2001 A Space "8-Track"? Still relevant? How?

joeranger

Sr Member
I have a new fascination with HAL and I tried watching 2001 with my two boys 11 and 13.
They tried to pay attention, I fast forwarded (funny post)
http://www.therpf.com/f47/2001-space-odyssey-do-you-fastforward-77100/

But they just could not grasp one of the main elements which is the "normalcy" of space travel.
The "special" effects were also ground breaking to create the illusion that they are actually in space.

We had a good conversation about the evolution of Man and how we as today's humans would not understand what is next.

We talked about as humans exploring space we would be like infants in a new world.

How would A.I. grip the concept of deception? How long could the body last in a vacuum before the blood boiled?
 
How long could the body last in a vacuum before the blood boiled?

I thought I had read somewhere that Kubrick consulted NASA scientists on how long the human body could withstand the vacuum/cold of space. And I believe the answer is longer than "we" would all imagine (like 10-15 seconds which is about how long Bowman is in the airlock before he shuts the outer door).

Another take on it is that it is human beings discovering abilities we never believed we had- in other words HAL tells Bowman that without his space helmet he will not be able to survive at all... yet Bowman does! Either HAL was wrong, or HAL purposely lied to frighten Bowman out of attempting.


Kevin
 
Arthur C. Clarke was a NASA scientist.

They couldn't have had a definite answer yet, though, as the film and book were written before man ever travelled to space. It would have been completely theoretical. One aspect that was praised was the accuracy of their predictions though.
 
I was just wondering is there anyone else that holds their breathe during that scene?

...and HAL only says it will be "difficult" without his helmet. So he wasn't wrong.

...and Alan Shepard went up in 1961 so we had been in space plenty by 1967.

...and the "book" was derivative of the movie script, not the other way around.
 
Hmm.. It must be rough for a 13 year old trying to grasp how and why 2001 was ever made. Right age for science fiction though. Make sure they see "Moon" and "Sunshine" and "Gattaca" and "Blade Runner." then work your way backwards to 2001. :D

K
 
:lol

Last year I was blessed with seeing it in 70mm at the Egyptian in LA and I swear everyone in the theater held their breathes. A little at a time you heard people exhale. :lol
 
:lol :lol :lol

If I ever hit the Lotto big I would by a theatre and every 70mm print I could of the classics

It's a crime that 2001 and other classics are hardly shown in that format.



:lol

Last year I was blessed with seeing it in 70mm at the Egyptian in LA and I swear everyone in the theater held their breathes. A little at a time you heard people exhale. :lol
 
I was watching 2001 on TV as a little kid in the seventies, it was confusing and scary even (that choral music was and is creepy as hell) but a little guidance went a long way and of course read the book later.
 
No lazer blasters or fireball explosions? No alien monsters or robots? WTF?

With all the sci-fi around, we forget that Apollo was the only real spaceship ever made. [The rest just went into orbit.] We expect space travel to be 'a given' when it is the adventure.
 
Hmm.. It must be rough for a 13 year old trying to grasp how and why 2001 was ever made. Right age for science fiction though.
I remember my parents taking me to see 2001 in the theater when I was 8 or 9 years old. I recall liking it even though it confused me and I really didn't understant it. Both of my parents thought it was the stupidest thing they'd ever seen.

---------------
 
I was born in 67. I asked my parents, but they never saw it. I do know it was very popular with the drug culture at the time for the psychedelic trip.
 
Well at the time Bowman's Stargate trip blew people's minds, they had never seen anything like it.

Today of course we look at it and go, "oh, primitive slitscanned computer graphics combined with dye-injected-into-water-tank effects and color-tinted helicopter footage. How quaint."
 
HAL tells Bowman that without his space helmet he will not be able to survive at all...

Actually, HAL tells Dave that, without his helmet, he's likely to find re-entering the Discovery "rather difficult." Which, of course, it is.

No deception involved, intended or otherwise.
 
Actually, HAL tells Dave that, without his helmet, he's likely to find re-entering the Discovery "rather difficult." Which, of course, it is.

No deception involved, intended or otherwise.

Yes but he's bascially saying, "You're going to try and enter without your helmet? Yeah good luck with that pal." Or "Rather difficult, so I wouldn't try it."

HAL's statement is almost sarcastic- He's telling Bowman he has "no" chance. HAL believes Bowman will fail.

Why else would he allow Bowman to enter through the airlock? HAL believed he would be killed. And then after Bowman succeeds (something HAL ceratainly didn't seem to expect), he switches his tune to practially grovelling and even begging for his "life"?

If HAL believed Bowman had a chance of getting in (difficult, but not impossible), wouldn't he have tried to talk him out of it? He certainly tried to talk him out of turning him off.


Kevin
 
This thread is more than 12 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top