×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Leonardo DiCaprio To Play Alan Turing?

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the martin-lawrence-not-available dept.

Movies 269

mikejuk writes "2012 is the one hundredth anniversary of Alan Turing's birth, with many celebration events being planned around the world. This week Warner Bros outbid other companies for the script of a biopic based on Turing's life. The script for The Imitation Game, by first-time screenwriter Graham Moore and based in turn on the biography by Andrew Hodges, Alan Turing: The Enigma, was snapped up by Warner Bros in a 7-figure deal. Right now the leading candidate to portray Turing is Leonardo DiCaprio."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

269 comments

Last week's news for circle-jerks. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728026)

Shit that nobody cares about.

That won't work (0)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728042)

Can't have women drooling over a geek. Even if it's only an actor playing a geek. 'tis not natural. /jk

Re:That won't work (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728068)

Turing wasn't into chick anyways.

Re:That won't work (2)

Jiro (131519) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728124)

Women do drool over men who are into other men, you know.

Re:That won't work (2)

TechLA (2482532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728226)

They don't drool over the fact they're into other men, they're like that because they (even if unknowingly) know that they cannot get that man. Same is true for men in relationships too. Women show much more interest towards you when someone else already has taken you.

Re:That won't work (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728426)

Technically that's just efficient thinking. After all, some other woman has already done the quality control, so he's bound to have some good properties.

Re:That won't work (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728492)

> they're like that because they (even if unknowingly) know that they cannot get that man.

Are you saying they're "forbidden fruits"? :)

Re:That won't work (4, Informative)

microbox (704317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728146)

Women love homo-erotica. They don't fantasize about guys having sex, but rather, imagine men falling romantically in love with each other. Weird, eh?

Re:That won't work (2)

TechLA (2482532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728206)

How is that weird? Guys do the same about women. The falling in love part too.

Also, many girls have told me they like watching gay porn much more than lesbian porn.. which is true for most men too, just in reverse.

Re:That won't work (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728518)

Gay porn is gay. Film at 11.

(don't forget your leather mask)

Re:That won't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728070)

Mind you a homosexual nerd who ended his life because of court ordered estrogen injections made him suicidal.

Re:That won't work (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728106)

Mind you a homosexual nerd who ended his life because of court ordered estrogen injections made him suicidal.

He should have waited for AIDS to come around.

AIDS = the Anally Injected Death Sentence! Fact: anal sex transmits this virus more effectively than other forms of sex because the anus tends to get torn and bleed much more than the naturally self-lubricating vagina or mouth. Other fact: gay men tend to have A LOT MORE partners than anyone else what with no female inhibitions to put the brakes on things. Being a gay man is a disease. AIDS is an advanced form.

He was a fag. Stop making it normal. It's not. No matter how hard you try.

I bet he was afraid to approach a woman anyway. They can be manipulative by nature you know. Unless you're enough of a man to win their trust. Fags aren't. They can be substitute "girlfriends" to women. They definitely can't close the deal. They're fags.

Re:That won't work (4, Funny)

microbox (704317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728152)

Being a gay man is a disease. AIDS is an advanced form.

You talk like a closet fag. Try not to dream of muscles when you sleep tonight.

Paging Dr. Freud? (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728334)

Yes, the AC went off on a homophobic rant. However, I don't subscribe to the Freudian concept of homophobia as related to repressed homosexuality.

Re:Paging Dr. Freud? (3, Informative)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728660)

Not Freud. They showed gay porn to homophobes and a control group and counted the boners. Verified.

Re:That won't work (2)

TechLA (2482532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728248)

because the anus tends to get torn and bleed much more than the naturally self-lubricating vagina or mouth. Other fact: gay men tend to have A LOT MORE partners than anyone else what with no female inhibitions to put the brakes on things. Being a gay man is a disease. AIDS is an advanced form.

You do know that you can have anal sex with women too, right? Besides, females don't put much brakes to amount of sex men have, not at least for me. Usually they're trying to get sex too often. On the other hand, I do live in Thailand.

And what would you say about having sex with kathoeys? They're originally men, but have turned into women, have boobs and are generally even more beautiful than real women. Is that gay sex if it's pre-op (still have penis), post-op (now they have vagina, but have been men before)?

female inhibition (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728360)

I think Mr. Homophobic AC has a point with the female inhibition thing. However, that concept implies to me that it's a general male issue rather than an issue specific to _homosexual_ males - straight males would also act like that if straight females were more cooperative.

Re:That won't work (2)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728446)

As a very drunk and obnoxiously self-indulgent doctor of Anthropology, I officially declare that this discussion is known in 4chan.random( ) parlance as a "faggot thread." I was going to mention the "Rock Hudson" analog, but several astute participants beat me to it. As a straight man sympathetic to the plight of the gays, I agree that anal sex is a loose-loose situation. Far too many people(of both genders) do not clean their buttholes properly, often shitting and not showering before the anticipated anal sex act. It was that same situation which had turned me away from giving anal sex when I performed my first cornhole in my friend's bedroom at at age fiifteen. She was a big girl, butt her stench was wafting up to my nose.

Do you know what comes out of that hole? Please, please - it doesn't matter what gender you are. Just please clean your rectum. Are you anticipating receiving anal sex later? Please shower and cleanse your rectum at least knuckle-deep. If you are really, really poor you can go into a McDonald's bathroom and wipe until there's no brown or yellow on the paper. Having a clean ass is important in many cultures - see that long pinky fingernail on the hands of Arabs and some Asians running those Mom-and-Pop liquor stores? That means that they have a clean ass and don't hate themselves like most women do.

It is the personal experience of myself and all of my totally-hetero male friends that women have not been properly taught to clean their assholes. One friend even referred to the smell of his girl's butthole as "cinnamon-like," causing us to play Neil Young's "Cinnamon girl" [youtube.com] whilst howling with laughter(she says that she "doesn't get it" and walks out for her 20th smoke of the day). Why, ladies? Is your butthole too dainty to be properly cleaned? Do ladies fear their buttholes, or just assume that they smell like roses because everything else they do smells like roses?

The most attractive girl I ever boned was flawless on the outside, but when all the clothes came off her pits stank like a mold colony and "down there" she smelled a little, well, could use a little Ivory.

Re:That won't work (2)

wonderboss (952111) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728328)

He was a fag. Stop making it normal. It's not. No matter how hard you try.

If there is anything more useless than a homophobe it is an anonymous coward homophobe.

I bet he was afraid to approach a woman anyway. They can be manipulative by nature you know. .

And a misogynist on top of it.
Poltroon.

Women drooling over an actor playing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728374)

a GAY geek. Don't forget that part.

Re:That won't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728552)

women drooling over a gay geek*

That might be awkward indeed.

At Least it Wasn't Keanu Reeves... (5, Funny)

bradorsomething (527297) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728062)

...although it would be ironic if the actor playing him would fail his test.

Re:At Least it Wasn't Keanu Reeves... (1, Funny)

wonderboss (952111) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728072)

Ok, where are my mod points.
ROFLMFAO
woah...

Re:At Least it Wasn't Keanu Reeves... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728134)

Ok, where are my mod points. ROFLMFAO woah...

it just wasn't that funny. it wasn't even clever. it was obvious to anyone who's ever heard of Turing and his work. to anyone else, they didn't get it.

i never understood why this site loves lame unoriginal obvious predictable humor so damned much. really you think it's the greatest shit ever. maybe you are comforted by the familiar or some shit. maybe when you were an infant Mama didn't give you the titty. i don't fuckin' understand it.

wake me up when something actually unexpected, clever, witty, and actually creative happens. you wankers.

Re:At Least it Wasn't Keanu Reeves... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728158)

I'm surprised they didn't go for Shia LaBeouf. Did he get some kind of lip infection that forced him to stop blowing producers or something ? Fuck Hollywood.

captcha: tongue.

Re:At Least it Wasn't Keanu Reeves... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728302)

Man, I don't give mod points to AC posts. But yours should be modded +5 Funny (although it's true, so maybe +5 Insightful?)...

Two Certainties (2)

cffrost (885375) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728066)

If Scorsese's directing, DiCaprio's leading.
If DiCaprio's leading, Scorsese's directing.

Re:Two Certainties (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728130)

...and how does this bijection account for the fact that Christopher Nolan directed Inception?

Re:Two Certainties (2)

cffrost (885375) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728182)

...and how does this bijection account for the fact that Christopher Nolan directed Inception?

Exception that proves the rule.

Re:Two Certainties (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728202)

...and how does this bijection account for the fact that Christopher Nolan directed Inception?

Exception that proves the rule.

Exception that proves you're full of shit.

You and your rule that didn't previously account for the exception. Full of shit. The both of ya.

Re:Two Certainties (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728320)

James Cameron directed Titanic. And I doubt Scorsese directed that episode of Growing Pains.

Re:Two Certainties (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728368)

James Cameron directed Titanic. And I doubt Scorsese directed that episode of Growing Pains.

You know, I considered whether the poster had several undisclosed conditions on the bijection, such as an implicit validity window, eg. counting only since 2004 with The Aviator or something. Furthermore, it seemed reasonable to restrict the Scorsese consideration to full, feature-length films given the implicit universe of discourse.

However, Inception was in 2010... really throws a wrench in shit. So do Blood Diamond (2006), Revolutionary Road (2008), and Body of Lies (2008).

Unrelatedly, I really wanted to keep hating DiCaprio indefinitely due to Titanic, but I just can't bring myself to do so after his compelling performances as of late.

Re:Two Certainties (3, Funny)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728478)

...and how does this bijection account for the fact that Christopher Nolan directed Inception?

Exception that proves the rule.

Inception that proves the rule.

Re:Two Certainties (1)

cffrost (885375) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728578)

If Scorsese's directing, DiCaprio's leading.
If DiCaprio's leading, Scorsese's directing.

I'm replying to myself to clarify that I don't believe Scorsese and DiCaprio shall work together on every project... But a biopic on historic figure Alan Turing? C'mon, that's right up their alley.

Just a question of length... (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728080)

As long as the movie is of infinite length, and certain other conditions are observed, shouldn't it be possible for any actor to successfully play Turing, albeit quite possibly requiring impractical amounts of time to do so?

Re:Just a question of length... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728606)

As long as the movie is of infinite length, and certain other conditions are observed, shouldn't it be possible for any actor to successfully play Turing, albeit quite possibly requiring impractical amounts of time to do so?

Leanardo's performances are not context-sensitive. He pretty much does the same thing in every movie. Given the limited number of emotional states that he can portray, it is pretty safe to say the most he can pull off is a Finite State Machine. If he tries to do more than that a giagantic pumping Lemma will come out and eat him.

Way immature to play scientist like Turing (3)

muon-catalyzed (2483394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728086)

He is one of the last actors I would imagine to play character like Turing, a thoughtful man, mathematician, scientist.. Everything Leo isn't.

Re:Way immature to play scientist like Turing (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728118)

Maybe someone like Tom Hanks would be a good fit as Turing.

Re:Way immature to play scientist like Turing (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728358)

Hanks is too old. Turing was in his early 40s when he died.

Re:Way immature to play scientist like Turing (1)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728402)

Hanks is the right "persuasion" though, and makeup can do a lot for age onscreen.

Re:Way immature to play scientist like Turing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728504)

Hanks is the right "persuasion" though, and makeup can do a lot for age onscreen.

Nope. Look at how silly Stallone, Swharzenegger or Willis are in doing the whole action hero movies nowadays. They are way past the right age, and makeup doesn't fix this fundamental flaw. Di Caprio is a fine actor to take on the role of Alan Turing, especially since the character in the film is going to be 20 years old to late 30 thirties.

Re:Way immature to play scientist like Turing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728528)

Crispin Glover-- if he can do an English accent!

(captcha: modernly)

Re:Way immature to play scientist like Turing (3, Informative)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728180)

He is one of the last actors I would imagine to play character like Turing, a thoughtful man, mathematician, scientist.. Everything Leo isn't.

He's an actor though, so given a reasonable script he can play a thoughtful man, mathematician, and scientist.

I know he's someone that it seems fashionable to hate but I've liked a lot of his movies.

Re:Way immature to play scientist like Turing (4, Interesting)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728296)

Yeah, I hated him after Titanic, mostly because of the teenage girl swoon thing...

Then I saw him in "Catch Me If You Can" and decided he really was a good actor.

Re:Way immature to play scientist like Turing (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728330)

Look at damned near anything he's ever done. In many ways, it's a shame he did Titanic, as that heartthrob thing is something he still hasn't lived down.

Re:Way immature to play scientist like Turing (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728364)

His best role was in "What's eating Gilbert Grape"
Personally, I think he looks too gay to play Turing.

Re:Way immature to play scientist like Turing (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728482)

He's shown his chops enough times now to convince me he's pretty good. He was very good in The Aviator and pretty impressive in Revolutionary Road.

Fantastic (2)

gadzook33 (740455) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728088)

Personally I think this would be fantastic. Two of my favorite people. I think Leo is a superb actor and we all know what a fascinating and enigmatic person Turning was.

Re:Fantastic (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728150)

Yes, he might once have had the image of a teen girl crush, but he's long become a grown man and i think he was exceptional in all his recent roles.

Oh Really (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728102)

This doesn't sound like a moneymaker for Hollywood.

Re:Oh Really (5, Interesting)

asifyoucare (302582) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728120)

A Beautiful Mind grossed over $300m. One would think if that could do well then a film about Turing could do well.

Re:Oh Really (1)

DiegoBravo (324012) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728138)

Did you forget A Beautiful Mind? [imdb.com]; IMO the Turing story has a lot more potential...

Re:Oh Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728214)

"A Beautiful Mind" is a universal movie, starring Russell Crowe; What exactly does this have to do with Warner and DiCaprio? And another thing; that movie came out a decade ago, how is that an indicator that this Turing movie will do well?

Hmm.. could've been worse (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728136)

We've already seen the following actors in comparable roles:

Russell Crowe - A Beautiful Mind

Dustin Hoffman - Rain Man

Matt Damon - Good Will Hunting, The Talented Mr. Ripley

Tom Hanks - Forrest Gump

No need to see the same movie twice.

This is Hollywood (0)

ddd0004 (1984672) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728194)

I predict they will ruin this more than they've ruined anything.

Some predictions on the content of the movie (any or all of these my apply):
Alan Turing will be played by Justin Beiber
Alan Turing will invent the Atomic Bomb
The movie will feature Sylvester Stallone and Kurt Russell and be titled Tango & Cash 2: The Alan Turing Story ...

Re:This is Hollywood (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728452)

That would be the Syfy/Asylum version, sans the actors.

Adam Sandler!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728198)

Yeah baby!!!

Lots of interesting angles (5, Interesting)

ZouPrime (460611) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728204)

A story on Turing could exploits a lot of interesting angles. He's an important figure in computer science AND in cryptography. His most prestigious work was done with WWII in the backdrop, and helped the allies tremendously. Finally, he has the total romantic yet misunderstood hero story - his contribution was a war secret, he was condemned for his homosexuality by the state he helped so much, and died a Plato death.

There's a kickass script to be made out of that.

Oh and DiCaprio is a fine choice. Great actor, versatile enough to pull it out and to let the character be the story.

Re:Lots of interesting angles (1)

micronicos (344307) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728282)

A story on Turing could exploits a lot of interesting angles. He's an important figure in computer science AND in cryptography. His most prestigious work was done with WWII in the backdrop, and helped the allies tremendously. Finally, he has the total romantic yet misunderstood hero story - his contribution was a war secret, he was condemned for his homosexuality by the state he helped so much, and died a Plato death.

There's a kickass script to be made out of that.

Oh and DiCaprio is a fine choice. Great actor, versatile enough to pull it out and to let the character be the story.

Spot on, plus the Cambridge (England) angle, work in some spies, I think it's a fine project. Robert Harris did an excellent job with "Enigma". Tried to mod up the post above but don't know how.

Cryptonomicon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728240)

Should've just made a Cryptonomicon movie. Way more interesting than what actually happened!

Re:Cryptonomicon (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728290)

I'd be a 26 episode series to get even half the book.

Re:Cryptonomicon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728392)

A Nolan directed HBO Cryptonimcon miniseries? I'd actually pay money to see that.
You could do a good movie of Zodiac to test the waters so to speak.

Re:Cryptonomicon (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728458)

Boring, boring, boring, better, climax, done. That and you'd have to film the almost erotic Captain Crunch chapter and the expensive furniture / stockings stroke piece.

NAACP asks: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728274)

What's wrong with Eddie Murphy?

Re:NAACP asks: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728340)

no no no, the obvious choice here is Arnold Schwarzenegger

Turing + Hollywood (5, Funny)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728286)

Mad scientist Alan "Mhz" Turing invents an intelligent robot that transforms into a flying car, which he uses to embark on a great journey into space where he will find true love with an alien prince (cue for love scene on front of spaceship) and, of course, get the idea for the first desktop computer. When he returns to Earth, he builds a prototype for his new invention, which surprisingly turns out to be a modern Mac (because in Hollywood all computers are Macs), however his contemporaries find out about his love with the alien, which forces him to abandon the Mac and travel back into space where he lives happily ever after as the queen of an alien planet. THE END. If this does well at the box office, expect a sequel in a couple of years.

I vote for Neil Patrick Harris (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728332)

Who else could understand Turing better?

Jeremy Northam! (3, Insightful)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728406)

I don't have any large issue with DiCaprio playing Turing. He is versatile, capable, and very hard working. However, the part should go to Jeremy Northam. It would have been a better age match if they tapped him 20 years ago, but there are other factors to consider than matching the actor's age to the character in his prime. I didn't know Turing, so it's just an impression, but I think Jeremy Northam would do a superb job. See The Winslow Boy and tell me I'm wrong.

I like Mr. Northam in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728430)

"Bobby Jones: Stroke of Genius" playing another golf legend, Mr. Walter Hagen (who was from very near my area in fact... who was TRULY "my kind of guy" actually, except for his obsession with $)!

* He played THAT role, to a tee (pun intended)...

APK

P.S.=> I haven't seen him in anything else, but I will keep your suggestion in mind for future reference - because of his excellent portrayal of Walter Hagen... apk

An "Example Given" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728566)

"Ah, who's BETTER n' US, kid...?" -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ5Gr2joVe8&feature=related [youtube.com]

APK

P.S.=> My fav. scenes though, lol, are when he shows up HAMMERED & HUNG OVER to golf matches as "Sir Walter" (lol & also when he says he's not FAMOUS, but rather, "infamous" too) and just KNOCKS THE SNOT outta everyone, easily (even Bobby Jones, initially when he's still green that is, not as much later once Mr. Jones got used to Walter's "psychological tactics")...

... apk

Not a bad resemblanse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728414)

At first I thought this is stupid, but then I went and looked at pictures of Turing, and there actually is a resemblance. And Leonardo is not a bad actor, even if he is not as good as the hype around him would indicate. Go for it.

Turing is way overrated. (-1, Flamebait)

jensend (71114) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728420)

Why do people remember Turing rather than Church and Post, both of whom developed their ideas independently of Turing and beat him to publication by quite a while (though Post's was submitted after Turing's) and both of whom made many further important contributions to mathematical logic and computational theory while Turing did not?

Why do people continue to erroneously associate Turing with the Colossus computer while Tommy Flowers is totally unremembered? Why has Turing's work at Bletchley Park etc overshadowed the efforts of Zuse, Shannon, Stibitz, Atanasoff, Eckert, Mauchly, and others whose efforts did so much more to make general-purpose computing a reality?

I can only see one answer: Turing was gay, and lots of people feel it's important to idolize homosexuals' contributions.

Re:Turing is way overrated. (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728466)

>reads whole message
>reads last line
>another "turing was a fag" troll

*sigh*

Go drink bleach.

--
BMO

Re:Turing is way overrated. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728488)

Or, maybe, he was persecuted and later committed suicide, and that makes him a more interesting figure to write about for mainstream media than the others.

Re:Turing is way overrated. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728498)

Or you know, the concept of a Turing machine. Church published an equivalent concept (namely lambda calculus), but it was Turing who came up with the Turning machine incarnation. The field chose to use the Turing machine which goes quite nicely with FSA, push-down automata, etc. It was Turing's particular incarnation that struck a chord with the field. Save your righteous indignation for something else (possibly Newton vs. Leibniz re: calculus) and quit making up reasons to be upset.

Re:Turing is way overrated. (1)

jensend (71114) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728570)

Post's 1936 paper described the same kind of machine, and Post came up with better versions of it (nobody uses Turing's original formulation, and the formulations actually used in textbooks etc usually build on Post's work).

I can't find a reference right this second but I'm fairly certain that nobody thought of the DFA or PDA abstractions for >10 years after all three papers were published (I think Post's later work on string rewriting and the PCP helped lead to those ideas along with the corresponding ideas of regular/context free), so there wasn't yet any other framework for the Post/Turing formalism to fit more naturally into.

Thanks for actually trying to provide an alternate reason rather than jumping at my throat for mentioning the only reason I'm able to come up with like most of these folks. I'm interested to hear whatever alternate explanations people can come up with.

Re:Turing is way overrated. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728628)

In your original post, you admit to Post's work being submitted after Turing's. Just food for thought.

The reason is probably nuanced and impossible to determine. But this sort of thing happens rather frequently in scientific research. There's the more famous example I cited about Newton and Leibniz. Why does Newton always get the credit, but we use Leibniz's notation? Is it because Newton moved onto calculus (but then why Leibniz's notation) or was it just a fluke? Take the slightly different example of powered flight. Why did the Wright Brothers get everything right and not somebody else? How close was somebody else to beating the Wright Brothers?

In the end, for some reason or another, the field just settled on Turing. It isn't really important why and it's probably non-deterministic. I honestly don't think it was because he was gay as the terminology was really crystalized before (or right on the cusp) the gay rights movement had any real momentum, widespread attention, or successes under its belt. What's more interesting is that three people independently discovered these foundational concepts contemporaneously. And I think that leads to an even more interesting question. Why did this happen with three people at this particular time in human history? Did somebody else stumble upon the concepts before, but didn't publish or wasn't in a position to publish?

Re:Turing is way overrated. (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728500)

All of that research into Turing's contemporaries just so you can justify your homophobic biases.

Re:Turing is way overrated. (0)

jensend (71114) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728630)

I didn't just collect a bunch of random names of his contemporaries to post here in response to this article. I've studied mathematical logic a good bit, and recently have been working towards writing a brief article about the history of logic and development of theoretical CS from 1870-1950.

Though I like everybody else started off with the idea that he was some kind of exceptional genius who earned the title of the father of computing, I had to abandon this idea in the face of evidence that others deserved more of the credit than he did.

If you can provide a better explanation for his idolization, let's hear it. But otherwise your summary dismissal of my reasons looks rather like you're the one whose bias is showing.

So was Alan Turing one HOTTIE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728538)

I'll bet that the movie will focus on his persecution for homosexuality, and his death, even more than his inventions

Re:So was Alan Turing one HOTTIE? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728600)

Since the alternative would involve attempting to make money by releasing a movie about math, I suspect that they'll have limited choice.

You can really only have so many minutes of 'montage of intense-looking-dude scribbling math on stuff' before people lose interest. At that point, you have to split the remaining feature-length-film time between WWII drama and persecution and suicide drama...

What, Ben Affleck wasn't available? (2)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728582)

It could be a zany rom-com with a dog, a monkey using an abacus, and even fit in the gay angle somehow (maybe a fashion designer on the side, a la Zoolander?). Tom Cruise could be the romantic interest, fighting with Turing the whole time about how machines are evil and Xenu is the one true way, until the monkey, riding the dog, slaps Cruise with a fish and makes him realize the errors of his ways. Let Terry Gilliam direct.

Guaranteed $500 mil 1st weekend.

Shoot-outs on a train. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728590)

That I can't wait to see, or the part where Turing blasts the incoming V2 with a couple of .45s held sideways. Gangsta style. While diving over a moving tank. In slow motion.

This is gonna be AWESOME.

Oooh, the apple scene (2)

E.I.A (2303368) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728616)

I just can't wait to see Leo bite into the poisoned apple. The hormonal castration should be particularly dramatic too. Maybe they can get the political apology right in the film, and properly repent for a truly disgusting deed. But I still think Matt Damon would be a goodlier choice, based on the face. ....Well Alan, you were way ahead of your time, but we were still in the dark ages. Sorry about that, and thanks for all the help. PS: If you come back, try San Francisco, Rome, or maybe Key West; I hear they finally accepted that patterns of "indecency" are not always matters of choice, and even if they were, they're your own. And anyway, you're really not missing much - and CCTV never flatters the form.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...