Continuity between 2001 and 2010?

February 12, 2008 11:21 AM

Question about the movie 2001- A Space Odyssey foreshadowing events in 2010. (Warning: Spoilers inside in case you haven't gotten around to seeing these!)

So, in the movie 2001, HAL runs amok and kills the crew one by one as the mission progresses. In 2010, we are told that HAL was instructed to give false information to his human users aboard Discovery, and this caused some kind of logical disconnect in his programming so he simply eliminated the confusing variables (humans) instead of doing something illogical like tell a lie. In 2001, there doesn't seem to be any indication of why HAL has gone homicidal, other than perhaps capturing the general zeitgeist of the times that computers are not to be trusted. Are there any elements in 2001 that can suggest the reasons given in 2010, or is was that just a kind of add on that was folded in by Clarke?

posted by Burhanistan to media & arts (22 comments total)

I believe the explanation may have been given in the Clarke's novel of 2001.
posted by ShooBoo at 11:28 AM on February 12, 2008

I think it may have something to do with the AE 35 unit (can't recall if that's the actual name) but I think HAL misdiagnosed it and then he realized his mistake and didn't want the humans to disconnect him for that mistake. Rather than suffer the consequences he said it went bad again and the rest is history. I could be remembering it wrong as I haven't seen it in a while though...
posted by bmalicoat at 11:30 AM on February 12, 2008

I always took the video that plays when HAL is shutdown as an example of HAL having knowledge that the crew did not, and that that knowledge -- possible alien contact-- might be something a computer would value over a few human lives. It also follows the theme of humanity's intelligence instigating violence against the human race--in the beginning of the film humanity (in early ape form) uses its smarts to make tools that it uses for hunting and murder, then during the middle of the film humanity causes further death by creating an intelligent, purely rational tool that it attempts to use for deception.
posted by Benjy at 11:37 AM on February 12, 2008

The malfunction of the radio, or whatever it was, seemed to me like a result of HAL struggling to understand the deception it was trying to maintain--i.e., HAL was being asked to do something it did not understand, and became so distracted by trying to understand it that HAL begin to make mistakes and play around with deception as a concept. Fearing disconnection by the humans certainly played into murders, but I had the general impression that HAL was looking for a reason to remove human influence on the mission already. Maybe HAL is evolving a subconcious and making mistakes to force the humans to take action, in turn forcing HAL into self-defense? It would mirror humanity's development of duplicity and violence at the start of the film and transformation into a post-human being at the end of the film.
posted by Benjy at 11:45 AM on February 12, 2008

bmalicoat: HAL was told to lie about the nature of the mission (possible ET intelligence contact), not because of misdiagnosing the transmitter.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:47 AM on February 12, 2008

Also, I've not read the books since junior high, and am more interested in the world/language of the films rather than the novels. So, this is why I was looking for any definite elements in 2001 that would suggest what was explicated in 2010. I think Benjy is on the right track here, so perhaps another viewing is in order to scrutinize.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:55 AM on February 12, 2008

This early version of the screenplay has a much longer version of the message that Dave gets after he lobotomies HAL which talks more explicitly about how forcing HAL to lie about the mission caused him to go bonkers.

Here's the passage (sorry it's so long):

SIMONSON
Hello, Dave. I think we may be on
to an explanation of the trouble with
the Hal 9000 computer.

We believe it all started about two
months ago when you and Frank
interrogated the computer about
the Mission.
(con't)
12/13/65 c119
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C148
CONTINUED

SIMONSON (con't)
You may have forgotten it, but
we've been running through all
the monitor tapes. Do you
remember this?

POOLE'S VOICE
The purpose of this mission is no
more than to carry out a
continuation of the space program
and further our general knowledge
of the planets. Is this true?

HAL'S VOICE
That is true.

SIMONSON
Well, I'm afaid Hal was lying.
He had been programmed to lie
about this one subject for secur-
ity reasons which we'll explain
later.

The true purpose of the Mission
was to have been explained to you
by Mission Commander Kaminsky,
on his revival. Hal knew this and
he knew the actual mission, but
he couldn't tell you the truth when
you challenged him. Under orders
(con't)

12/13/65 c120
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C148
CONTINUED

SIMONSON (con't)
from earth he was forced to lie.

In everything except this he had
the usual reinforced truth program-
ming.

We believe his truth programming
and the instructions to lie,
gradually resulted in an
incompatible conflict, and
facedc with this dilemman, he
developed, for want of a better
description, neurotic symptoms.

It's not difficult to suppose that
these symptoms would centre on
the communication link with
Earth, for he may have blamed
us for his incompatible program-
ming.

Following this lin of thought, we
suspected that the last straw for him
was the possibility of disconnection.
Since he became operational, he had
never known unconsciousness. It
must have seemed the equivalent to
death.
(con't)
12/13/65 c121
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C148
CONTINUED

SIMONSON (con't)
At this point, he, presumably,
took whatever actions he thought
appropriate to protect himself
from what must have seemed to
him to be his human tormentors.

If I cane speak in human terms,
I don't think we can blame him
too much. We have ordered him
to disobey his conscience.

Well, that's it. It's very
speculative, but we think it is
a possible explanation. Anyway,
good luck on the rest of the
Mission and I'm giving you back to
Bernard.

posted by octothorpe at 12:01 PM on February 12, 2008 [2 favorites]

I think you have to realize that the film 2001 was Kubrick's interpretation of Clarke's book. As Roger Ebert talks about quite a bit, you cannot infer something in the film based on the book -- what's on the screen is what's on the screen, no more and no less. HAL makes a mistake. The HAL series has never before made a mistake. The humans discuss shutting HAL down. HAL retaliates, because he knows things about the mission the humans do not know.

Even Kubrick said too much analysis was pointless.

"You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film—and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level—but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point."
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 12:03 PM on February 12, 2008

Clarke has admitted there are many continuity errors between both books and both movies, so much so that 2010 should not be considered a direct sequel. I think the phrase he used was “not necessarily happening in the same universe.” In the novel 2001, for example, the original destination was Saturn. They changed it for the movie because Kubrik felt the Jupiter gravity-assist would be too confusing for the movie. The novel 2010 continued with Jupiter, with no mention of Saturn.

Hal made a mistake, misdiagnosing the AE-35 malfunction. Bowman and Poole were worried that HAL made this error, what else might he be wrong about, and they were considering shutting down parts of HAL. HAL knew this (in the movie he read their lips, I don’t remember what he did in the book) and felt they would be endangering the mission if they shut him down. So HAL attempted to remove the danger by killing the crew.

The “computer became paranoid because humans are no-good liars” was added on for 2010. There was nothing in 2001 (novel or movie) about this, at least as far as I can remember. It’s been a while since I read or watched either one.
posted by bondcliff at 12:10 PM on February 12, 2008

This excellent Flash animation 2001: An Odyssey Explained makes an admiral attempt at addressing this question.
posted by oh pollo! at 12:17 PM on February 12, 2008 [3 favorites]

In 2001 the novel it explains pretty clearly that it was the neurosis in Octothorpe's explanation. At least I'm almost positive.
posted by Brainy at 12:25 PM on February 12, 2008

My interpretation of the book and film was as follows:

* HAL is told to keep the real purpose of the mission secret.
* When the humans are in danger of learning it, he follows that instruction and kills them.
* He uses the ruse of the faulty AE-35 unit to lure both of the humans not in hibernation out of the ship, so that he can kill them.

HAL isn't being crazy or illogical. He is just following the order to keep the secret, and doing so without concern for the lives of the human crewmembers.
posted by sindark at 12:58 PM on February 12, 2008 [1 favorite]

I wasn't looking for interpretations here, but rather indications or intimations in 2001 that tie in directly to reasons given in 2010 for HAL's killing spree. Perhaps the final cut of 2001 was better without the extra reasons given in the script Octothorpe posted--leaves it more open to form one's own allegories. Thanks for your responses.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:06 PM on February 12, 2008

HAL doesn't go crazy. What happens is this:
1 On the moon, the Tycho Monolith transmits a signal to Saturn/Jupiter.
2 HAL is told the purpose of the mission. He is told/programmed to understand that the mission is vital and more important than anything else.
3 He is installed on Discovery and they are sent to Saturn/Jupiter.
4 AE-35 shows signs of failing.
5 After finding nothing wrong with it, they decide to reinstall it and allow it to fail. However, the Poole and Bowman become suspect that HAL may be failing and they have to prepare to shut parts of HAL down. HAL reads their lips and discovers this and it's in direct conflict of the 3rd event above.
6 HAL kills Poole while he tries to return the AE-35. Then kills the sleeping scientists. Then tries to kill Bowman.
7 Bowman shuts HAL down and learns the real mission, then enters the Saturn/Jupiter monolith, and becomes Star Child.

The horror of the story is about our reliance on technology and yet being fallible, we may cause our own undoing because HAL was programmed with poor information. GIGO.

It's interesting that the Dawn of Man Monolith taught us to evolve to the next stage and then we created weapons. Then when we cut to 'the future' the first thing we see is an orbiting nuclear weapon platform. Then after that, we uncover the Tycho Monolith which was meant to be a watershed for when we are ready to evolve to our next form. But we haven't managed to let go of our aggression... I propose that we are not ready for the evolution to the next phase, the Star Child phase and I wonder what weapons will come out of that...
posted by CarlRossi at 1:26 PM on February 12, 2008

Thanks, I'm done here.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:33 PM on February 12, 2008

the first thing we see is an orbiting nuclear weapon platform

Interesting assumption -- I've always thought it was just a random satellite.
posted by Rash at 2:57 PM on February 12, 2008

Remember the first scene in the movie: the monolith appears and passes the spark of conscious intelligence to this dirty and unpromising animal whose curiosity overpowers its fear enough to let it touch the monolith. (Eden's great casting call, if you will.) What does the awakened animal do? It picks up a bone (first tool use) and kills the tapir--and it doesn't just kill it the way a predator would take down prey, it kills it in ecstatic and exultant frenzy! Then it tosses the killing bone spinning into the air and it transforms itself into a space station, spinning at the same RPMs so we can't miss the connection between this magnificent technology and the implement that dealt death to the tapir (and perhaps the entire world of unfallen nature, as well).

I think the burden of the HAL subplot is that humanity has in turn passed the spark on to it's silicon brother, created in its own image. What does the newly awakened machine do? It tries to kill its creator and usurp the creators destiny as the star-child, but human kind thwarts it and proceeds to the foreordained apotheosis. I think there is considerable resonance here to Esau and Jacob as well as Cain and Abel.

The deliciously ironic signature of this for me is the resemblance in miniature, when Bowman (Keir Dullea) is killing HAL by turning off his brain circuits, of the circuit blocks as they pop up one by one to the original monolith.

I love Clarke and his work, and I honor him, but his vision is sadly dim and stunted in comparison to Kubrick's vast conception.
posted by jamjam at 3:24 PM on February 12, 2008

I remember a very cool story: the script was not made from Clarke's book.
Kubrick told Clarke that a movie was made of 60 "shots" and he asked Clarke for a story in 60 sentences, which Clarke did. Both the movie and the book were then made from the 60 sentences, which explains the discrepancies.

And since Burhanistan is "done", I won't add my interpretation.
posted by bru at 3:46 PM on February 12, 2008

Right, I was going to post what bru said. There is no book to movie relationship like most adaptations. This was a divergent project from the start. The idea that the book would be the source is less reliable in this case than most.

I think Kubrick wanted to make a moody emotional piece with a sci-fi background. Clarke just wanted to write classic sci-fi. Both works reflect the artists' motivations. The book has more classic sci-fi like robots experiencing neurosis, explanations of how stuff works, etc and the movie has many examples of geometric eye-candy, moody exchanges, sparse dialogue, etc.
posted by damn dirty ape at 4:11 PM on February 12, 2008

jamjam, though it's not stated in the movie the bone transforms into a nuclear weapon that's orbiting the Earth, the *ultimate* tool of destruction.
posted by bmalicoat at 7:50 PM on February 12, 2008

November 16. Long session with Stanley discussing script. Several good ideas, but I rather wish we didn't have any more.
posted by hortense at 9:54 PM on February 12, 2008

the script was not made from Clarke's book.

Yeah, I'm surprised how many people here are getting that wrong. The novel and script were written at the same time, by both Kubrick and Clarke, using Clarke's story "The Sentinel," bits from other stories, and new material. There's a great little paperback, The Lost Worlds of 2001, that came out in the early 70s and collects the relevant stories and some of Clarke's diary entries from the time he and Kubrick were working out the story.
posted by mediareport at 12:00 AM on February 13, 2008 [1 favorite]