The "explanation" in 2010 ruined the whole point of 2001. I love Arthur C. Clarke's work but I disown 2010. HAL's behavior was supposed to be unexplained and unexplainable. You can sort of figure out what's going on if you think about how (SPOILER ALERT) the alien intelligence tinkers with the early humans to get them to start using tools and survive. HAL is just being tinkered with by the unseen alien presence in order to kill off the other passengers and force the last survivor to leave the ship and start his journey to them and to the place he eventually ends up. They're just guiding humanity at key points along the way and HAL is their means to do it. So, the best explanation in 2010 would have been NO explanation. They should have arrived on the ship and studied HAL and come to the conclusion that he was functioning perfectly well and there is no explanation for his behavior. I'm not sure what Clarke was thinking with that silly explanation but it's one of the few times his artistic judgment didn't work for me.
transformers was one of the worst movies i have EVER seen. the whole "geeky kid goes for the hot chick" is so ***** cliche and so horrible of a plot that it just overshadowed the entire movie for me.
Hold on to your butt. broken heart tattoo
looks like the battle for bandwidth is pretty over with ... site down ... and out ...
I started to read the article but stopped after reading the first page because it was quickly becoming typical bitching/crying/being upset over really tedious things.
I own 7 of those.
This video is well done. If you can't sit through it idk how you sat through the movie itself. Though, I agree with you about seeing the movie before watching this.
I read they donated around $5000. Not really that much money in the big scheme of things.
prick