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."

Comments

No, Kubrick does

[Paul Crowley]

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.
--

Re:No, Kubrick does

[great throwdini]

Clarke certainly deserves a prominent credit, but fundamentally it's Kubrick's film.

My understanding -- informed in part from Clarke's own writings -- is that the book and the movie were written/fashioned (more or less) at the same time. So, Clarke's "novelization" was partly influenced by Kubrick's movie-making -- and vice versa, the whole "chocolate-peanut butter" scenario in spades.

Each "author" was free to ignore the influences of the other. For those who have both read the book and seen the movie, it is clear Clarke/Kubrick often chose to turn away from outside suggestions in favor of his own personal notions.

So, although the movie strongly reflects Kubrick's vision, and the book, Clarke's, there was a bit of idea exchange going on in the background. Book != Movie, but they were not developed in isolation from one another.

Unfulfilled projections

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Unfulfilled projections

[Alien54]

Part of the reason these things have not taken place is that technology has not developed in the way previously envisioned. Take computers for example.

Although 2001 does define and crystalize for many the first coherent thoughts of what an intelligent compututer would be like.

Another element is the perverse truth that there has been no real advance in social sciences. This is important because a more peaceful and rational world would have more resources for "non-essentials" like space exploration.

(The only real advances in the social sciences have been in the fields of advertising, public relations, and political spin. That is where the money is.)

You may have missed the point

[Grant Elliott]

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.

Europa prophecy

[B.D.Mills]

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.

--

2001 and computer reliability

[adam]

I've seen 2001 many times and love the film (need to go back and reread the book). About a year ago, I happened across it on TV and thought a bit about the special effects and the technological visions, and marveled at how realistic it all seemed (even if it's now a bit farther off). Of course, there were a few anachronisms -- the PanAm shuttle flight, or the Bell System videophone.

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? :)

The book came first

[Grant Elliott]

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."

2001? What a rip off!

[CmdrT4c0]

I can't believe how much people are in love with 2001. I saw it for the first time last week on video. People! Wake up!

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...

Re:The only thing I hated was.....

[Rombuu]

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.