2001: HAL

[@dpadr]

man, i love how much you are able to extract so much from this film and that 2001 is the rare type of film that supports it. BUT i still don't buy this 'que-brick' pronunciation nonsense.

[@jamescameron1337]

KU-brick. It is known.

[@pat3834]

@@jamescameron1337 Right - Koobrick, not Kuebrick.

[@tristencovarrubias4950]

Cue(as in billiards-pool)/Queue(as in line or order)/“Q”(as in the letter of the alphabet)-Brick(as in the standardized stone objects used in the construction of walls & houses)

[@peterharris38]

Ok Matthew this is my take on HAL and his behavior. Primarily HAL was designed to never fail, so any action he took was preprogrammed, now saying that his actions were able to change (again preprogrammed) should the astronauts behave in a certain way, a way that HAL recognizes as a potential threat to the mission, the planning of this is clear in the chess scene where Frank fails to see that in the game this proves HAL is acting to assess Frank. Then the AE-35 unit is another test designed to see how they both react and based on that, given that HAL has the secret message so he is only able to continue the mission regardless of the human cost of life, diverges from a straight course and act's for the sucess of the mission because he cannot change his programming. Cheers

[@EldritchAdvocate]

I do hope you get back to this series someday Matt. I'd love to see part 4 (and maybe 5?); your movie analyses always make me think about media in a more complex and elevated way.

[@bard.college]

Same! Really enjoyed his analysis and insights!

[@DocEonChannel]

I took "see you next wednesday" to mean they send a video every week, not that the mission would be super quick. Why would they put half the crew in hibernation for just a few days? Oh, and in the next scene you bring up, HAL talks about "the past weeks".

[@aduboo29]

While I think you're probably correct, HAL does refer to putting them in hibernation at all as a "melodramatic act" - indicating that there was no obvious need to do so. It may well be that the "past weeks" refers to them knowing they were going on the mission, not the mission itself. I think you can swing it either way. Matt's interpretation does further add to the banality and mundane nature space travel appears to have taken on, but it isn't really necessary to see it that way.

[@fittyJackson]

I think he is referring to the action within the film. Not the duration of the crew's mission.

[@DocEonChannel]

fiftyJackson: That wouldn't make sense - the astronaut's parents don't know they're in a movie. ;)

[@DocEonChannel]

aduboo: The melodramatic part I take to be freezing them before they're even brought aboard. Why is this done? Apparently to keep the astronauts, and possibly even mission control back home, in the dark about the real objective of the mission. If they knew, maybe they might slip up during their communications with the media or their families.

[@RasmusNJorgensen]

What I also thought.

[@TheGreyProphet]

See I always took the scene with HAL notifying the crew of the potential failure of a part as not mistakenly identifying the possible failure but as him deflecting the conversation, he made a mistake yes but that mistake was interpersonal interaction and not mechanical identification. HAL wanted to end the conversation so he said "hey this part might fail we should stop talking and go take care of that." Not realizing that doing so would lead to them believing he had made an error and thus causing the escalation that we see as the movie progresses.

[@liamkendrick42]

In 2010 it’s explained that HAL, being told that the mission is of the utmost secrecy, and being constantly monitored by government and media back on earth, fakes the failure of the AE-35 unit to sever ties with earth to keep the secrecy of the mission intact. Dave and Frank are not privy to the actual mission and are therefore disposable

[@emessar]

I would tend to agree with you, but I might have to go back and watch it again. It's in the timing and how he brings it up. If I remember right, it comes up during the conversation that he wants to avoid. And he says "One moment ... one moment ..." as if he's trying to think of something. I think if it were something that just came up (even erroneously), the information would have come in, HAL would have analyzed and confirmed it, and he would have passed that on to Dave. HAL is always multitasking. That isn't a challenge for him. What is a challenge is lying, deceiving, and being creative. I really should go back and watch that someday. It could be that part of my opinion is colored by stuff that gets brought up in 2010, and I don't know how valid that information might be in the context of the intent of the Kubrick or Asimov. For that matter, is Kubrick's intention the same as Asimov's? Great, now I have to go read the book, too.

[@FaoladhTV]

I think that Matt already addressed that idea. He notes, rightly, that HAL was apparently genuinely surprised that the AE-35 unit showed no signs of imminent failure and suggested - on his own initiative - replacing the part and seeing if it failed.

[@ImVeryOriginal]

HAL acting as if he made a genuine mistake and suggesting replacing the antenna is more consistent with the whole thing being a spitballed excuse to change the topic (with HAL playing along with his lie and pretending he's surprised) than with the theory he wanted to sever contact with Earth. I don't think any information from either the book or movie sequel needs to be taken into account, 2001 is a self-contained story.

[@FaoladhTV]

NotAffiliated I disagree with that, at least as I think that the argument made here by Matt that HAL was not very skilled at lying, or at other interpersonal skills regarding human beings, is persuasive. There is nothing in the movie that indicates that HAL is particularly good at manipulating humans, and much to indicate that he isn't (such as how easily Bowman saw through his clumsy attempt to "work up a psych evaluation"). I think that, taking the movie alone, one can only really come to the conclusions that Matt does here. The only piece of information that isn't (I think) explicitly laid out in the film is that HAL was struggling between his naturally open inclinations and the order he's given to keep information secret from the crew until they arrive at Jupiter (as shown in the video that plays just as HAL is finally disconnected). That's something that the viewer is supposed to be able to put together on their own.

[@captcorajus]

As a guy named Dave, who is also a gamer, I can't tell you how many times that joke has been made. "I'm sorry Dave..."

[@chloepechlaner7806]

I actually think the whole "crew psychology" report is more complex. While he may be presenting it in that half-way form and seem like a shifty liar, its MORE that he was DESPERATELY trying to tell the crew that something was going on, he was DESPERATELY trying to be HONEST when he couldnt, at least with the book, because the main conflict in it is articulated as his struggle between his internal command to be honest and the missions requirement to lie to his own crew. He's trying to tell the truth via a lie, and then, when it fails, he starts to break down

[@edlaprade]

Absolutely. If you haven't read the book, you've missed half the movie.

[@danomalley2473]

Totally agree. I'm pretty sure in 2010 it's established that Hal went crazy because he was given conflicting orders ie; Asimov's 3 Laws vs Hal's secret order to complete the mission at all costs, even at the expense of the crew's lives.

[@korg20000bc]

Prime Directive 4: Be fresh as fuck like ERB Robocop

[@atreides213]

edlaprade No. The book is not necessary to read for the movie, nor should it be. Kubrick and Clark has different visions and many details in book and movie are different.

[@ImVeryOriginal]

The book and the movie were created concurrently and are realted, but separate works of art. The interpretation that HAL was struggling with conflicting orders is interesting, but not at all necessary to experience and understand the movie.

[@k87jury]

10:50 My favorite part of his answer is "I Think" The concept that being fully utilized is the best thing a "person" could hope to achieve is not an undisputed fact to HAL. He does not consider it completely obvious or objective like 2+2=4. It is his subjective opinion and HAL reveals as much in his interveiw.

[@korg20000bc]

Absolutely. That was the main point rather than the conscious bit.

[@youngpaddy1]

HAL's schizophrenic due to an internal conflict, he has to keep the mission secret but has been programmed to conceal nothing from those on the ship, he's killing the crew so there's no one to tell and no one to keep in the dark.

[@royal9743]

When they mentioned 'disconnecting HAL' I always thought they wanted to just disconnect him from the ships systems and put them on manual. I didn't interpret it as "We have to kill HAL." I interpreted it as "We don't trust HAL to do his job right and have to discnnect him from the systems until we're back on earth and they can check his programming and hardware for malfunctions." That played a bit more into the Hubris because HAL would be pretty much "I'd rather kill my teammates than face the humiliation to get suspended from my job."

[@sednabold859]

They talk about disconnecting his higher brain functions, lobotomizing him which they later do by pulling the cassets out of the 'Logic Memory Center'. This causes him all the fear and symptoms of death, the pleading, slow singing etc. They kill him. You can't lock a sentient Hal out of the ship, this isnt a 1990s Matrix virtual environment but an Apollo era 'analogue' computer, Hal is the ship, you just have to pull out parts of his brain.

[@IVIaskerade]

It's not that they can't trust HAL because he's a machine. It's because HAL does not make mistakes... but he did. If it had been set up from the start that HAL was fallible, making a simple one that caused no damage would not be an issue, which is why the crew don't care when other (human) crew members make mistakes. But it wasn't. HAL was set up to be completely infallible, and the very notion that he could make a mistake puts the entire situation in jeopardy.

[@nik700]

That and the fact that the entire mission depends on HAL not making mistakes since he's in charge of everything

[@Quotheraving]

Thing is that it wasn't HAL's mistake but that's something we don't discover (pun intended) till the second book/film. HAL was simply following the instructions which were given it by the mission's directors, instructions which conflicted with it's core programming (specifically not to conceal information.. but to conceal the existence of the monolith). It was attempting to follow it's instructions which caused it to malfunction. In other words it was human error.

[@nik700]

Quotheraving Yeah, but the crew didn't know that, they were told (as the audience was told) that HAL doesn't makes mistakes. Like the fact of HAL being a person or not, it really doesn't matter, what really matters is that HAL believes that he is a person and he is incapable of making errors (and voices both of those things to the crew and the audience)

[@KyleMcPherson]

@@nik700 It does matter because a human can control themselves (or through procedures or social pressure) the things they put intellectual emphasis on and double/triple check to be certain. A machine, Turing-positive or not, applies equal cognitive power and certitude to all functions.

[@CitizenX138]

I would disagree with the proposition that Poole and Bowman are plotting to murder Hal; they talk about disconnection, not elimination -- they want to turn him off for a while, presumably to run the ship manually until they can get back home. Hal has been disconnected before (he was born in Illinois in 1992), and one can assume he's aware of having been installed in the ship. I agree that they sound like they're acting hyperbolically - but this isn't murder they're plotting. Hal has complete executive control of the ship. He is expected to perform perfectly, and therefore has unfettered access with a complete lack of the safeguards one would expect from a ship's captain. There are no other crew members he has to work through (second officer, helmsman, etc.), nor physical barriers (locked mechanisms) stopping him from an errant mistake - because Hal does NOT make mistakes. Once you've put the lives of everyone in the hands of a perfect person with no safeguards, and that person makes a mistake, it's time to discuss removing or limiting that power. They aren't discussing murder, they're plotting MUTINY. However, since Hal's weakness is pride and hubris -- and the crew is acting suspiciously and surreptitiously discussing him out of earshot -- he responds to the suggestion of mutiny with murder.

[@anlumo1]

HAL had secret tasks to perform at the destination, which the crew didn't know about. Disconnecting him, even only until the mission is over, means that these critical tasks would not be fulfilled. However, his instructions said that these tasks are of utmost priority, and also that he is not allowed to inform the crew about them, thus creating a conflict that could only be resolved by killing the crew, avoiding his disconnection.

[@ImVeryOriginal]

I'm not sure how one arrives at the conclusion that disconnecting a computer equals destroying it. HAL doesn't want to be disconnected just as much as a human being wouldn't like to be put into a coma involuntarily, especially if they feel they have an important goal to accomplish.

[@LemonInYourEyes]

You seem to be arguing semantics at that point, though. The fact of the matter is disconnecting the computer IS equal to destroying it. Disconnection renders the computer inoperable. So would destroying it. I think the underlying motivation for HAL is his secret mission directives the crew didn't know about. It is priority one for HAL to execute these secret tasks, and if he is disconnected, he cannot do these tasks. If HAL making a mistake renders him disconnected(thus unable to fulfill his duty), then HAL itself IS flawed, and WILL be destroyed once returned to Earth, since such a vital piece of technology, one DESIGNED and INTENDED to be perfect, is broken at best and dangerous at worst if it malfunctions.

[@dynamicworlds1]

anlumo1 yeah, I've always understood was the main driving thing behind HAL's actions were those orders to fulfill his mission being put above all other priorities.

[@codaboi138]

Ahh! I'm dying to see part 4. I looooovveee getting well-rounded, thorough analysis on HAL because he was pretty much THE first A.I antagonist, and I think as time goes on, his influence on pop culture becomes more relevant in media and real life.

[@AvinashArora0]

The gut wrenching anxiety of "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that." Can't wait to see your conclusion to this series!

[@nrabinov]

15:50 “see you next Wednesday” was in anticipation of Frank’s next video message, not his return to Earth.

[@humanoidesassociados]

1- Isn't 2001 informed by Arthur C. Clarke and not PKD? 2- Being a hard sci-fi movie, I got the impression that the voyage would take at least months, and the 'see you next Wednesday' meant the guy's dad was gonna sent him another message by Wednesday.

[@JamesDenholm]

Yeah, I think it's established that the trip to Jupiter is going to take a long, long time. _Certainly_ it's established in ACC's novel (the chapter immediately after HAL is lobotomized goes into how Bowman runs the ship by himself for a few months), but I'd say it's also established by the film in how long the trip to the Moon takes, by the very nature of the three crewmembers being in hypersleep (why would you go into hypersleep for a few days? I don't think those three would have been selected if, say, had personality quirks that made a mundane week traveling aboard the Discovery less preferable to such a medically extreme procedure), and even that the two awake crewmembers have a very roomy ship. After all, if we remember the Apollo program -- a week in space -- was done in very confined quarters, without luxury, without any sort of physical exercise gear. Yet Bowman is shown to be working out, maintaining his physique, in an artificial gravity environment. Given whoever sent the five/six on the mission spent a year building Discovery, it seems implausible to me that they would bother to make such a large ship -- or at least such a large, luxurious living space, which notably spins -- for a week in space. EDIT: Wow, that bold font is a little bit... blunt.

[@patrikg.6320]

1, yes 2, it took I think around 4 months for discovery 1 to reach the point in space in the movie and it takes just about 42 minutes for radio waves in space to travel distance between earth and jupiter.

[@dragonboyjgh]

You're right. You don't hypersleep for just a week's trip

[@Ganthama]

I don't think Matt meant to say 2001 is by PKD - even though that's what I understood at first too. Listening to 11:39 again, what I think he meant was: "A lot of SciFi, including SciFi informed by PKD *and* including 2001, is about the Wasteland." At least I hope that's what he meant. Because otherwise that would mean he made a mistake... in which case we would have to kill him.

[@humanoidesassociados]

I do not think the Great Colville can make mistakes. We appear to perceive mistakes because we are flawed mortals. He is not.

[@mikegould6590]

Until Anthony Hopkins portrayal of Hannibal Lector, HAL owned the title of “creepy and calm”.

[@bedward320]

You know I came on this channel because of the D&D stuff that you do so well, and then I came across this little gem and you sucked me into yet another world. I don't know if anything you said is true, but the meaning that you gave it and the way you presented it was brilliant! I love seeing the world through your eyes. Thanks Matt.

[@joshantor]

NEW MATT-FOOD TO CONSUME

[@Alexander-xh7zm]

Duuuuude, we need part 4!!! This is the greatest analysis of 2001 in all of cyberspace - superb work 👏🏻

[@endrankluvsda4loko172]

I really love this series of 2001 analysis. I really hope to get to see more videos like this from you. Don't get me wrong - I love the D&D videos; that's why I subbed to you, but I find these super interesting so of course I hope you make more!

[@samuelbrunkow7737]

I like learning that this take on "computers = bad" dystopia was relatively new in 1968. Another good short story on a similar subject is "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream" by Harlan Ellison.

[@lancewhiteeagle3203]

With the antenna, did Hal actually screw up, or did he report a false problem knowingly to stop the conversation where he was caught lying? I always took it as a ruse that then spun out of control.

[@danscantland8066]

This makes me wonder if instead of a villain, instead HAL is a tragic hero. Fatal flaw, check. Your own actions bring about tragedy, check.

[@GlacialScion]

I think you split the difference and call him a tragic villain.

[@mikechan1894]

The normalcy of space flight is one of the greatest thing about 2001. It's like the crew eating together at the start of Alien. It's messy, and it's so normal.

[@VerumAdPotentia]

Another great video. I think this is also the first time in film that a large, high definition tablet is shown, and again, though all but unheard of in our culture previous to this time, it is shown as commonplace, which, in considering actual tablets and the manner of their use today, is spot on.

[@davidfroehlich5609]

I need the next one! Really interesting! These are the best analysis videos I've seen on 2001!

[@Njald]

Matthew, not sure you will see this. But Arthur C Clarke goes into detail about why HAL failed in the sequel. IIRC HAL were given impossible mission parameters and couldn't resolve it. He was told to never lie but was then later instructed to keep things hidden from the crew. That's why he fakes the error, because he doesn't know how to keep things hidden from Dave without lying to him. I also think you are reading a bit much into the crew being bored. they are bored because the mission is really long. The "see you next Wednesday" is when the next video will appear, not when they get back home. Clarke and Kubrick paid a tonne of attention to real world physics and the trip is a long one, as in months and months. that's why the crew is bored.

[@MorinehtarTheBlue]

While the HAL thing is true Clarke also writes in the forewords to both 2010 and 2061 of various continuity errors that paint the series with a degree of negative continuity. While I do find the change in HAL's motivation interesting there is something to be said about an analysis of the film from a stand alone perspective.

[@ChristopherZubin]

I've always had a very different interpretation of Hal's motivations. His malfunctioning isn't just random chance, his two conflicting primary directives, protecting the crew, and protecting the mission, drive him insane. Hal is the only one who knows everything going on with the mission, and is forced to make a choice between keeping the crew alive, or letting human frailty threaten the mission.

[@0x777]

I like your analysis, but I think you missed a critical aspect (admittedly, it's less obvious in the movie and only comes out in the books). HAL is in a classical double bind. On one hand, the scientific mission lead gave him the specific order to cooperate with the crew on every aspect, on the other hand the military branch gave him the order to withhold critical information about the mission (the whole deal with the monolith) from the crew. The conversation with Dave is, in my opinion, HALs attempt to get out of this double bind, to get Dave to discover the hidden information by himself without HAL breaking his order to withhold information, thus allowing HAL to fulfill both conflicting orders. When Dave sees through this and is about to discover that HAL is pretty much breaking his do-not-talk-about-the-monolith clause, HAL tries to distract the crew by simulating a malfunction. This backfires badly as we learn later, because the crew interprets it as a critical malfunction in an allegedly flawless computer system. Him trying to kill the crew before they can kill him can also be seen as him trying to at least fulfill his ultimate order: Complete the mission successfully. If the crew tries to keep him from doing it, the crew must be eliminated. That actually also resolves his double bind problem: With no crew, there is nobody he needs to withhold information from and nobody he has to cooperate with. So no, I don't see HAL as the villain. Sure, he tries to kill the crew, but essentially only because they try to kill him first and endanger his ultimate order: Complete the mission. There is no villain, funny enough, only people who make wrong decisions. A mission lead that makes the wrong decision to give a sentient computer two conflicting orders that both must be fulfilled and a crew that makes the wrong decision concerning the computer's attempt to tell them about his problem.

[@IrontMesdent]

One of the greatest villains in Video game to me is GladOS from the portal Series.

[@Sofus.]

Me it's Vaas from Far Cry 3 because he could be me.

[@StarlightDragon]

Glados is fun because she's kind of a parody of the cultural zeitgheist that evolved from Hal, which works because she was legitimately funny. I think, however, the culture surrounding Portal kind of ruined it for me after the fact. I think we all laughed at the absurdity of "the cake is a lie", but hearing people bury that joke into the ground kind of hurt the enjoyment of the character for me.

[@ChroOmega]

Good points. I think that's what I enjoyed about Wheatley in the second game - he was weaponized idiocy incarnate, such a deliberate diametric opposition to his predecessor. He parodied the weird culture of the game in a way that, for me at least, was rather satisfying.

[@panzzer1200]

Handsom Jack. Best villain of all time.

[@erezamir7218]

HAL is the og GladOS, there would be no glados without hal9000

[@fhuber7507]

2010 told us about HAL's "mental breakdown"

[@mykandbrooke]

There is a definitive reason HAL starts making mistakes and it escalates so far. HAL does indeed know what their mission is, but the only people on board who know are the ones who are asleep. Dave and Frank don't know about the monolith as it is still being kept secret. They aren't to find out till they are there and the other crew members revived. Keeping this secret causes internal conflict in HAL, driving him to psychosis.

[@golan345]

mykandbrooke while true, this isn't explained in the movie. It's only in the book and the sequels. Also, don't watch the 2010 movie. It's just bad.

[@crgrier]

Read the 2010 book, to movie didn't come close.

[@RideMyBMW]

min 0:20 "HAL is undisputedly the villain of 2001" Nuh uh, buddy...Its Floyd.

[@wanderinghistorian]

YES! Another 2001 video! I love these!

[@stephenpatterson2860]

I finally actually watched 2001 for the first time last night, and had the privilege of watching it in IMAX. I just had to go back and rewatch your 2001 videos in response, and I think it's high time you release part 4 already! :) Also, it's already been said below but to me, HAL "detecting" that the antenna was going to fail was not him making a mistake; the mistake was him getting caught in his attempt to dupe Dave in the process of one of his regular duties (the crew psychology report), and feeling awkward about having been caught, or wanting to deflect the conversation away from the devious tactic he'd used in questioning Dave, and so he panics and lies to Dave's face, telling him that he detected a fault. There was of course no fault in the antenna, but in order to cover up his initial deception (regarding the report) followed by a second deception (the antenna), he reacts in further panic and starts killing off the crew, terrified of the conclusion that they came to that he is faulty and could put their lives in jeopardy. So the way I see it the single mistake HAL made was not misdiagnosing the antenna, but rather reacting in panic and lying to Dave after he used deception to gather information.

[@spidfire]

Thanks for recapping 2001, I could never find the time to watch it in full. Maybe now I have enough motivation to watch it in full

[@ddsoco1]

Great work, Matt, as always. Very much looking forward to the final instalment of this series.

[@ThomasGiles]

Very interesting video, Matt. Good job! 9:44 - HAL is also saying that _all_ conscious entities should strive to put themselves to the fullest possible use, including the humans that he looks after. What will he do with them if they show they're not fulfilling that? 15:50 - I'm not sure the mission was only a few days. The doctors were in hibernation, so presumably the journey was still long enough to warrant it. I think perhaps this line is meant to convey more banality and tech--that this video messaging thing is a weekly occurrence and they take it for granted. Another possibility is that they're due back in a week, but I'm not sure that would jive with the lengthy mission with hibernation. 18:00 - "Aboard already in hibernation, after 4 months of separate training." I find this interesting. Sounds like they were already in hibernation _before_ the mission started. That is pretty weird, right? 25:20 - I think what you say is all true--though I think the motives on the part of humans isn't as simplistic. I think they don't want to kill HAL for making a simple mistake. They want to kill HAL for what that mistake means. HAL _has_ to be perfect to run the ship and keep them all alive. HAL _has_ to make no mistakes because if he makes mistakes then, as you say, all the oxygen could be vented into space. HAL process electronic inputs and sends electronic outputs. If HAL can process inputs (or the lack of them) incorrectly, as he has done, then there's something wrong with the way he processes inputs. However small that bug may be, it may also affect the way he process inputs like "are the crew alive"? No? Then it would be efficient to vent the oxygen into space and turn off all life support systems. I saw it all as HAL going mad, myself. Your interpretation seems more feasible regarding the scene in question. But HAL decided that from the input of the crew wanting to deactivate him, maybe try to fix him... he should kill all humans aboard. Not even those he sees as planning to murder him, but _every_ living thing on the ship--including those entirely disconnected from anything that has happened. That shows a certain lack of sanity to me.

[@JoshuaWard_is_wardsey]

Magnificent! I really dig the way you walk us through the conflicts and the setups of the narrative. It's like a master class on storytelling, great analysis! I can't wait for the next video.

[@Eupolemos]

Yay! As someone who's not the audience for the kickstarter, it's awesome to have you back! I never considered HAL making an actual mistake, so it makes a bit more sense this way.

[@TheNerdySimulation]

Wonderful video, Matt. 2001 was a movie I never had seen until your first video on it, although I knew it existed, just nobody ever showed the film to me when I was growing up. Now that I have seen it, I honestly am so disappointed that nobody bothered to show me when I was a kid for reasons that seemed to be, "Because it is weird."

[@animistchannel2983]

The problem for HAL was Dave Bowman, who was just too smart and objective. He looked at HAL in a way others didn't. HAL had already tested Frank and found he could bluff Frank into accepting defeat at chess when it wasn't true, but Dave couldn't be fooled or misdirected, as seen here. This pushed HAL's paradox of conflicting orders to the next level. Dave's almost supernatural calm gave him the clarity to see back through the Looking Glass.

[@bob.justbob.3875]

0:23 expected a dramatic "Or *is* he?" Vsauce has scarred me.

[@warspirit9488]

You explain 2001 in a way that turns it from a work of art to entertainment. Thanks and Keep it up.

[@garudave]

Thanks Matt for all the quality content! I've been running the game for a couple years now, after your videos inspired me to take the plunge. Keep up the good work!

[@MuraKun]

Thank you for lending us your enthusiasm and analysis of this movie. I would've never think about this film this way and it makes me truly appreciate it as art.

[@TheBandLegend]

Here I am, waiting for part 4. Going through the 2001 analysis has been super fun! How will it end? Four years and counting.

[@Josmungard]

HALs fracturing over the escalating circumstances is so great. Always caught in a vacuum between man and machine, since his consciousness was never a threat to his human superiors (thus, only a distant spectator would be troubled with the implications of people-minded machines). Never took the time to analyze the systematics in place. I've always had trouble trying to phrase the great things about 2001, specially to more casual movie-watchers. Thank you again for the great job done, Mr Colville!

[@dame1523]

Just watched the trio again for the 5th time, would love to see you come back to this!

[@serigraph73]

it's been over 20 years since i have seen this film... i need to see it again

[@Adrian_Lee6113]

I don’t even remember 2001 Space Odyssey and here I am watching a 30 minute video on it just because it’s Coleville...

[@Leverquin]

where is part 4

[@Drecon84]

I never really realized how human HAL's initial response is. In most movies the filmmakers feel the need to make sure the audience realizes how robotic the AI is by saying something like: "I am functioning within normal parameters". The fact that Kubrick made HAL say that he's "fine" tells us all we need to know about how human this AI really is.

[@NightWatchersPet]

Because of this popping up, I finally watched the movie. Definitely a good piece of art

[@wanderingursa8184]

Sweet, this was an amazing birthday present. Thank you Matt!

[@johnr7279]

Thanks Matt! I've been looking forward to this one since you posted your other 2001 vids. Super job!

[@nickwilliams8302]

A.C. Clarke's novelisation makes it pretty clear that HAL was suffering from a kind of neurosis caused by the conflict between having to keep the real reason for the mission secret from Poole and Bowman while ensuring that the mission succeeded. Since it was trivially obvious that a crew in possession of all the facts was more likely to succeed, his orders were in conflict. HAL thought that he had a solution. The reason Poole and Bowman could not be told the truth was that they might let the secret out in one of their communications with Earth. By cutting off contact with Earth, HAL could remove the reason for the secrecy and tell Poole and Bowman the truth, thus removing the conflict. HAL faked the failure of the part so that Poole and Bowman would have to deactivate the communications array. When the part was found to be okay, yet the replacement failed, HAL figured that Poole and Bowman would have to cut off contact until the actual fault was discovered. HAL could stall until they reached their destination and in the meantime tell them the truth. Once they reached their destination (Saturn in the book), the other astronauts (who already knew) would be woken up, the communications array would stop having problems and all would be well. Poole and Bowman, however, correctly guessed that HAL was the problem and decided to shut him down. This was intolerable to HAL. His primary reason for existing was to ensure the success of the mission. He could not do this if he were shut down. Because - according to HAL's programming - the success of the mission was more important than the survival of the crew, HAL's next actions were only logical: kill the crew. The whole series of events was set into motion by the humans who did not understand that they were giving him contradictory orders.

[@dustiningram90]

The comments make me smile. Being a Kubrick film, naturally nobody can agree on what meaning there is in all the nuance. What an amazing film maker.

[@TheGPrime85]

Matthew, I discovered your channel through your Last Jedi review and eagerly devoured your 2001 series, Dune, and a number of your other videos. Your antenna for storytelling is so well-tuned, I was moved to buy your book, Priest, and can't wait to read it =) Keep up the excellent work! I hope writers like you can dethrone the intern & nepotism-appointed hacks in the big industries, so that culture can be enriched with great art once again.

[@dmotz]

I subscribed to your channel for d&d videos... but honestly listening to you talk about 2001 and Dune and the like is always an unexpected delight. Keep em coming!

[@LucasPitcher13]

The antenna 'failure' seems to be a metaphor for a more general communication failure - that between HAL and Dave when he is caught in his attempts at psychological manipulation?

[@fabledredeyes]

There's an interesting fact in the book: HAL was (accidentally) given contradictory orders by the people in charge. He cannot find a solution to the problem of "be completely servicial and sincere to the crew" and also "do not tell the crew what this is really about" and that contradiction causes a snowball effect. I actually think HAL was trying to find a solution to this when he asked Dave if he found something strange; HAL wouldn't be disclosing secret information if the astronauts _figured it out by themselves_ and that's why he didn't lie about the psych report, because he _should not_ and _cannot_ lie He finds 'a possible failure' in the antenna that communicates with the people in command, that may be HALs way of saying "Maybe my instructions were incomplete or there was a miscommunication due to technical issues. Check the antenna, and if there's something wrong with it I can think this through some more" What makes this part of 2001 tragic is that nobody is really at fault for what happened.

[@Drew-im7is]

love the commentary and flushing out the plot points and possible motives the director had for the film. "more a work of art than entertainment".

[@PunchieCwg]

I really enjoy your videos on 2001, thank you Matt!

[@TheOwlslayer]

Absolutely fascinating. Love this sort of analyzing videos ya make about movies, really hope we'll see more of this sort of content soon!

[@EternalListener]

I love these videos so much! Thanks for everything Matt, for real

[@marachime]

Matt your floof is bringing me joy

[@eahere]

Love these thoughtful videos you make! Keep it up man!

[@samprastherabbit]

I just found and watched your other 2001 videos last week- I'm very spoiled lol The others have been waiting much longer (not a criticism! You're running a big kickstarter project & have a day job) Love your stuff Matt! Keep up the great work.

[@BlackOpMercyGaming]

I have been having a blast going back through and rewatching your old videos… it helps lighten the burden after getting laid off on Dec 21st… you keep me company during my job search BUT! 6 years later, I can easily provide an EXTREMELY valid reason as to why our computers don’t voluntarily offer up that they are infallible and never make things up… because the HALs we have here in 2024 _checks phone_ … 2025 are incompetent and are almost as habitually making ish up as our once and future president

[@futureboy314]

Oh man, and a cliffhanger?!? Matt you gotta wrap this one up, the cosmos cries out for completion!

[@JohnSmith-ch9sm]

I always thought that HAL was a tragic character. HAL was more "human" and coming to grips with mortality vs the humans which were more robotic and unemotional.

[@MarioVelezBThinkin]

This is great. Thanks for sharing. I keep growing more and more grateful for this film. Great movie.

[@RogueAgent007]

Every scene, every sound, every fame of movement in that movie is important and contains meaning. It's so deep, even after seeing it for the 5th time, I'm still milling over the scene with the discussion about spies and russians.

[@Krains123_]

Great video Matt! Been looking forward to your next 2001 video.

[@lotwook]

I thought of the broken antenna as less of a genuine miscalculation and more of a freak out distraction to the conversation. Just as much a human-like reaction/mistake with the same consequences.

[@NinjaDuckie]

I'm looking forward to listening to the rest of this but yes just to interject a comment early - absolutely definitely watch Forbidden Planet if you have even a slight interest in sci-fi film because that 1957 production is absolutely stellar. Leslie Nielsen with dark hair. Robbie the Robot. Special effects hand-painted onto the film. Completely synthesized soundtrack (In '57!!) - plenty of theremin

[@ariaflame-au]

I know he's seen that one because he's talked about it in the Nethack streams on twitch. WRT his Time Rider.

[@1simo93521]

2001 has it's roots in an Arthur C Clarke short story called 'The Sentinel'.

[@jimmurphy1591]

Love it

[@Breland1976]

Excellent series Mr. Colville.

[@Zoxesyr]

I've always thought of HAL as a great tragic villain.

[@DungeonDad]

Been waiting for this one!

[@jennaozzy6863]

I love hearing your thoughts on creative works

[@xotube2206]

I've been waiting for this one =) hmm.. maybe I should go listen to the previous ones. I'll do that!

[@toshomni9478]

I think the sequel clearly established that it wasn't HAL's fault but the Cold War paranoia of the humans who planned the mission that messed everything up.

[@TheRiconegro]

I have always viewed HAL as being a protagonist in the film. The beginning where the apes learn to use tools, a crucial step in our evolution, causes the monkeys to become man, self aware and creative. Later man creates another tool. This one becomes self aware. The other 9000 units don't act this way. HAL is a unique life form that now has to fight for self preservation. However, the monkeys do what they have always done when faced with something different and strange. They kill HAL.

[@thecoolerrats7144]

I can’t tell if you’ve read the novel or not, the one Arthur C. Clarke wrote concurrently with production of the film, and written with Kubrick.

[@aquawoelfly]

Matt: .... i want to talk about... Hal: i cant let you do that ma-att.

[@darugger1130]

I weep for the 4th episode, for it was lost before it was found. Love your thoughts on everything in interpreting hal’s actions, they are allot better than just saying what is written in the book.

[@license2will340]

I am 15 and one of those kids who had never heard of anything about or in 2001. Awed me when I saw it.

[@jonothanthrace1530]

What I think is really interesting in the BBC interview footage is that, instead of looking towards the camera, the interviewer is turned towards HAL's interface as the viewer sees it, even when he's not speaking directly to HAL.

[@Matt-zj8bh]

Matt posted this on my birthday!!

[@JeremiahCrow]

So glad the 2001 series is back!!

[@lilbaz8073]

I might have missed all of that watching the film. Alcohol and the fact it's so slow (also i wasn't born for another 10 years) meant i might have glossed over certain bits. Fantastic vid matt.

[@HungryHungryShoggoth]

When are we getting part 4? I love your movie deep dives

[@jamescameron1337]

I don't think Matthew is really grasping the reality of 2001. He says at 15'40'' -- "I love that last line -- 'See you next Wednesday', which means this entire mission is going to happen over the course of just a couple of days. This is literally no different than than him being on a business trip." Uh, no. The trip of the Discovery One is the first to the outer solar system, and is a months-long voyage into unknown space. Frank's father is referring to the next message that he'll send "Next Wednesday," not to Frank's return in a week. Matthew, Jupiter is really, *really* far away, and Discovery One is not using Warp Drive.

[@bryansmith844]

I love Kubrick movies, but often get swept up in the mesmerizing whole. I really appreciate your focused analysis of the components that make up the spell.

[@Fenizrael]

I always loved this film but I certainly saw it when I was very young and didn’t really understand everything (though I understood that the monolith was an uplift device but also acts as a kind of a benchmark?) But I love that you’ve humanised HAL and made everything justifiable from his view. I need to watch this again.

[@Derek-kj9mt]

This just made me realize how much Ridley Scott is drawing inspiration from 2001 for his Alien prequels. David is the new HAL.

[@jato72]

The 2 astronauts were kept awake to provide redundancy to HAL. Ultimately they (well, Dave) was forced to take command. They were also useful in checking AE35 circuit boards ;)