colie: The entire Shuttle turned out to have a 40 percent failure rate tho.
octothorpe: Of course, when I finally saw the movie, well after the actual year 2001, it bored me out of my mind. Too slow, too bizarre.
Not sure if I care what he says about the movie after he drops that.
The makers of Alien called this aesthetic-of-the-derelict “truckers in space,” which is fun but fails to capture the postindustrial criticism embodied in the Nostromo. Within the ship—a floating platform without a discernible bow or stern, akin to an oil rig—there are enormous spaces that look more like blast furnaces gone cold than the inside of a spaceship: a place of rusted metal, loose chains, forgotten pieces of machinery, of water falling from the ceiling and dripping to the floor to collect in stagnant pools. The ship’s crew bicker over pay and overtime; they follow company orders only begrudgingly. They are a very different, far more diverse group than the clearly white-collar crew of the Discovery. [...]
And where, in all of this, is Mother? If the alien were set loose on HAL’s watch, he would probably neutralize it all on his own, automatically, as it were. Mother, on the other hand, spends the whole movie like a fated southern belle hooked on laudanum, locked in her room. She can’t even advise on how to defeat the monster. The computer cannot help. No costly investment in heavy capital will keep nature at bay. [...] In the end, Mother reveals that she was in on a corporate plot to bring the monster back to Earth so the company could study it for its weapons division. “Crew expendable,”
octothorpe: HAL doesn’t murder the humans out of some nascent self-awareness, it does so because of contradictory programming. Its programmers killed the crew.
That's the boring and reductionist reason that Clarke gave in 2010 but HAL is much more than just his programming
« Older "T.S. Eliot, the stink-bombing Nobel prizewinner" | Consider the chicken Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments