Of all the Flora Friday Films, this one would have to be the one that resonated with me the least. I found the plot difficult to follow and even after doing an extensive google search afterwards as to the meaning behind the movie, I was still left a bit unenlightened. Nonetheless, I really enjoyed the AI portion of the movie with “Hal” the computer that started to become conscious and experience emotion which resulted in it going  rogue. This was interesting because this is a taboo concept in our society because we can’t fathom this ever happening but with the technological advances that we make every day, I’m beginning to wonder if a situation like this will happen in the next 100 years or so.

I think this was the first time I had to google what I saw after the movie. This was a confusing but at times interesting film. I think the AI part of the movie was definitely revolutionary for its time considering the amount of work that is going into it today. I don’t know if it’s possible for AI to ever become that advanced, but it’s certainly plausible that an AI computer could make a mistake which could end up being lethal. Another apparent theme was man vs machine/tool. In the initial scenes, we see the gorillas use tools as a way to advance themselves over the other tribes. As time passes, there is an increasing reliance on tools as the tools become more advanced. Ultimately, the very thing they created is what leads to their death.

Going to space is one of the biggest dream I hope one day I can make a reality. So, it was a no brainier for me to want to attend the showing of  2001: A Space Odyssey. However, I believe this movie is very different to the usual space movies. In fact, I would say that space is not the main theme of the movie. Rather, it is the evolution of the human species.  This can be seen when a tribe of human ancestors living very primitively when when compare to early humans. But, everything changed when the use of tools was discovered. Before this a black monolith appears and it raises an important question. What is the purpose of the black monolith ? To preserve the movement of human evolution or to record the main events of human evolution. Also, who is the creator of the black monolith ? Perhaps, it could be extra terrestrial beings. If so, what is the motive for aliens to want to advance as a society? This , in my opinion, makes this movie great. You come in with high expectations and you leave with tons of questions.

I have been intrigued by the potential for mankind to reach Mars and become multiplanetary. My interest in space travel emerged after reading a plethora of articles on SpaceX and mankind’s history and relationship with space. Also, as a computer science major, after watching trailers for the 2001 film “A Space Odyssey” and learning about Hal, the artificially intelligent supercomputer in the film, I naturally decided to attend this Rose Scholars Event.

I wanted to love it.

The cinematography was captivating and breathtaking, but the plot was difficult to follow. From watching scenes of apes to large monoliths, I had trouble weaving together the different pieces of the film. While still being confused by the end of the film, I questioned my perspective: why can I not fully enjoy a classic film that means so much for so many fans? In an attempt to hopefully discover a true appreciation for the film, I did some research afterward to learn about its context and meaning.

I “Sparknoted” the film and read about its background. The plot is from 1968 and is complex and involves many interwoven but different storylines and scenes. I realized had I watched the 1968 version or read about the film beforehand, it may have been easier to enjoy the film. I then proposed that it is likely fans who enjoyed the 2001 version of the Space Odyssey had watched and enjoyed the old 1968 film beforehand.

In the future, I would like to watch previous versions of renovated films before attending the theaters or viewing newer versions at home. It would be intellectually interesting to compare and contrast older films with newer ones. I would also be able to follow and fully appreciate the newer versions and identify any changes made due to new technology.

Overall, I am happy I got to learn about a classic film, and I appreciated that we viewed the film in Willard Straight Hall at Cornell Cinema as I had never been there before this visit.

Stanley Kubrick is certainly one of the greatest movie makers of our generation. But I certainly am not the audience he was catering towards. Though 2001: Space Odyssey has great soundtrack visuals and deep metaphors. But for tired college students who just climbed the slope multiple times on a Friday evening, it is nothing but a sure shot way of dozing off in a fetal position of Cornell Cinema chairs. Hopefully, I get the time to rewatch to truly marvel at this movie. But admittedly I slept for most of the movie.

For some, this movie is an all-time classic, the ultimate sci-fi precursor. The set up for all to come. I will be honest, I did not enjoy this movie. I can appreciate the significance it has for many, however, it was just not my cup of tea. I think it does speak to the myriad messages about technology that we have been getting the past 20-30 years. Basically the idea that we should not automate everything because eventually, it will turn on us. While we have been bombarded with these messages we can’t seem to understand that we should not equip automated machines with artificial intelligence that would give them the ability to make coherent decisions. Yet, here we are in 2019 with technology that can control almost every aspect of our lives with questionable security. One cannot predict the future, and not much can be said for following the ideas and heeding the warnings of science fiction. But if we don’t at least consider the consequences, the hypotheticals we give lose meaning even when they are just being used in the sense of entertaining fiction.

The movie space odyssey really showed me how powerfully humans can evolve and the dangers that come with it. I mean in the beginning there were only apes but then they learnt how to use bones as weapons and fast forward in time and we have astronauts who now are operating a machine called Hal that pretty much has its own consciousness. This is where the dangers of evolution came into play as Hal had the ability to kill the other astronauts who were asleep which tells us that with human advancement in technology the automated machines can actually endanger us which is why we must be careful of how society evolves over time and in the future.

I know that ‘2001: A Spacey Odyssey’ is a reputable film, but quite frankly, I can’t figure out why. I had the most difficult time following the plot. Even after watching the movie to conclusion — twice, I might add — I cannot figure out what the floating, magnetic/radioactive panel was supposed to add to the film. It seemed to me that this panel, or whatever else you may call it, was supposed to be one of principle components of the plot of the film, yet I found it very unclear what its role was.

I also cannot figure out what purpose the monkeys were serving at the beginning of the film. The first 25 minutes of the film (and yes, I timed it) were just various landscape scenes, most of them including monkeys and anteaters. I still do not understand what the monkeys were doing or how they added to the film. If the intention was to set ambiance for the plot of the film, this was severely overdone and ineffective. Out of a 2 hours and 44 minute film, an entire 15% of the film was solely devoted to screening monkeys and landscapes. I would have expected for the purpose of that to be clear by the end of the film. However, the end of the film just added more points of confusions for me.

Even if I were to overlook the lengthy scene of colors and paths that formed the transition between this astronaut’s time in space and his demise, there was simply no explanation for what happened. Did he end up in a different planet where this other “intelligent life” was found? Was he back on Earth hallucinating or having mental health problems? I really cannot tell you.

I’ve seen plenty of older films, but their plots were definitely easier to follow. I don’t think I’ll ever understand why this film was such a hit in its time, but I certainly gave it a chance. Any film that takes more than two re-runs to dissect is simply not a film I consider to have been “well done.”

I had the opportunity to watch 2001: A Space Odyssey last week. Although I came out of the theater feeling cheated, my feelings about the movie have softened significantly since then.

The cinematography was absolutely beautiful. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more gorgeous film. I know the pacing is very slow and not for everyone, but for me this more than made up for it. I was able to stay within the movie mindset because even when there was no dialogue or music, what was on the screen was more than enough to capture my attention.

I had trouble watching this movie because I didn’t know what to expect, and this caused me to be confused as the movie transitioned from one phase to the next. I kept getting wrapped in minor plot defects (where did the original monolith that contacted the early humans go? Was is the same monolith that was discovered on the moon?) and this took me out of the movie. I think if I had come into the theater expected a more surreal and less plot focused movie I would have enjoyed it even more and would’ve absorbed more of the message the first time around.

Having said that, doing this is still difficult because of the variance between different parts of the movie. The middle sequence with HAL was absolutely brilliant. It’s the best hard sci-fi I’ve ever seen. The scenes when HAL kills Frank and when Dave kills HAL are utterly gut wrenching, the latter far more than the former. HAL’s transition from idle computer to a being afraid for its life, and intent on protecting itself, is thrilling to watch. Having said all of this, putting this sequence in context with the broader film is difficult, precisely because it’s much more realistic than the beginning and ending surrealist sequences, where there is no plot or real point at all. This I think was my primary difficulty watching this film, and it’s why I felt so cheated when the credits rolled. I had just been treated to a brilliant plot-based sci-fi story that lured me into believing when Dave arrived on Jupiter I’d get some kind of closure regarding what exactly the monoliths were. Obviously this failed to be the case, and when the Star-Child returned to Earth I wasn’t sure at all what this had to do with humans.

Despite this, I really enjoyed the disparate parts of the movie. The beginning sequence with the Dawn of Man was fantastic: the total lack of dialogue and the amazing expressiveness of the actors conveyed a lovely mythological foundation for human existence, and what it means to transition as a species in this way. It wasn’t totally factual but that can hardly be helped given that the movie was released in 1968 (for example, early human’s wouldn’t have used bones as tools, they would have used stones instead).

Overall I think 2001 is a lovely movie that gives one a lot to ponder about, but the viewer’s enjoyment is dependent on the attitude that you come into the theater with.

I am a huge sci-fi fan. My favorite show is Doctor Who and I love and grew up watching shows about space exploration like Star Trek and Stargate but for some reason, I’ve never gotten around watching a classic like 2001: A Space Odyssey… and now I know why.

The movie was unbelievably slow, and I can’t stand slow developing movies. I was lost for the entire first half of the film and I kept thinking how space exploration was related to the first 20 minutes of the film, which consisted only of monkeys screeching… for 20 minutes. Then, when we actually saw some human characters, it’s like they weren’t even human. They barely conveyed any emotion which made it hard for them to be either relatable or likeable. Later on, I read a Rose blog that pointed out that Hal, an AI, is portrayed to have more emotions than the humans themselves, which then becomes a worrying plot point in the movie. So I guess the “terrible acting” is really a deliberate choice to make a point come across.

I will say, however, I really liked how they integrated the monolith with humankind’s evolution. And how this finally explained those awful 20 minutes at the beginning of the movie. Sadly, the movie did not wrap up all of the plot points and left some things open to interpretation, like the Star Child, something that not even the depths of Wikipedia has been able to explain to me.

Where last week I felt somewhat underwhelmed by the film in question, this week’s film is one of my all time favorites. 2001 A Space Odyssey is more than just one of my favorite films of all time – it also inspired most of my favorite films (both this, and two of its direct successors, Alien and Star Wars, are all easily in my top five).

To really drive home the point – I’ve been struggling to cry, as an emotional release, for the past month or so. This movie made be cry at least twice (I won’t say at what moments). So I can say that this movie and I are speaking similar languages.

I have a lot of thoughts about this movie – some ideas I’ve heard and internalized about what “point” it might be trying to make, for instance. But I think the star of this movie, Hal, deserves attention. As I pointed out in a comment, he is more human than any of the humans in this movie. David seems to show emotion only twice, for instance; first when Hal won’t open the pod bay doors, and second when he’s deactivating Hal. By contrast, Hal’s very first lines are laden with emotional weight and careful emphasis. A friendly deliberateness that quickly becomes disconcerting and then threatening as he becomes more violent.

Let’s take for granted that the movie is a commentary about human evolution and improvement over time (this is debatable but for the sake of argument indulge me). Given this interpretation, what are we to make of Hal’s almost over humanity? Have the humans in the movie evolved past such displays, and Hal is a cruel reminder of our past? Well, no, I think. The bone weapon is shown to be analogous to our satellites. It doesn’t seem we’ve moved past our violence so much as evolved it, too. I think Hal is instead meant to be our successor. Hal is smarter, faster, more careful, and on top of all that, more human than any modern human. I’ve had a silly thesis bobbing around in my head that if we do develop a near human A.I., it would be in some effect the children of all who help to make it – a sort of next step in human evolution in a moral if not literal sense. I think Hal is one version of this, while David’s space baby is the contrasting version. What to make of that contrast, I have no idea. I guess I have to watch it again in five or so years.

This past Friday night, I joined fellow Rose Scholars at Cornell Cinema to watch “2001; A Space Odyssey,” a science fiction film addressing a futuristic world of space travel and extraterrestrial colonization. The movie was made in 1968 predicted a future that has not come to pass, but projected fears that are very real in today’s society. The conflict regarding artificial intelligence is explored in the movie, as AI being “Hal” apparently malfunctions or develops some kind of will of his own, making small errors as a result of guilt over hiding the purpose of the mission from the humans onboard the space craft. The concept of a computer gaining its own consciousness and having emotional intelligence is a frightening one for some, an exciting one for others.

There are many more modern movies that explore this idea, but the fact that this was a concern in the 1960s is very telling of humanity’s fear of being overpowered and no longer being the dominant being in our world. The development of recent technology in fields of robotics makes this concern more and more relevant as we heavily rely on robots every day, be it our phones (and personas such as “Siri” and “Alexa,” who are constantly listening and gaining information about our lives), our computers, our “smart” homes and cars. Many people put our lives in the hands of robots and computers every day, just trusting that they won’t fail, that they don’t make mistakes like humans do. This movie was a reminder of sorts that humans have come a really long way, and what so many people fear is a threat that we built ourselves.

2001: a space odyssey is a great geek film for me to watch and unwind on a Friday evening. The movie is right in my comfort zone and gave me an amazing throwback to the Apollo 13 movie. Apollo 13 was one of the very first movies I watched in my life. Not only did I fall in love with space travel related movies with that film, but I also fell in love with Tom Hanks and the way he carries a movie when he’s in it. Back to 2001 a space odyssey, I thought the story of the movie was a bit confusing. I personally could not completely and cohesively reproduce the story of the movie to myself. However, one of friends at the movie was discussing the historical implications of the movie. Released in the 1960s, this movie was in the peak time period of the space race between the US and the Soviet Union. Given the historical context of the movie, made watching this movie more interesting and gave me an added analytical angle as I watched it.

I just want to start by saying that this scene:

reminded me of the old Windows (the media player) animations. You know, the ones that used to play when you listened to music on your desktop as a kid…

So during this scene, I was half-expecting an Alicia Keys track to come on.

All that aside, I did like the movie. Although the windows media scene was long, the visuals were really good, especially for their time.

I think my favorite visual storytelling moment was when they show the two astronauts’ conspiring, out of HAL’s earshot:

Then show HAL’s perspective:

They do a great job of nonverbally conveying that HAL can read lips. I also like that they avoid clunky exposition. I think because the movie was so long, they were able to give little bits of exposition at a time in a way that felt natural.

The movie was thought-provoking, too. In response to the question, “Is HAL capable of genuine emotion?”, one of the astronauts says he doesn’t really know if HAL is. HAL is their friend, but because he’s programmed to emote certain ways it’s unclear if his emotions can be genuine. This scene made me wonder why we don’t also view ourselves as incapable of genuine emotion… After all, we are, in a sense, programmed by our genes to have certain tempers, etc. So why don’t we view ourselves as incapable of genuine emotion? Is it because our ‘programmer’ isn’t known and possibly doesn’t exist? If HAL weren’t a man-made object, would they then view his emotions as genuine? If we knew our emotions were ‘programmed’, or predetermined by some outside force, would we also discount our emotional experiences? If humans could change the temper of unborn children or code our children to emote in certain ways, would we then assert that these babies are incapable of genuine emotional response? If HAL can commit a crime of passion, like murder of friends… if he can be passive aggressive, then wouldn’t all these acts be proof of his emotional capability? What should count as “genuine emotion”? And do our definitions of genuine emotion purposefully exclude AI? Will our definitions ever evolve to include AI as genuinely capable of emotion? What factors would cause us to treat AI as capable of genuine emotion?

Anyway, for anyone wanting to process the movie, I recommend checking out this video out: link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KLujOXs8wg

And I think this is where I’ll end my post.