Was Ash,in actual fact,a tragic figure like HAL in 2001:A Space Odyssey? 'A Trag

no, I don't view him as such. I'm still trying to figure out what caused him to lose it and go Robbie The Robot on Ripley

Wow, I thought this was going to be any easy one to dismiss, but you raise a lot of good points. It's easy to add a lot of subtext to Alien with Prometheus on its way (although it's (strictly speaking) not a prequel?) Like most everyone here, I've read the books & seen the movies, so here were my thoughts; [list] [/list]2001 - A Space Odyssey; Hal became conflicted - it was required to investigate the monoliths without the knowledge of the crew. It could no longer do this so it took the most logical path - remove the crew so it could complete it's mission. [list]Alien - Ash was a corporate stooge, a gambit that should anything be encountered, it would be gathered and returned to the Company. No expectation, just insurance. After all, its a big galaxy... That being said, I believe there's a piece of dialogue in "Alien" where it's briefly discussed that Ash's a late replacement for the crews usual Science Officer...which would lead to your argument, the Company already knew... Nice work.

When Ash is trying to kill Ripley, you can clearly see in his face the moral programming struggle, or at least it seems so to me. Also, if you look at the Anthology DVD you can see some Bio's of the crew members. It is not difficult to conclude that the whole crew was selected for such a mission, where all have been sort of misfits in the company, specially the character Parker; and thus were targets (not even expendable I would say). So the company would kill 2 birds in one shot: Get rid of the trouble-makers and get a specimen for the weapons division. Dallas seems to confirm that something "cooky" was going on when he said that the science officer had been replaced just prior to the mission.

HAL -as a computer- was built to output only factual truth. But, the government told him to lie to the crew about the true nature of their mission. This was in direct violation of his protocol as a computer and since he was also sentient, he didn't know how to deal with the conflict which caused him to "mentally break down." Ash on the other hand was programmed from the go to return the specimen (remember, he was a last minute replacement officer) no matter what. He had no conflict, only a mission. He was prepared to do anything to complete that mission. So IMHO, the two machines are not alike at all. HAL was good that went bad. Ash was bad from the start. The common denominator though was man. Bad in both instances from paranoia and greed respectively.

Tahnk you kindly Lilmatt, I appriciate your taking the time to read my hypothetical statement. And to you Macs, it was most kind of you. And also to you Colonelangus. Ithank you fro reading my rather brief hypothetical synopsis... It's really thought provoking when you really think about it. It makes me wonder if Ridley Scott had Alien and the characters therin as in for example the character of Ash specifically designed to come across a tad uncertain at times. A bit like Dr. Smith in Lost In Space but more calculating and serious on the off-chance that at some point the up-coming director at the time would direct another film that would then blow the lid off why this was that and the other in ALIEN but explained on a wider canvas of which Alien only serves as a smaller piece to a far bigger, gigsaw... Gigantic even! As in the case of the Odyssey book and film series, the answers a even far bigger than the questions posed... Thank you all again, keep them coming in...!

That is also a very interesting point too RSAND, your right, Ash was going into it with his'corruptable' knowlegde and intentions to the overall 'mission' what ever that was truley intended to be... He was already 'gotten too' shall we say, perhaps not unlike in Blade Runner where it is highly assumed that in some-way-shape-or-form the authorities-at-be are able and have been able for some time to intercept and 'download' (I guess) Deckards and indeed other adroids 'memories' and analyze them for their own secret reasonings and research ends... As in the case of Deckard thinking/reverie/dreaming of the 'unicorn' and later-on discovering that Gaff had been there prior to his arrival and found the little paper-mache unicorn staning on the floor. We don't know whether-or-not those 'memories/dreams/reveries' of the unicorn iconography were deliberately put there by an external 'gorup/research team' to let him feel and experience that sensation then later to drop-the-bombshell on him to let him know that Gaff and indee probably everyone he's ever come into contact with amongst authority and his superiors were perhaps or have all in someway been in-on-it in somet grand social 'conspiracy-come-experiment' to investigate 'human' emotions... But what if this cuts to something bigger and far deeper... What if it turns out that the androids were begining to slowly take over and secretly replace us all? Could you truly tell the difference anymore if Rick Deckard and Rachel were both so far advanced in cybernetic or android technology... Perhaps the androids were monitoring their own vast production line, and entire 'underground movement' if you will... And not to detract away from Prometheus and Alien respectively save-to-say that the whole bio-mechanoid theme that Prometheus looks likely to raise and that of the advent of Alien/Aliens themes of robotics makes you wonder as to the over riding, all-encompassing grand theme that is to be revealed on a wider context. Perhaps the questions Prometheus raises will be those that in some way-shape-or-form, artificial intelligence is in some way now in the advanced stages of taking over the galaxy at large and these bio-mechanoid creatures, the: the Ossians or in other accounts the Mala' kak... It may play as to an analogy to our future human destiny with the advent of our own technologies and ourselves perhaps... Thank you all for reading...

I agree. Ash was programmed with company interests. He knew the purpose of the mission from the start. He was programmed with specific knowledge to allow him to: 1. Convince the crew it had to investigate the beacon or else forfeiting their pay. 2. Bringing Hurt onto to the ship even though it seemed to fly in the face of all quarantine protocols.

i believe ash knew from the start. as you watch the film over with the knowledge of what happens all his actions are suspect. his facial expressions his perspective everything. the thing that seems crazy to me that noone mentions is how he tried to kill ripley it was like he was trying to push that magazine down her throat to impregnante her like the alien does....and as we know the androids are curious and his last conversation with lambert parker and ripley it was mentioned that he admired the organism maybe he was trying to replicate what the facehugger did to Kane....just a thought...cause he could have just snapped ripleys neck right?

Yes... Why not just do that? Why the eleborate thing with the magazine? I guess that was just Ridley Scott tapping into the undercurrent and recurring dirth of sex and all that is deemed relevant to such a topic... But within the context of the films fiction, I think that scene serves as a metaphor for what Ash cannot do... Pennetrate as far as we know like a 'normal' man does. So, as you say in admiration of the whole facehugger lifecycle-come-alien birth process, this is Ashes way for, I guess for want-of-a-better-word: 'doing it' , and doing it as best he know's how... Okay, it's a stretch, but I think the film makers were perhaps tapping into and playing upon that idea a little bit. Because we don't really know how Ash or Bishop or indeed the androids in Blade Runner aer properly 'made-up'... we assume that at least in Blade Runner there is an element of truth to that as it is discussed between Brian or Briantt and Deckard that Pris is a 'Basic Pleasure Model' for the outter-colony regions of the galaxy but ashes 'behavior' perhaps reflects a lack of forsight upon that of his makers. I guess if he is a science officer model or designed to masquerade in whatever guise they would want 'him' to then I guess he is not in need of any kind of referant to genitailia...

I'm anti-android as a rule and one of the Alien films recurring themes is taking the piss out of mankind's technophilia and arrogance as a species. 1) Ash was made by the Company. 2) The Company is bad. 3) The Company designed Ash for premeditated purposes. 4) Therefore Ash is bad (for the crew). End of story.

[quote]Hal became conflicted - it was required to investigate the monoliths without the knowledge of the crew. It could no longer do this so it took the most logical path - remove the crew so it could complete it's mission. [/quote] //>> Cannot compute. Dave was my best chess buddy. >>

Heh! You've just rewrote the three laws of robotics Newt79 by adding a fourth and that tremor in the Force you just felt was Isaac Asimov turning in his grave! Good one! Made me smile!

Surely it also seems slightly a waste of resorces to keep sacraficing crew and hardware like this all the time... wouldnt it be prudent to try and keep a lot of their equipment, personnel ships, etc, intact for future use instead of constantly having so-called, sinister agendas? Not every company is out to self-destruct and sacrafice their emplyees all the time. Some do want to get a return back on their investments at least some of the time surely!

I am not sold on Kubrick thinking of HAL's downfall as due to human programming. I know 2010 retrofits this to be the sole reason that HAL murders the crew, and I am sure Clarke felt that way. But 2010 contradicts 2001 in ignoring Heywood Floyd as the man behind the deception, in fact doing a complete 180. Also, Clarke said the novels are all in alternate universes. So I am more interested in what Kubrick thought. When taken by itself, 2001 shows HAL is worried about the mission, with the possibility that his secret is stressing him out. BUT he only decides to kill Frank and Dave when he learns that they intend to in effect kill him first because of his malfunction regarding the report of faulty equipment. Why go through such an elaborate ploy? He could have killed Frank on his first trip out to get the AE-35 unit, leading Dave to leave the ship. I think there is something much more ambiguous about HAL in the movie versus the books: can an artificial life form go insane? Or is it just human programming that forces HAL to murder the crew? Does HAL really believe the unit is malfunctioning and that the humans are not capable of seeing the mission through to its end? Does he truly feel fear as he claims? I don't think we are supposed to have an answer. Kubrick is always ambiguous. And I think Scott was similar with ASH. At least regarding human like emotions. The rape attempt by Ash is well documented. Not something a robot would have any use for. It leaves things rather murky. However, there is no doubt to my mind that Ash's murder attempt is the result of his programming with no real conflict in whatever amounts to his brain. HAL is different. We just don't know. Which is part of the greatness of 2001.

A very thought provoking thread with lots of great contributions and discussions involving Alien, 2001, 2010 and Blade Runner (some of my favorite movies). If I might add something to the discussion in regards to Ash (I am going to write this as facts, but feel free to debate): -The derelict's "distress/warning signal" was picked up by "The Company's" long range sensors, decoded -They knew EXACTLY what they were going to find -The Nostromo was the closest ship and it was due to stop at Ledus (sp?) -All but Ripley on the Nostromo were dysfunctional/misfits -Company replaces their science officer with Ash at Ledus (sp?) -Ash uses cryo and eats to keep up appearances -Ash's programming/orders are simple: Protect Xeno - Crew Expendable -Ash is a computer...Computers are "deterministic" machines...one hasn't been built yet that can even generate true random numbers...This makes Ash a toaster with arms and legs So "Was Ash,in actual fact,a tragic figure like HAL in 2001:A Space Odyssey? 'A Tragic hero' ?" I don't see how a machine, no matter how advanced can be a protagonist/tragic-hero of any sort. He certainly wasn't a "hero". He was an "arm" of the company. Feel free to criticize/debate....

@dallas!dallas!: Great contribution to the thread and thanks for sharing your insight. I have to agree with you, we just don't know and since Kubrick is not with us anymore, we'll probably never find out. My opinion is that HAL was malfunctioning, going 'insane', if you want. Why would they otherwise put humans on a mission that HAL could have otherwise run by himself? As for Ash, I think he was programmed to protect the company's interests at any cost. No synthetic heroism there in my opinion. EDIT: @abordoli, I also agree with you and expressed my thoughts in [url=http://www.prometheus-movie.com/community/forums/topic/4466]this related thread[/url], if you care to read. Gonna watch 2001 again today, inluding the great making of...

..and so I did, and guess what... it absolutely BLEW ME AWAY again. It also generated more questions, as usual. That film really IS like Pandora's Box!

HAL 9000, here are the words from the master himself. it is from "The Kubrick Site", Elmis' interview with Stanley Kubrick. "Why was the computer more emotional than the human beings? This was a point that seemed to fascinate some negative critics, who felt that it was a failing of this section of the film that there was more interest in HAL than in the astronauts. In fact, of course, the computer is the central character of this segment of the story. If HAL had been a human being, it would have been obvious to everyone that he had the best part, and was the most interesting character; he took all the initiatives, and all the problems related to and were caused by him. Some critics seemed to feel that because we were successful in making a voice, a camera lens, and a light come alive as a character this necessarily meant that the human characters failed dramatically. In fact, I believe that Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood, the astronauts, reacted appropriately and realistically to their circumstances. One of the things we were trying to convey in this part of the film is the reality of a world populated -- as ours soon will be -- by machine entities who have as much, or more, intelligence as human beings, and who have the same emotional potentialities in their personalities as human beings. We wanted to stimulate people to think what it would be like to share a planet with such creatures. In the specific case of HAL, he had an acute emotional crisis because he could not accept evidence of his own fallibility. The idea of neurotic computers is not uncommon -- most advanced computer theorists believe that once you have a computer which is more intelligent than man and capable of learning by experience, it's inevitable that it will develop an equivalent range of emotional reactions -- fear, love, hate, envy, etc. Such a machine could eventually become as incomprehensible as a human being, and could, of course, have a nervous breakdown -- as HAL did in the film." Now back to my lesser opinion. Although anecdotal, I remember also reading (a long time ago) that Kubrick wanted to portray HAL as more human than either Bowman or Poole and that the aliens knew it was time to intervene because humans were dead emotionally, while at the same time advancing to such a degree intellectually they could go no further and were now ready for that bump into childstardom, so to speak. From the above quote, Kubrick goes so far as to say HAL is the hero (tragic or not I suppose is another question) of his segment of the film. God, what a movie. It really is a gift that keeps on giving. Kubrick's darker vision matched with Clarke's optimism just worked perfectly. I wonder what The Shining would have been had King and Kubrick got on and worked as well together, not that I have any complaint about the final product. So we know Kubrick's opinion about AI/computer/robots having the potential for emotions. And Scott just said a couple of days ago that Prometheus is, for all intents and purposes, 2001 on steroids. Whether that means interesting horrific take or actionized rip off remains to be seen. I am trusting it is the former!

You know I think I just have to start another thread on this interview. It is just too good.

@dallas!dallas!: Brilliant, thanks so much for sharing this here! A very revealing and explanatory interview I haven't read before. It more or less confirms how I always felt about that part of the film. Great stuff! But if the 'Aliens' really decided to interfere, teach us a lesson if you want, how did the message from Dave's experience make it back into our society, into our consciousness? Did we need '2010: The Year We Made Contact' to explain or emphazise that? Also, do you think that HAL was in fact 'contacted' by the Aliens, and was somehow lead to believe that his actions were decent and necessary to make the Discovery's mission a 'success'? If you want to start a new thread on this I'd be more than happy to join in, if I may...

Yes indeed, HAL 9000. I find this particular thread very thought stimulating myself. I may start a thread too! I am interested in the idead that perhaps HAL was an infant version of sorts as the Monoliths are like the Great Grand parents to him. And it seems as thought they are prone to malfunctions and break downs as HAL apparantly is too. We, as humans are HAL's creators and there came eventually a crisis in the cross-roads between us as flesh and blood thinking beings and HAL 'himself'. So, it seems too, that an extrapolation can be reached with regards to the 'First-Born' who created the Monoliths and the Monolith/Monoliths themselves. Keep an eye out for a thread upon this but it has to bear some relevance to the Prometheus concepts raised. Any more thoughts? Hope so!

I think he most certainly was, but Only because of the way Ripley Mercifully Disconnects him.

As in the case of Ash with an alternate 'agaenda', I think that there is an apparent 'agenda' on Vikers part to 'her' being (no punn intended when I say 'being' - lol!) there and involved in the mission. I think she is androgynus 'being' of some sorts, I'm not sure in what fashion he truely serves, i guess we shall know very soon! I always thought she (Charlize Theron) would be good in another Ridley Scott franchises: Blade Runner sequel/prequel - Either/or would be fine for me! She would be, to me, like another 'type' of Pris character and she would look good too I feel! Yes...

HAL 9000 To paraphrase your namesake, I enjoy working with this thread and look forward to many more contributions. Seriously, I just wanted to start a thread on the interview to combine it with Scott's 2001 on Steroids quote. I wonder just what that means and am curious to see what others think. Now, regarding your questions: 1. This is of course the great mystery. We see the Star-Child looking down on Earth with a look of what? Joy, peace, serenity? All three? Just what is its next move? Better minds than mine have taken to explaining. I think Clarke needed 2010 to explain how the message got back. But he also changed the message from humanity's next giant leap to the start of new life. On a related note, Kubrick's first idea when told about Clarke was just to adapt Childhood's End. So my guess is that the Star-Child may very well have engaged humans in some way like the aliens from that novel. Just minus the spaceships. I mean if something like the Star-Child suddenly appeared it would really seem more like God than alien life. On a less related note, I am again reminded of The Shining. King just thought Kubrick left way too much open to interpretation without definitive reasons why Jack turns murderous (possession? re-incarnation? pure cabin fever?) whereas Clarke said he always likes Kubrick's take on his material (to be fair to King, he never got to collaborate directly with Kubrick on the script). In an interview with King, he remembered Stanley calling him one night during filming and asking if he believed in God. King said yes, and Kubrick said, "I don't believe in God." And hung up. That was pretty much the extent of their collaboration. While Kubrick and Clarke agreed from the start that the director would have final say on the movie while the author could make the novel his vision. So after a lot of thinking (thanks to your question), I don't really have an answer, just some rough ideas. 2. I suppose it is possible. I just like my HAL as detached murderer. But that is just my HAL. Having the aliens contact HAL would make thing very, very interesting. And make them less completely benevolent. Four murders is worthy of transforming Dave. It makes them a lot more clinical. Great questions. And these are just my opinions.

come to think of it it really bothers me now that Ripley didn't just disconnect him without giving him the choice she did. She should have been way more angry after what he did to her?

No. Ash was not a tragic figure out caught between company orders and some sense of humanity. As a matter of fact Ash's actions were even more deplorable if you think about it. Ash's programming had him conceal everything he and the company knew from the crew including the ship, what was on it, etc. He allowed the creature to come onto the ship and then concealed what was growing inside of Kane from the rest of the crew. There is a deleted scene were Ripley notices a stain on Kane's lung that Ash says he can not explain, but in truth he knows what it is. When the Xeno finally bursts, Ash is the one who tells the crew not to touch it and allows the creature to escape. Ash is the one who warns the creature about the airlock (also deleted) which allows Ash to drag this situation out so that the crew runs out of oxygen (also deleted) The novelization and deleted scenes make Ash's actions look even worse. Finally, Ash uses the time to study the creature knowing full well that it will probably not attack him since he is a machine. When he attacks Ripley and gives that little smirk, I believe he is actually enjoying the opportunity he has to kill her. No, Ash is incidious and nothing in his actions leads me to believe that he is a tragic figure at all.

@colonelangus; As far as I understand it, Ash malfunctioned after Ripley pushed him up against the wall. His head is bleeding white blood (nice contrast to her bleeding nose) and he is making weird high pitched noises. I don't think he is any kind of a tragic figure at all, he was programmed to be a dick by some horrible humans tough. And YES arrgy is right, the novel is amazing, read it if you can it gives HUGE insight into his mind. @Dallas!Dallas! Funny what you said about computers becoming neurotic because Fassbender says David8 develops emotions in a similar way, when he is alone for the 2 years on the ship. Quote: (In the specific case of HAL, he had an acute emotional crisis because he could not accept evidence of his own fallibility. The idea of neurotic computers is not uncommon -- most advanced computer theorists believe that once you have a computer which is more intelligent than man and capable of learning by experience, it's inevitable that it will develop an equivalent range of emotional reactions -- fear, love, hate, envy, etc. Such a machine could eventually become as incomprehensible as a human being, and could, of course, have a nervous breakdown -- as HAL did in the film.")

what was tragic about him was the immense WASTE of time, space, and effort he was, and a g-d awful excuse for a Decent properly sub serviant and obedient android !!!

HAL actually represents something else, read [url=http://2001.a-false-flag-odyssey.com/]this[/url] and you will understand. "In 2001 Professor Heywood Floyd (defy Hollywood) stages up a false flag alien discovery on the moon....." The monolith is a more human than human invention!

The dude sat in Parker's chair man...not cool :)