Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Sci-Fi Science

Looking Back On Looking Forward 188

da6d writes "The Independent Online Edition has an article on the release of interviews Stanley Kubrick conducted of numerous prominent scientific minds of the day in preparation for the movie 2001. The topic of the interviews: extra-terrestrial intelligence. The transcripts of the interviews are due for release in book form next month. The actual footage of the interviews seems to have been swallowed by time." From the article: "Some of the interviewees have looked back at their original comments. Professor Good stood by his, including his suggestion that computers might have personality traits: 'My Windows 98 computer tells lies and often forces me to shut down improperly. Such behaviour in a human would be called neurotic.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Looking Back On Looking Forward

Comments Filter:
  • by RPI Geek ( 640282 ) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @12:55PM (#13889970) Journal
    A few days ago, Fark had a link [] to an explanation of Kubrick's "2001". I didn't get the movie when I watched it a few years ago, but this explanation seems plausible and made sense (to me) where the movie didn't.
  • Carl Sagan (Score:3, Informative)

    by sbowles ( 602816 ) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @01:06PM (#13890065)
    I wonder what stupid things Carl Sagan said that he wasn't willing to have his statements published without having "editorial control"?
  • by stendec ( 582696 ) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @01:11PM (#13890115)
    Did not "get" the book? He co-wrote the screenplay with Arthur C. Clarke, after which the novel was written.
  • I watched the movie a few years ago, to see if I could make sense of it. I think at the time I missed it too. This explanation seems makes sense.

    I think that the movie spent a bit of time showing colored lights, the outside of the ship, etc., which is fine, but leads the viewer to a bit of What the #%$^ is he trying to say here?. Not to compare apples and oranges, but the first Matrix movie was was a bit out there, but at least you "got it" when you were done watching it. (Of course, I really don't have an explanation for the 2nd Matrix, and have no idea what happened in the 3rd).
  • by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @01:31PM (#13890304)
    A few years ago David Stork [] published a series of interviews [] anwith computer scientists about progress in artifical intelligence compared to the movie 2001. Stork is a cognitive scientist based in the S.F. area. Video's of these interviews were shown on PBS.
    This material only looks at the computer side of 2001. Kubrick's interviews also looked at space travel, exterrestial intelligence, and potential social changes 35 years hence.
  • by BlackFoliage ( 210832 ) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @04:00PM (#13891720)

    Arthur C. Clarke once said, "If you understand 2001 completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered."

    The following was Kubrick's reponse to Clarke's comments. This was taken from an interview he gave to Playboy. I think the myth that it was supposed to be confusing has gone on too long.

    "I don't agree with that statement of Arthur's, and I believe he made it facetiously. The very nature of the visual experience in 2001 is to give the viewer an instantaneous, visceral reaction that does not -- and should not -- require further amplification. Just speaking generally, however, I would say that there are elements in any good film that would increase the viewer's interest and appreciation on a second viewing; the momentum of a movie often prevents every stimulating detail or nuance from having a full impact the first time it's seen. The whole idea that a movie should be seen only once is an extension of our traditional conception of the film as an ephemeral entertainment rather than as a visual work of art. We don't believe we that we should hear a great piece of music only once, or see a great painting once, or even read a great book just once. But the film has until recent years been exempted from the category of art -- a situation I'm glad is finally changing."

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry