Eerie Sounds from Saturn

Mick Ohrberg writes "Scientists at NASA have now heard proof (called 'Saturn kilometric radiation') that Saturn has a phenomenon similar to the earths' Northern Lights (aurora borealis). Talking about the eerie sounding noise, Dr. Bill Kurth with the University of Iowa, says "We believe that the changing frequencies are related to tiny radio sources moving up and down along Saturn's magnetic field lines." It couldn't sound any spookier if they added a Theremin."

Comments

Re:This is just WAY cool

[Anonymous Coward]

These days, it's extremely unfashionable to be enthusiastic.

Sound?

[Bellum Aeternus]

In space nobody can hear you scream - but they can hear Saturn?

Man, that ruins the whole ring it. ^_^

Re:Saturn in 2001

[Dogtanian]

In the original version of 2001, they had Saturn instead of Jupiter as the source of the Big Mystery.

Arthur C. Clarke actually retained Saturn as the destination in the novel (not a 'novelisation'; it was written concurrently in order to help develop the film). The novel also varies in several other areas; notably the "pod bay doors" scene in the film is handled differently, albeit to the same ends. The 'stargate' is also different.

The difference is as much one of tone and style, however. The novel is more ACC "factual" and explains things in a way the film never tries to.

Having seen the film some 6 years after first reading the book, I made what (in retrospect) I consider the mistake of treating them as the same thing in different form. At first, I saw the film as being similar to the book, but with less explanation; now I realise that at a deeper level the philosophy and approach of the book and film are fundamentally different, and to get the most out of the film, it's necessary to consider it on its own merits.

That's not to say I prefer the film; in some ways, I think it's overrated and pretentious (having initially given it an unconsidered free ride on my "favourites" list on the back of my liking of the novel, I realised that on its own merits I wasn't that keen on it).

The odd thing is the sequel, 2010. The novel of 2010 (which the 2010 film was based on) was an engrossing and natural sequel to the 2001 novel. This despite the fact it took the location of the action from the 2001 film (Jupiter) not the 2001 novel (Saturn); in terms of its logical style, and the quote "Oh my God... It's full of stars", it follows on from the novel, not the film.

The film 2010, which came later, perversely borrowed the "Oh my God" line from the novels (it never appeared in the original film), and the factual approach which worked in the novel combined with overly commercial sensibilities and a cheesey (and now very dated) cold-war subplot made the film less than brilliant and not a very naturalistic "sequel" to the first film.

At one stage I thought 2010 was a good film on its own merits (that is, if you hadn't seen 2001); although you need to know what happened in 2001 to get the most out of it, you could read the novel of it, so this isn't as stupid as it sounds.

My opinion of it has gone down somewhat, not because it ruins everything in 2001 by explaining it (2010:The Film is really the film of THE NOVEL of 2010; which was a sequel to THE NOVEL of 2001; it makes more sense that way than considering it as a simple sequel to the 2001 film). No, the problems I have with 2010 are:-

(a) Cheesy cold-war subplot (okay, ACC wrote this for the novel, but the sentimental aspects are ramped up in the film)....
(b) Hollywood Sentimentality (oh yeah, already mentioned that); not so much because it contrasts with the 2001 film's approach, but because it's formulaic
(c) Too much a straightforward sci-fi film; hasn't *tried* to do anything as original as Kubrick.
(d) ...which includes the technology. The original film does *not* have a 1960s tech look; some of the displays are very innovative and original for their time. If they look cliched, it's only because it influenced the look of subsequent films so much. 2010, on the other hand, although in some respects more realistic (less bright lighting) hasn't tried to escape its 1980s origins. As a result, we see Chandra accessing HAL through what looks like a keyboard from a TRS-80 home computer or something; so dull, unimaginative and dated compared to the look and feel that was put into the original (e.g. the memory modules when Dave is deactivating HAL). Ditto the calculator that Heywood uses in 2010. The whole thing looked more dated than 2001 even 10 years after it was made (and 2001 was 26 years old at the same time).
(e) Didn't they have sound in space in 2010? Yuk!