about the time I read The Lord of the Ring for the first time. I was also a huge TOS fan. I had read what I still believe is the best pure Science Fiction ever written, The Stars My Destination by Alfred Bester. So maybe I could have figured it out but I don’t know that for sure.
What I did love was the space ship, I adored that ship and yes it was the ship I thought of when I saw Avatar and even the ship in Defying Gravity.
Brit