Slashdot Mirror
2001: A Space Prophecy
jerkychew writes "CNN is airing a five-part special about Kubrick's now-legendary 2001: A Space Odyssey. Here is a clip from their webpage:
Starting December 26, Headline News Space
Science and Technology Correspondent Allard
Beutel looks at the technological vision put forth
by Kubrick and co-screenwriter Sir Arthur
Clarke. In a five-part series called, "2001: A
Space Prophecy," Beutel compares science in the
year 2001 to science in the movie "2001."
Click to CNN for more information, and the series schedule."
If I seem to recall it correctly it was Sir Arthur C. Clarke's vision.
Trust the source!
Sheez.. Kubrick made the movie, but the story's Arthur C Clarke's. I know the US is a visual culture, but hasn't anyone read the book 2001? It's true that they cowrote the story (but the *idea* came from Clarke's short story The Sentinel).
Clarke (who also invented the concept of communication satellites) is the one that has truly changed the world.
PS. There are also thee sequels (atleast in book form) to 2001 - 2010, 2061 and 3001. In 3001 Frank Poole is reviewed to see a very different earth - it would be interesting to see how far off Clarke will be.
-henrik
Clarke himself has said that Kubrick deserves more credit for the vision of the future in 2001, and the fundamental story ideas, than he does. "The Sentinel" is the germ of an idea, but 2001 is the whole damn tree, cut down and made into a mind-bending sculpture with lots of extra added bits. Clarke certainly deserves a prominent credit, but fundamentally it's Kubrick's film.
2001 the book was written after the film.
--
Xenu loves you!
I, for one, am extremely disappointed concerning the technological status quo at the end of 2000 vis-a-vis the vision given in Kubrick's movie. Here is why:
1) We have no magnificent space stations in orbit, and one is not in sight. We do have a a couple of pathetic wannabees, but that's that.
2) We have no regular passenger shuttle flights from Earth to a super space station.
3) We have no moon base, and no chances of getting one in the reasonably forseeable future.
4) We have no efficient suspended animation techniques.
5) We have no AI even remotely comparable to HAL, and no reasonable chances of developing one any time soon, despite the enthusiasm of some AI practitioners.
6) We have no manned spaceflights beyond a few hundred kilometers above the Earth's surface.
7) We have no videophones.
8) We have no instantaneous, cheap videophone connections from orbit.
9) We have no BBC-12.
So, what do we have? Well, if we remember what things were like 34 years ago, when the movie was being developed, we have to acknowledge that the big picture is pretty much the same today as it was then.
Sure we have more powerful computers, the Internet, and a few extra gadgets, but nothing even closely as revolutionary (maybe with the exception of the Internet) as the stuff shown in the movie.
What a disappointment.
You obviously never read the book. Though the book and the movie where developed essentially at the same time, there are some significant variations (most notably that Discovery is headed for Saturn in the book). Kubrick did a spectacular job on the movie, especially considering technology of the time, but some aspects of Clarke's epic vision elude capture in this medium. Sadly, most people who only watch the movie completely miss the point of many scenes.
I imagine the entire hotel scene seemed pointless to you. In the movie, there was no clear way to present its meaning. In the book, this scene serves to explain the underlying principles of the storyline you claim does not exist. In short, the images on the television (including a shot of this hotel room) reveal Dave's distance from home through their age.
From this and other observations, Dave learns the purpose of the monoliths. They form an intricate spy network, watching developing species and attempting to assist their development. Herein lies the purpose of the opening scene, which you also probably didn't understand. We are not the products of time. We are the creations of a spectactular race of beings.
In the book, one learns that this race first prolonged their existance by transfering their being into machines. This too, alas, had limitations, and the beings soon found a way to weave themselves into the very fabric of the universe. Having gained immortality, they became bored and began improving other species. (Starcraft really ripped this whole thing off...) That is the purpose of the "glowing fetus." Bowman became ome of them: a star child.
Finally, the vast majority of viewers completely misunderstood HAL's behavior. His apparent insanity was the result of a conflict of interest. He was programmed to simultaneously keep Frank and Dave (essentially nothing more than janitors, though they didn't know that) aware of any situations that could jeopardize the mission as well as with-hold from them the true nature of this mission (investigation of the monoliths). HAL could only find one solution to this problem, albeit not what the programmers intended.
Oh, and that "10 minutes of random flashing color." That sequence lasts only a few minutes and is one of the most famous scenes in movie history. You don't like it? Deal with it (fast-forward if necessary). Better yet, go read the book.
Anyone interested in this spectacular vision should read the rest of the series. In addition, read Hal's Legacy which offers an interesting look at what it would take to build a HAL.
By the way, don't think I don't like the movie. 2001 is one of the best movies of all time. Kubrick did a spectacular job. Somehow, though, a movie can never capture the essence of a book.
"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." -Richard Feynman
One of the best prophecies in the film concerns life on Jupiter's moon Europa. In the movie, we were told about Life on Europa, with the warning: ALL THESE MOONS ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA / ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE.... Now scientists are speculating that Europa is the best prospect for extraterrestrial life in the solar system, because it contains a salty ocean beneath its icy surface, and that life fuelled by Europa's internal tidal heat may be present.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Tid-bit about "the pictures and sounds having been digitally enhanced."
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
The only anachronism that _really_ rang false, though, was later in the film, when HAL begins to show signs of trouble. Both the ground crew and the astronauts are initially dumbfounded at the idea that their computer could possibly be having a software malfunction.
Imagine that. Being _surprised_ that a piece of software could have glitches. Wouldn't that be a nice world to live in? :)
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
First of all, the entire story grew out of "The Sentinel," written by Clarke in 1948. A number of other stories also contributed to the final work.
In addition, the actual novel of 2001 was, in fact, written prior to the movie. I quote from the introduction to the 25th Anniversary Edition:
"...before we embarked on the drudgery of the script, we let our imaginations soar freely by writing a complete novel, from which we would later derive a script... This is more or less the way it worked out, though toward the end novel and screenplay were being written simultaneously, with feedback in both directions."
Clarke goes on to mention that he only wrote about 2/3 of the novel at this time and wrote the end during production of the film.
You are correct entirely in that, though some aspects simply could not be conveyed in film, Kubrick left many intentionally vague, resulting in a film that is truly a work of art. Clarke said it best. "If you understand 2001 on the first viewing, we will have failed."
"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." -Richard Feynman
This movie is nothing more than a cheap, poorly made rip-off of Mission to Mars, only without the good acting and the pleasant special effects. The worst thing about it was the computer Al didn't do anything. It just sat there and tried to kill the dude by locking him outside.
And when Al the Computer died, all it did was sing a song. Zzzzzzzzz....Maybe I'm missing something, but this movie was boring. I mean, if they're going to rip off Mission to Mars in this direct-to-video release, they should at least try to fix some of the more boring elements of Mission to Mars.
Oh, and whats up with that lame classical music?
Sigh...
It is one of three or four great movies about AI. The others being "Terminator," "War Games," and "The Matrix."
Not to drift too far off-topic, but... I would add to that mix, "Blade Runner."
It's not a movie that you would usually think about when you try to think of a "movie about AI," but it's pretty obvious that it is.
It's also interesting to note that movies about AI are never really about AI, per se. They're really about humans. And I think Blade Runner tackles the subject so directly (since replicants are basically identical to humans) that we forget they're just "machines."
Movies "about AI," too often, are about human frailty, or hubris. Except maybe...
At the risk of getting moderated "off-topic," did anyone see "The Bicentennial Man?"
--
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
Please? :))
I actually am a big Win2000 fan (see my previous posts), but I don't like MS as a company.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
I certainly wouldn't rank The Matrix among those. While technically well-done, the preposterousness of the plot really grated on me. The machines were keeping humans around as some sort of power source. And humans had to be kept conscious (though occupying a pseudo-reality) to boot. Sheesh. At least 2001 had a storyline that was plausible. Now if someone would just make a movie out of Rendezvous With Rama ...
Hey! You must be young 'cos you missed some good old ones: Demon Seed and The Forbin Project. Check them out on IMDB. They blow away all 4 of your suggestions as I'll hope you'll be pleased to find when you get hold of them! (As movies they're not better than 2001 but they represent AI wonderfully!)
--
-- SIGFPE
I won't give him (too much) props about inventing the sattelite. I'm sure about 500 ppl already have but anyway /Everthing/ was corporatly sponsored, especialy most things governments try to keep secret like spy satelites. I remember seeing a post about something very much like that here on /. already (no not the amsat thing, a little further back)
What I really dig about him is that in the book 3001 he took technology even farther. The one thing that seemed within reach was how capitalism lead to true world peace through the commercialism of spy information.
Of course he also wrote this before the MPAA/RIAA ever did more then hand out ratings on movies.
"Me Ted"
BOSTON SUCKS!
Because the best movies are ones that really make you think, and don't waste time with pedantic details of science (though it can be a nice touch when they do worry a bit about them). The key is that the plot of "Matrix" did not really hinge on any of the fundamental flaws - for instance, as many have said the computers might have been keeping us alive to harness computational power. Whatever, at the core it was a movie about what is real and how belief affects reality.
In a way the flaws help to actually push you closer to understanding the big picture and story and dwell less on the details as one might be prone to do in a Sci Fi movie.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you rot -1 HAL, you get IBM.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Well, supposedly you can survive a short interval in space without a spacesuit.... the only reference I can find to this on the web quickly is here, but it sounds pretty beliveable to me.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
I think the ONLY movie that Brion James didn't play some bad-guy thug was as a movie exec in The Player. He wasn't convincing at all. Heh
may well have been but the argument was over whether or not 2001 was a good movie not over whether it was a good movie if you've read the book.
How we know is more important than what we know.
While some of the effects are dated - I find the ship scenes look a lot more realistic than today's computer generated special effects. For some reason, modern special effects look...well, a lot more contrived than the old models did.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Solar is the obvious answer! Space-based solar power systems are potentially (1) plentiful - the sun puts out about a billion times more power than Earth ever sees, (2) reliable - sun's always shining out there, (3) environmentally friendly - if we can manufacture the power systems off-planet (eg. on the moon or asteroids) then the only thing Earth ever needs is the power receiving and distribution stations - absolutely minimal environmental cost.
The only problem is the "cheaply" issue - various estimates range from $7 billion to $100 billion to get a lunar solar cell production system and energy distribution system started. But once active production is functional, the allocated and marginal cost per kWh of received power could be much lower than it is anywhere on earth today.
The real problem is not energy, but politics - and the very ambgiuous rights situation on the moon and elsewhere - various U.N. treaties seem to preclude commercial exploitation, and the big companies that could make a lot of money from this aren't willing to risk anything under the current regime.
Energy: time to change the picture.
My DOB is on my Web pages. Figure it out.
--
Xenu loves you!
I stand corrected. Thanks.
--
Xenu loves you!
IMO, the central plotline of The Matrix seems to be around getting Neo to let go of his preconceptions of the limits of reality and his ability to affect it. The climax occurs when he has the 'breakthrough' in realizing just how far he'd been constrained by his taught limitations.
The questions which it raises are: Where in my life have my own preconceptions of myself and others been limiting what we've been able to accomplish? and: What is it going to take for me to push myself past that point? The big rushes of the movie actually occur when Neo has those breakthroughs (e.g. Choosing the pill, training with Mobeus, the final fight scene). Each breakthrough opens up a brand new 'realm of possibilities'.
Where would you like to have your breakthrough today?
`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.