Did Kubrick ever confront the fact that 2001: A Space Odyssey is nothing like our actual 2001?
>>70678650
Yes he wrote 9 books on the subject
No he died
He was dead by then.
>>70678684
Yeah but he died in 1999. He wasn't delusional enough to think we'd wildly advance in a few short years. There must have been time in the 90's where he realized he was completely off.
>>70678650
You mean boring, self-masturbatory dribble? Pretty spot on.
>>70678650
No but clarke did say he was dissapointed with the progress we hade made as far as space exploration and colonization goes. He tried his best to make it a realistic and probable future instead of going full star trek.
>>70678835
I mean the level of scientific and technological progress. We had jack shit in 2001 compared to what Kubrick imagined. I'm wondering if at any point between the film's release and his death did he acknowledge that we weren't progressing nearly as fast as the film implied.
>>70678650
Screenplay by:
Stanley Kubrick
Arthur C. Clarke
I don't know if it Kubrick of this Clarke guy who made the sci-fi part of this movie...
kubrick didn't actually think 2001 up
arthur c clarke did, kubrick just made a fucking movie
>>70678723
He adapted a book. He didn't actually create 2001 from scratch. Idiot.
>>70679184
Both. Kubrick and Clarke wrote the screenplay over two years, I believe. Clarke didn't want to be as vague and abstract as Kubrick, so wrote a book which differentiate slightly but nevertheless significantly from the film.
Personally, I think the film is better and more thought-provoking. The book is still good, maybe even very good. Clarke was an incredibly talented writer and I have enjoyed quite a few of his other works.
By the way, wasn't there a Childhood's End adaptation released recently? Was that good at all? That was one of my favorite books as a kid.
>>70679184
>>70679237
>>70679247
>Being this retarded
No shit, morons, Kubrick adapted everything he made. That doesn't excuse the fact that he was a genius perfectionist who should have seen that we weren't going to advance that much in 30 years. That's what I'm fixated upon. Why did he attach himself to a project and obsess with making things accurate, when the date itself is so far off? Was he legitimately unaware that we'd be moving so slowly? If so, is there an interview or anything concerning this?
>>70679322
Just fucking kill yourself.
>>70679322
>mom, i'm trolling!
>>70679351
>>70679374
If you're not able to answer, just leave the thread you autists.
>>70679322
just doesnt matter bro. could have just as well been 3001.
>>70678650
Why do you think it's not? We landed on moon and if we really need to we can travel to Saturn.
>>70679707
> if we really need to we can travel to Saturn
he says with no understanding of space travel beyond shoot rocket up and steer it
>>70679707
>if we really need to we can travel to Saturn.
>Being this pop-sci
>>70679322
but the reason we are going so slowly on 'space travel' is not because of the lack of technology but rather the lack of resources, traveling to the moon was very expensive and the government wouldn't found something like that again. Kubrick probably was disappointed about it, but it's easy to understand why the things didn't happen like he and Clarke thought would happen.
>>70679988
There is a lack of technology when you consider that he put an AI in the film. Computing and information technology are where we pour our money into and an AI would be very useful, but its several decades away at least.
Furthermore we don't have many necessary technologies for human space travel, sure we can send machines but we can't work out feasible ways of sending humans to jupiter and beyond.
Hollywood has a long history of not looking into its science.
>>70679033
everyone knows what you meant, autist
>>70680201
Chill out, spergmeister. Keep up with the thread.
>>70680103
I don't think anyone thought there would be an AI by 2001 or anytime for that matter though, that's just a common topic on sci fi.
>>70680258
But then forgive the whole film, it's just a date after all. Would it really have made a difference if he just said 2401: A Space Odyssey
>>70678650
What I never got was why wasn't he awarded a prize or something for creating the most effective cure for insomnia
>>70680368
But I do forgive the whole film, it would be autistic not to, it's fiction after all
>>70679707
>if we really need to we can travel to Saturn
Contrary to ebin memes about the world going too fast, technology goes a lot slower now than in the 1800s or even early 20th century.
Information technologies and electronics and some areas of robotics are the only things that have really seen a boom in the last four decades.
Think about it, without personal computers (and related like smartphones) and the internet, would daily life be that different from 1990? >Inb4 muslim infestation
Except for that.
>>70679257
Childhood's End was a meh show. Worth giving a shot but they lost a lot of the thinking points in the translation.
>>70680536
No, it wouldn't. But the same can be said for any 20 year gap in history
>>70678650
Did /tv/ ever confront the fact that 2001: A Space Odyssey is a shit movie for 15-year-old director wannabe fags?
>>70682189
Name a better sci fi
>>70682871
blade fun
>>70683026
Only thing noteworthy about Blade Runner is the visuals and 2001 easily beats it in that aspects
>>70682189
spoken like a true retard
>>70683073
>>70683151
whatever stanley jewbrick
>>70683156
>2001 is bad
>>70680103
>>70680258
AI is a field that's faced a lot of setbacks no one saw coming (so-called "AI winters"). Back in the 60's, there were actually leading AI developers who thought we would have human-like AI within the decade. So the idea of HAL wasn't nearly as far-fetched given the historical context as it seems in hindsight.
