If 2001 is your #1 movie, tell me why

HAL may have been driven mad over his infatuation with Elaine Benes.

If you want to go with the explanation that 2010 The Year We Make Contact gave: HAL was told to lie to the 2001 crew by people in charge of the mission who found lying easy. That set up a programing conflict, that caused HAL to suffer a mechanical version of a nervous breakdown.

Thanks Rules.

2010 was the first movie I ever went to see at a theater completely by myself on my 20th birthday - before that, going to the movies alone was unthinkable. (How's that for off-topic trivia that matters to no one but myself?)

I just want everyone to know I did read the book 2001 A Space Odyssey, but that was back in the 70's... I watched the movie again just a couple months ago.

I find it interesting that you went to see a movie by yourself. I bet alot of people have done that. It seems like a good way to really focus on just the movie itself.

I read the back in the early 80s I don't really remember it though.

I think "not getting" 2001 is pretty obvious. I have some reservations about anybody who says they did. If anybody on MoFo thinks they do, please inform me.

Tom Sawyer, on the other hand, is easy to get if it's not over-interpreted. I think I recall a quote from Twain saying something to the effect that if anybody thought it was a symbol or metaphor, he'd haunt them.

Do you want me to explain what the story of the movie is? I can, but I'd first like to ask if you know about this thing called Wikipedia?

Can I just provide a link?

As a younger person, going to a theater alone just felt so socially awkward (like the restaurant scene in The Lonely Guy). But in the mid to late 2000's, I went through a period where I would go alone... usually to matinees which seemed more populated with loners. (These days... well... I haven't been to a theater in about 7 years.)

This is probably an interesting topic for a thread that already exists.

2001 is one of those films where you will get more out of it the more upon repeated viewings.

This is true. Also, try to catch it at a cinema, if you ever get a chance.

I last watched it when it was shown in 70mm IMAX a few years back. It was AWESOME

Yeah, I don't think I've ever seen someone argue for the consciously prevent mankind from reaching the monolith for evolutionary purposes. It usually falls into either the paradox of never giving a false answer/distorted information with being charged with ensuring the crew doesn't know the purpose of the mission until arrival or the second mission (ensuring the crew doesn't know... etc), and the subsequent fallout of executing that mission (Dave and Frank want to disconnect HAL, who in turn could logically deem itself the most capable entity of carrying out the subsequent part of the mission, so it needed to eliminate them, which subsequently would cause problems with the rest of the crew in hibernation, so HAL would need to eliminate them before waking them up. Though, the movie also has the whole evolution of tools thing going on/contemplating machines gaining sentience, so that also needs to be factored in as part of it).

Keep in mind, immediately before HAL reported the communication probe was going to malfunction, he was performing a psych evaluation on Dave on the subject on the secrecy/abnormal situation of the mission.

ETA: To be clear, that's for the explanation for what's happening in the plot. I give that caveat, because thematically, there's the whole theme of, "Man is exposed to nature. Man evolves and builds tools to conquer nature. Tools now become a barrier between man and interacting with nature, thus man does not evolve, but the tools do. In order for man to evolve, he needs to cast aside the pre-existing barriers and reconnect to the raw elements again." That thematic arc does rhyme a bit with the general alternative explanation you gave for HAL's behavior. However, the thematic arc is more of a description of what's happening at a high level as a consequence of actions people and machines are taking, but I don't think it's intended to imply that the characters (David, HAL) are consciously acting in a way to actively evolve themselves. Tagging @Thief, since they already gave a +1 before this ETA, so they might miss it.