Beta
×

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!

Looking Back On Looking Forward

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the for-science dept.

Sci-Fi 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.'"

cancel ×

188 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Stanley Kubrick was a pole-sitting faggot (1, Flamebait)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889917)

and 2001 was a boring fucking movie. give me Slap Shot and a 12-pack of Molson XXX and get the fuck out of my life.

Re:Stanley Kubrick was a pole-sitting faggot (4, Funny)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889941)

and 2001 was a boring fucking movie. give me Slap Shot and a 12-pack of Molson XXX and get the fuck out of my life.

Look Dave, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.

Re:Stanley Kubrick was a pole-sitting faggot (0, Flamebait)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890038)

A boring fucking movie? I must've missed a couple of scenes somewhere...

Re:Stanley Kubrick was a pole-sitting faggot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13890302)

Where do you think that astro-fetus came from?

First Post! (0, Offtopic)

gbutler69 (910166) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889918)

nanananananana!

What? (4, Insightful)

Council (514577) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889919)

'My Windows 98 computer tells lies and often forces me to shut down improperly. Such behaviour in a human would be called neurotic.'

This glass of contaminated water is deceptive in appearance and often causes death. Such behavior in a human would be called sociopathic and homicidal.

Re:What? (1)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889952)

It's got ... personality! *gag, cough, die*

Personality!

Can't you tell, it's got Personality?

Re:What? (1)

supersocialist (884820) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890015)

Personality goes a long way, but that'd better be some charming mother-lovin' contaminated water.

Re:What? (4, Funny)

/ASCII (86998) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890059)

My girlfriend tells lies and often forces me to go to bed without sex. Such behaviour in a computer would be called buggy.

Re:What? (2)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890248)

Have you tried having intercourse with her while she sleeps?

Re:What? (4, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890265)

Have you tried having intercourse with her while she sleeps?

In computer terms that would be called: unauthorized access.

Re:What? (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890364)

It's only unauthorized if you put it up her butt.

Re:What? (1)

Vinnie_333 (575483) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890609)

It's only unauthorized if you put it up her butt.

Evidently, you don't know his girlfriend.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13890464)

She wasn't asleep when I started ...

Re:What? (2, Funny)

jamesgomez (808411) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890507)

Have you tried having intercourse with her while she sleeps?

If you tried such acts you would recieve a 403 Forbidden error.

Re:What? (0, Redundant)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890559)

More like Access Denied.

Re:What? (1, Funny)

Ecalos (908980) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890534)

"Have you tried having intercourse with her while she sleeps?"

Not cool. I have two seriously messed up friends who have suffered greatly because of rape. Even if your statement was meant as a joke, you shouldn't have posted it, and if it was anything resembling a serious suggestion, I'd recommend that you seek some serious psychiatric help.

On second thought, do so anyway. You obviously need it. >:(

Re:What? (-1, Troll)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890693)

I appreciate your concern for my health and wellbeing, but if anyone needs psychiatric help it would most likely be your friends.

Were they victims of college football initiations? Indeed, that is some of the worst man-on-man rape that has ever happened. There are many accounts of guys getting broomsticks shoved up their asses, for instance. As a fellow team member, why did you not stop their molestation? Or were you the one performing the rape?

Re:What? (2, Interesting)

Zevon 2000 (593515) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890076)

If an ugly human caused death in the same way that poison causes death--i.e., if the human were merely the instrument--then I'm not sure they would be called homicidal. And if they were, the poison would be just as "homicidal" as they ugly human. Also, I don't see how either is sociopathic. And don't accuse me of not getting the joke, because your whole post is based on the premise of not getting the Windows 98 joke!

Re:What? (2, Interesting)

smchris (464899) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890271)


Not "insightful" cynicism? You got gipped.

I think a lot of us who cut our teeth on '80s home BASIC machines have typed in an Eliza program and the self-induced wonder was cool. But that was then. I hung onto a '90s feeling that my OS/2 desktop was a "magic desktop" of sorts. But they're just machines to me now -- often X&*#@#@% machines. Where's my facial recognition desktop that comprehended and remembers our last discussion? As a rhetorical question, I think the answer is a long, long time away since epistemology and consciousness are a lot more complicated than this century appreciates.

Granted Kubrick was a person for over-the-top set design but I saw 2001 twice, original theater release and at a sci fi convention in -- 2001, so I got hit hard with the cognitive dissonance of my memories and how dated it seems today. Science fiction's inevitable clay feet guessing the future grounded in today.

It was a joke (1)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890606)

Jesus Christ, do you people need a large blinking neon sign pointing out every time a remark is tongue-in-cheek? It's funny. Laugh.

The future sucks! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889930)

In 1968, there were fast cars, good music and free sex.
In 2005, we watch movies about fast cars, good music and free sex.

Re:The future sucks! (4, Insightful)

/ASCII (86998) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890098)

Yeah, but there was no Nethack in 1968. I think I like things better today.

Re:The future sucks! (2, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890124)

1968: Nerds get no sex.
2005: Nerds still get no sex-- but there sure is lots of pr0n!

Re:The future sucks! (1, Funny)

Crilen007 (922989) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890193)

I get lots of sex and I'm a nerd.

Re:The future sucks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13890546)

Crilen, this is Dad. I told you not to tell anyone about our little secret.

Re:The future sucks! (2, Funny)

JPriest (547211) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890319)

I have a MMORG character that has a big house, a fast car, and lots of chicks! In a few feeks I should be able to level up and buy a boat too!

eChicks dig me

Re:The future sucks! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13890623)

Did you learn about 1968 from these movies?

Don't anthropomorphize OSes, they don't like it... (5, Interesting)

cygnusx (193092) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889939)

I disagree about the bit about Win98 'lying' and being 'neurotic'. It's fun to anthropomorphize but Win98 is a product of various engineering compromises that allowed the Windows userbase to move as seamlessly as possible from DOS to NT (a process that took ~8 years). Its crashes etc are completely explainable when you understand the limitations of its core OS and in particular its driver model.

What is more interesting is that Prof Good is passing off behavior he doesn't understand (I'm willing to bet he's NOT a Win32 dev) as 'neurotic'. Makes one wonder how we'll see mentally challenged people once we have a far better understanding of the brain than we have now...

Re:Don't anthropomorphize OSes, they don't like it (2, Interesting)

/ASCII (86998) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890136)

Are you saying that the driver model is not a part of Windows? Or that the templars forced Microsoft to use that driver model? Because otherwise, the driver model is a core part of the OS design, and if it is unstable and errorprone, then that makes the OS total garbage.

We do anthropomorphize (3, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890273)

Prof. Good in fact gets it backwards: the "neurotic" diagnosis tells us less about computers than it does about us.

We do anthropomorphize, not just comparatively intelligent things like computers but cars and even utterly inanimate objects. If you stub your toe on a rock, you might well "punish" the rock by hitting it. You know it's irrational but the illusion of anthropomorphization is strong.

The lesson is that we should design our UIs knowing that people will interpret the responses as if they were coming from a human. And yeah, that means that like most people, the computers will appear to be neurotic. Windows 98 is only marginally more neurotic than some of my friends.

Re:Don't anthropomorphize OSes, they don't like it (1)

Yocto Yotta (840665) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890279)

"Makes one wonder how we'll see mentally challenged people once we have a far better understanding of the brain than we have now...

Hi, I'm from the future. Our aging deity, now 2948 years old, clearly messed up on the original the user interface, yet the programming is surprisingly tidy. The mentally challenged can be considered akin to, oh dear, what was that OS from the 20th century . . . oh yes! DOS. Consider them the DOS of humanity. Not so pretty on the outside, but comprehensive from within.

Re:Don't anthropomorphize OSes, they don't like it (3, Insightful)

C0C0C0 (688434) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890287)

Never anthropomorphize computers. They don't like it.

Re:Don't anthropomorphize OSes, they don't like it (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890298)

I disagree about the bit about Win98 'lying' and being 'neurotic'.

But would you say that Win98 is the product of a deranged mind?

Re:Don't anthropomorphize OSes, they don't like it (3, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890436)

Everyone is picking up on how it's not quite right to anthropomorphize Win98, but:
  1. Software, being designed by people, is more validly anthropomorphized than, say, rocks. Yes, we anthropomorphize rocks, too, and it has its purposes, among them, poetic. Software, on the other hand, is interactive in a way the most of the world isn't, and programmers really are trying to put as much of their own intelligence into them. You issue a command, and the computer responds. How it responds was determined by a person, based on what that person imagines to be a good response. Unreliable software tends to come from unreliable developers. It is, in fact, the developer's personality showing through his creation.
  2. As you note, we tend anthropomorphize things interactions which we don't understand. People are also complex machines we don't understand, but no one complains when we anthropomorphize them. I'd submit that it's actually the most natural way to understand the world, to metaphorically attribute desire and understanding to things. A rock somehow wants to go down, and knows to do so. It knows to wait, however, until someone removes the solid object on which it rests. Nature abhors a vacuum. My computer is uncooperative and hates me. These are all said in the same sense.
  3. Many AI experts believe that it is impossible to create anything like real intelligence without also creating something like "emotion" and "personality".
  4. I believe it was probably a light-hearted joke to claim that Win98 is "neurotic" anyway.

Re:Don't anthropomorphize OSes, they don't like it (1)

Pollardito (781263) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890636)

Its crashes etc are completely explainable when you understand the limitations of its core OS and in particular its driver model.
i think that quote makes you an enabler

Re:Don't anthropomorphize OSes, they don't like it (1)

hike2 (550205) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890712)

Killjoy

Neurotic Windows 98? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889944)

Of course- if you were the last of your family to actually do something useful, you'd be neurotic too.

Re:Neurotic Windows 98? (1)

chrismcdirty (677039) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890030)

98 is not quite the last in the family to do something useful. You seem to be forgetting Me, much like MS would like to forget Me.

Re:Neurotic Windows 98? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13890121)

You seem to be forgetting Me, much like MS would like to forget Me.

I can understand why we would forget about you, but what did you do to Microsoft that would make them want to forget you?

Re:Neurotic Windows 98? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890185)

That's why I put in "something useful"- for the short time I dealt with ME, it was so unstable that you couldn't even finish a word processing document without having the machine reboot into safe mode and recover an earlier copy of the registry. ME was not useful.

Re:Neurotic Windows 98? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13890349)

bah, ME wouldn't stay stable long enough for me to install XP over it. It crashed during install 4 times.
I formated the drive, booted from CD, installed fine.

An explanation of the movie (4, Informative)

RPI Geek (640282) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889970)

A few days ago, Fark had a link [kubrick2001.com] 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.

Re:An explanation of the movie (4, Interesting)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890086)

I didn't get the movie when I watched it a few years ago

According to IMDB [imdb.com] trivia:

1) Rock Hudson walked out of the Los Angeles premiere, saying, "Will someone tell me what the hell this is about?"

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

Re:An explanation of the movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13890525)

Who the hell is Rock Hudson?

Re:An explanation of the movie (1)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890610)

The beautiful thing about teh interweb is that you can find information on just about any [imdb.com] subject, just by doing a simple search.

Re:An explanation of the movie (3, Informative)

gmletzkojr (768460) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890297)

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).

Re:An explanation of the movie (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890575)

That explaination is bunk. And the Flash movies are not only stupid, but inflict painful sound effects on you for minutes at a time. Whoever wrote it didn't even do the most basic research about the movie... for example, several things in it directly contradict the novel.

Re:An explanation of the movie (2, Interesting)

Vinnie_333 (575483) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890695)

I would consider myself a huge Kubrick fan, but I will admit that 2001: A Space Odyssey doesn't tell the story real well. Excellent imagery, poor story telling. Not all the scenes are explained, camera shots are based upon imagery rather that story continuity, the B story is given more screen time than the A story, etc. But, if you've read the book, and are in a very patient relaxed mood, it's an excellent cinematic experience. Of course, you have to have a nice home theater set up. It just doesn't come across well on a buzzing VHS tape played through a 19" B&W screen.

What's this professor good stood IP address again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889972)

Neurotic Windows 98 machine, what the bleep does he think he knows now...

Re: Looking Back On Looking Forward (4, Interesting)

lunartik (94926) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889983)

Off topic perhaps, but the title of this article reminds me of the afterward of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

This book has a lot to say about Ancient Greek perspectives and their meaning but there is one perspective it misses. That is their view of time. They saw the future as something that came upon them from behind their backs with the past receding away before their eyes.

When you think about it, that's a more accurate metaphor than our present one. Who really can face the future? All you can do is project from the past, even when the past shows that such projections are often wrong. And who really can forget the past? What else is there to know?

Ten years after the publication of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance the Ancient Greek perspective is certainly appropriate. What sort of future is coming up from behind I don't really know. But the past, spread out ahead, dominates everything in sight.

Re: Looking Back On Looking Forward (2, Interesting)

Boronx (228853) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890177)

Take their theology, too. When you look around the world, which makes more sense, that the universe is run by a single all-loving, all-knowing all-powerful God, or passel of flawed, vindictive, egotistical childlike brutes?

Re: Looking Back On Looking Forward (0, Offtopic)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890236)

When you look around the world, which makes more sense, that the universe is run by a single all-loving, all-knowing all-powerful God, or passel of flawed, vindictive, egotistical childlike brutes

Let me guess, you prefer the Ancient Greek mythology over the Biblical mythology.

Re: Looking Back On Looking Forward (1)

Deinhard (644412) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890228)

That's quite the opposite of the Zen (and Taoist) view of the past and the future. While many think that it is important to look to the past to predict the future, that is as effective as examining the wake of a ship to determine where it is going.

Even looking at the wake to determine where it has been is only effective for a short time.

Remember, the past does not exist anymore and the future has never existed. There is only now.

Re: Looking Back On Looking Forward (4, Funny)

groomed (202061) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890361)

Remember, the past does not exist
Do you realize how incongruent that piece of advice is?

Jack Good Quote (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889985)

'My Windows 98 computer tells lies and often forces me to shut down improperly. Such behaviour in a human would be called neurotic.'

Best. Quote. Ever.

No Change (3, Interesting)

MikeMacK (788889) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889994)

Kubrick, who wrote, produced and directed his films, was intrigued by the possibility of other life forms, but was disappointed the film world had until then tackled science fiction by portraying blood-thirsty monsters attacking the earth.

I don't see how we have come very far - that is still how Science Fiction is portrayed to the masses. Space battles against aliens, aliens invading the earth, etc. etc. What I find fascinating with all this is the science fiction that I read does not usually have this type of plot - just most science fiction movies.

Cultural/storytelling inertia and focus group ruts (4, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890195)

I don't see how we have come very far - that is still how Science Fiction is portrayed to the masses. Space battles against aliens, aliens invading the earth, etc. etc. What I find fascinating with all this is the science fiction that I read does not usually have this type of plot - just most science fiction movies.

Ah, the great unwashed entertainment-consuming masses, blahditty blah. Remember Contact [imdb.com] , starring Jodie Foster - based on Sagan's book? It was pretty interesting, and a well-made film. No aliens attacking (just religious freaks blowing up things on their own, here at home ... Sagan certainly knew about the culture of religious zealotry). That movie was essentially a flop with the public. But if it had been about an intrepid anthropologist decoding mysterious communications from a lost tribe in Amazonia - critical acclaim!

Why? Because people like watching stories about unfolding (and usually, resolved) conflict - and "subtle space stuff" doesn't usually compute with most people, just out of sheer momentum. People who like non-explosion stories about complex human interaction are so sure that they won't find that in science fiction films that the market research by the film makers tells them there's a hole there that's not worth filling. Sometimes they try, though:

How about George Clooney's Solaris? [imdb.com] Nice sci-fi setting, but basically a morality tale about letting go of your past and your troubles. At the box office? Big snoozer. If, though, it had been about an aging butler, starring Anthony Hopkins... big bucks and Oscars for everyone.

Now, if those Merchant/Ivory fans could only bring themselves to see Lucas's last work, and see the incredibly subtle nuances brought to life as Darth Vader cries, "Noooooooooo!" they'd realize that sci fi can be riveting drama, too. Hopkins Shmopkins!

Re:Cultural/storytelling inertia and focus group r (4, Interesting)

BewireNomali (618969) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890344)

Dude, Solaris was a powerful film. Claustrophobic.

There's an interesting film out right now called Stay, also sometimes claustrophobic.

I work in film and here's the general audience's biggest gripe about sci-fi movies. No one wants to feel dumb. This is marketing 101 - the reason why films are rehashed and plotlines redone over and over is because only a small minority are comfortable in uncertainty... with not knowing. It's a manifestation of the adventurers spirit.

So you do a smart sci-fi film that challenges a Christian's notion of the universe, and they get scared. They dont want that feeling... that they're wrong, that they don't know. So next summer, another alien space movie will probably come out, and some elite team will be sent it to investigate, the lesbian gunner will die first and the black guy second, etc. and most will eat popcorn and they'll go home satisfied that aliens can never defeat us with our crude projectile weapons, religious sentiment and irrepressible warrior ethos. It's collective masturbation. And they'll polish their guns and dust off their bibles unafraid.

I've worked as a script consultant and 90 percent of my work over the past year has been to "dumb-down" scripts. Three modalities: get a PG-13 at the script stage, nothing more complex than a sixth grade level (aforementioned PG-13 rating; nothing troubling; no f-words, etc; avoid religion, no frontal nudity), after which point the one-liner guy comes onto the script and does what is called a polish (read: "smarten" up the dialogue with one-liners and slang, etc).

Re:Cultural/storytelling inertia and focus group r (2, Interesting)

JasonKChapman (842766) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890720)

Dude, Solaris was a powerful film. Claustrophobic.

If you liked the Soderberg/Clooney version, you should watch Tarkovsky's orginal. Tarkovsky's penchant for dragging the viewer through some scenes at near-real-time adds significantly to the weight of story. It captures Stanislaw Lem's book much more effectively. Be warned, though, it doesn't mate well with modern western film sensibilities. It's too long, too slow, and you have to think too damn much.

Re:Cultural/storytelling inertia and focus group r (1)

AB3A (192265) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890724)

I'm disappointed but not surprised that you see things this way. Too many directors want to make that huge blockbuster money maker. And if that's what you want, go for it. But it ain't art.

However, I suspect that if Hollywood were interested in another film making model, they might want to explore the idea of running these scripts you "dumb down" in a largely unmolested state. These films would not have to be big budget films. In fact, now that movie quality screens are popping up in homes across the country and now that broadband is able to deliver such films to audiences never before thought of as economical, perhaps there is a new business model for the film industry: Films of cultural importance about real subjects of concern to be shown in micro markets.

Here's the funny part: Some of these will make it fabulously well. Remember Clerks? The Blair Witch Project? The amazing thing is that they made it at all. This could be a distribution vehicle for many more.

As you pointed out, this crap is getting too predictable. Now you know why I don't bother going to first run movies much any more. What the industry needs is a new business model that doesn't depend on insanely expensive yet pointlessly drab movies.

Re:No Change (1)

Lozano (925987) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890375)

I'll bet few people would shell out $9 to see a movie about hugging aliens and teaching them to grow corn.

Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images (0, Troll)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890017)

But when it comes to scenario he SUCKS - BIG TIME Sorry, but IMHO he messed up 2001, it's a huge panaroma of beautiful symbolic images but I am under the impression he simply did not get the book. The same is true for the Shining, great movie, beautiful, whatever you want... He changed the scenario, turning a "living house" type of horror novel into one's man mental breakdown, fine with me, and then he screws up the whole movie letting a ghost open a door. A.I? Now Spielberg might have save parts of it but the influence of Kubrick is still very palpable in the mediocrity of the scenario... my my my...

Re:Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images (4, Insightful)

Frumious Wombat (845680) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890068)

Spielberg "saved" parts of it? The Spielberg parts are the maudlin, emotional, go out of the theatre with a warm glow, your brain be damned parts. Kubrick was fascinated by alienation, whether caused by technology, training, or personal obliviousness (try "Barry Lyndon" some time). Beautifully shot, if somewhat distant, movies.

His interpretation of "The Shining" left you the ambiguity whether Jack is having a break down, or whether there are really ghosts. He went for the long, slow, unsettlement of the audience, rather than the cheap and quick gross-out horror.

Re:Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images (2, Insightful)

CaptainPinko (753849) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890112)

And to think I had jsut used my last mod point. *sigh* I definitely agree. AI had moments when you can tell Speilberg blunted what Kubrick would have done. The scene where the android undress I think is the most blatant one. Speilberg stops the undressing... where as I believe Kubrick would have the others carry on and snicker and she would be naked and oblivous and the point would have had much more impact. As for the shining: King makes great books... or at least become great when rewritten by someone else to add depth, The Shining is a prime example.

Re:Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890155)

"Warm glow?" That's not the feeling I got from that movie (to avoid a spoiler, I'll just point out LOTS OF ICE)!

Re:Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890084)

What about Dr. Strangelove or Full Metal Jacket?

Re:Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images (1)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890132)

Full Metal jacket... well I loved the first part... Oh wait, that's the one Kubrick added after because the movie was too short and was disatisfied with.

Re:Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images (1)

Karma_fucker_sucker (898393) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890099)

Now Spielberg might have save parts of it but the influence of Kubrick is still very palpable in the mediocrity of the scenario... my my my...

I have to disagree with you there. Steve had to add that hokey - schmaltzy ending with the future aliens (or robots) giving "David" his wish of one more day with his "mother". If he left the boy/robot wishing from the "Blue Fairy" under the ocean as the ending, it would have been a great and dark ending. Instead, it's a Steve Spielberg pop-corny ending. Of course if I knew anything, I'd be the billionaire movie producer/director.

Re:Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images (4, Informative)

stendec (582696) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890115)

Did not "get" the book? He co-wrote the screenplay with Arthur C. Clarke, after which the novel was written.

Re:Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images (1)

mwg_stpaul (652523) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890126)

Ummm, you do know that Kubrick and Clarke wrote the screenplay first, and Clarke "novelized" it later, right?

Re:Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images (1)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890221)

Humm you do know the screenplay was based on previous short stories by Clarke ?

Re:Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images (1)

JasonKChapman (842766) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890626)

Humm you do know the screenplay was based on previous short stories by Clarke ?

Yes, yes--loosely based on an idea from the Clarke story The Sentinel. The story involved finding something on the moon which had been left waiting for mankind to grow up enough to find it. It doesn't change the fact that what the GP said is entirely true. That idea was expanded by the two of them into a new story and screenplay which Clarke later novelized.

Re:Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images (1)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890201)

Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images But when it comes to scenario he SUCKS

That's just a bit strong, don't you think? While some people consider 2001 to be boring, and there are many people that think The Shining was a mistake; you shouldn't fall into the trap of lumping all Kubrick movies together. Remember, this is the man that directed Spartacus, Dr. Strangelove, and Full Metal Jacket.

For the record, I love Kubrick. Even the movies that everyone else hates.

Re:Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images (1)

br0ck (237309) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890202)

The Shining Redux [ifilm.com] appears to capture the spirit of the book much better.

Re:Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890457)

Without being to leet, OMG, ROFLMAO!!

That shows what clever editing can do.

Re:Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images (4, Insightful)

BewireNomali (618969) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890224)

Dude, Kubrick was a genius.

He did get the book - 2001, that is. He just chose to interpret it differently. I'm actually interested in discussing what you think he missed in regards to 2001.

Shining. Kubrick thought horror films were lame. To him the greatest horror one could experience was the losing of one's own mind (he was pretty much an atheist and existentialist by nature), as one's own mind is all that you are. This was truly horrifiying to him. Interestingly enough, Nicholson is attirbuted to the following about Kubrick: Nicholson was traumatized by the harshness of the script and talked to Kubrick about lightening up the tone a bit. Kubrick responded that the film was optimistic. Nicholson was surprised and asked him to elaborate.... Kubrick's response was that anything that alludes to the existence of an afterlife is optimistic. In his own way, this was his way of alluding to his own beliefs while simultaneously acceding to hope that there is something more. The horror was to lose one's mind... the hope, that there was some form of external cogent cause... the implication in microcosm of some larger framework.

Spielberg saved AI? Are you fucking kidding me? Spielberg is a hack who rehashes his own unresolved father issues in EVERY FILM HE DOES.

Kubrick's only flaws as a filmmaker are that he had no sense of humor; therefore he couldn't give his films a variety of tone. The other is that he was a shitty editor. His films ran too long because he could not edit himself. There's a lot to be said about directors who get final cut because most who do end up producing indulgent films. Kubrick is no exception. You could trim serious fat from almost all of his films.

Oh, and Barry Lyndon is a fucking amazing film and IMO one of the most underrated films of all time.

Re:Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images (2, Insightful)

sparkchaser (594964) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890443)

A.I. should have ended with the boy at the foot of the statue but NOOOOOOO, Spielberg had to tack on a Spielberg ending.

Re:Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images (1)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890480)

Kubrick's only flaws as a filmmaker are that he had no sense of humor; therefore he couldn't give his films a variety of tone.

Erm... Doctor Strangelove?

Even 2001 has a brilliant joke - that being the terrifyingly long instruction sheet for the zero-gravity toilet... ;-)

Re:Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images (1)

BewireNomali (618969) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890548)

lol, I maintain that he didn't have a sense of humor. I'm a huge Kubrick fan, btw.

Re:Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890581)

Barry Lyndon - fantastic.
I love the lighting. This is one of my favorite period pieces.

In the tone of lighting, The Musketeer was also lit authenticly. Most people hated the Musketeer but I enjoyed it as a matinee type of popcorn flick. Just sit and enjoy the chop-socky action.

Re:Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images (1)

wrecked (681366) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890588)

Kubrick's only flaws as a filmmaker are that he had no sense of humor; therefore he couldn't give his films a variety of tone.

I have to respectfully disagree with your comment here. He had a sense of humour, but it was dark and satirical: Dr. Strangelove (which is still hilarious to this day), Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket.

Re:Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images (1)

BewireNomali (618969) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890631)

I willingly concede that I could be the one without the sense of humor. I do agree with you that even in humor he ventured towards darker aspects of things.

 

Re:Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images (1)

rumblin'rabbit (711865) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890771)

It is possible to miss the subtle humour behind somebody beating the crap out of an old man while singing "Singin' In The Rain".

Carl Sagan (2, Informative)

sbowles (602816) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890065)

I wonder what stupid things Carl Sagan said that he wasn't willing to have his statements published without having "editorial control"?

Re:Carl Sagan (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890396)

"I love the pot! I love it so much I smoke bales of it! Biiillllions and billions of bales!

I sure do love me some pot!"

You don't get 2001? (0)

chivo243 (808298) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890088)



It was a fuckin' comedy! a dark comedy! c'mon already. Like "WiseBlood"...

Re:You don't get 2001? (1)

chivo243 (808298) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890306)

is it that Cliff posted this, or that I have a HIGH MEMEBER number that you took the one point from me and did format it?! cool!

The Real "Secret" of Kubrick's Classic (5, Insightful)

Zevon 2000 (593515) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890133)

Cutting edge visuals and cinematography presented with a sweeping score, a healthy dose of symbolism, and slow pacing...all released at a time when a significant proportion of the moviegoing public was experimenting with marijuana and hallucinogenics. Seriously, the word of mouth publicity about what a great movie this was to see while stoned and/or tripping had a LOT to do with its success. I had a professor who claims he saw it two or three times a week when it was out, and then years later saw it sober and couldn't believe how long some of the scenes took to unfold while nothing was happening. You don't need drugs to appreciate the film, but they don't hurt. You also don't need to have read the books to appreciate the film, and in my mind having read them DOES hurt. This is a big example of a movie ignoring a lot of what makes a book good, and it seems to get a free pass because of what it did visually. The movie and the books are both good, but in totally different ways.

Re:The Real "Secret" of Kubrick's Classic (1)

cyber0ne (640846) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890247)

This is a big example of a movie ignoring a lot of what makes a book good, and it seems to get a free pass because of what it did visually.

I'd grant it a "free pass" since, if for no other reason, the book didn't exist at the time. As others in this thread have pointed out, Kubrick and Clarke co-authored the screenplay for the movie. Afterwards, Clarke wrote the novel.

The Real "Secret" of Kubrick's Classic (1, Redundant)

Zevon 2000 (593515) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890164)

Cutting edge visuals and cinematography presented with a sweeping score, a healthy dose of symbolism, and slow pacing...all released at a time when a significant proportion of the moviegoing public was experimenting with marijuana and hallucinogenics.

Seriously, the word of mouth publicity about what a great movie this was to see while stoned and/or tripping had a LOT to do with its success. I had a professor who claims he saw it two or three times a week when it was out, and then years later saw it sober and couldn't believe how long some of the scenes took to unfold while nothing was happening. You don't need drugs to appreciate the film, but they don't hurt.

You also don't need to have read the books to appreciate the film, and in my mind having read them DOES hurt. This is a big example of a movie ignoring a lot of what makes a book good, and it seems to get a free pass because of what it did visually. The movie and the books are both good, but in totally different ways.

But at my back I hear Time's winged chariot ... (1)

FishandChips (695645) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890182)

The article really doesn't tell us much, apart from the notion that ideas about extraterrestrial life project a society's current fears and preoccupations, but then we knew that.

Perhaps our ideas have changed a bit in the last 20-30 years, though. These days it seems that we are slowly coming round to the notion that extraterrestrial life does exist and is more of a given than a wild speculation, so the next and pressing question is what sort of life?

You can see the old projections in the popular coverage of the Mars explorers, where the theme seems to be that life, if it existed, is or was on a collision course with the planet whose conditions fostered it in the first place and then snuffed it out. Cue global warming, etc.

i just realize.. (1)

shoelessone (924433) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890230)

guys, i just like realized, that this whole idea on looking back on looking forward is fucking brilliant. shit, i mean, if i had looked back, on looking forward, before i had gone forward in the first place, i really feel like i could have been in a lot better place then i am now. i mean, maybe i could have been married. or had kids. instead, i just drink myself silly at night, every night. i mean, i'm only 17 for gods sake. I've gotten 4 girls pregnant at my highschool. they all wanted abortions, so no kids yet :(. What should I do? is ther some sort of slashdot clinic for the clinically depressed? also, what does hexokinase have to do with glyconeogenis i wonder? perhaps its one of those enzymes that only works in one direction!? I THINK SO YOU LEVIS! :heart:

You, child, want GameFAQs! (0, Flamebait)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890280)

You don't belong here with the big boys (and maybe girl, if Eugenia counts as a girl) at Slashdot. Head on over to the GameFAQs.com forums. They're rife with angsty emo teens such yourself.

Re:You, child, want GameFAQs! (1)

shoelessone (924433) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890303)

i'm not a teen :( - i'm 20 years old.

and i have a biochem exam in a few hours. yet here i am, spamming on slashdot.
you should mod this up cyricZ.

p.s. slashdot == big boyz? nein nukea!

p.p.s. gamefaqs is the fucking loose. genmay.com FTW

Re:You, child, want GameFAQs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13890570)

instead, i just drink myself silly at night, every night. i mean, i'm only 17 for gods sake

i'm not a teen :( - i'm 20 years old.

This reminds me of the end of 2001, where Dave Bowman finds himself years older with the passing of only a few seconds.

Stork's "HAL's Legacy" book (2, Informative)

peter303 (12292) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890304)

A few years ago David Stork [ricoh.com] published a series of interviews [ricoh.com] 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.

Hmmmm.... (1, Offtopic)

8127972 (73495) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890331)

'My Windows 98 computer tells lies and often forces me to shut down improperly. Such behaviour in a human would be called neurotic.'"

Hey Stanley, you might want to try Ubuntu. It's behaviour in relation to a human would be called stable.

If you enjoy reading what people of... (3, Interesting)

Darius Jedburgh (920018) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890554)

...days gone by have to say about the future we live in today then I recommend Today, Then [amazon.com] , a collection of essays written about 100 years ago about now. It's amazing just how off the mark most people are. But there are some great insights: my favorite being one essay that opens saying something like "All mail will be electronic". Not bad for over 100 years ago! I don't recall reading even the slightest hint that number crunching machines would have any significance in anyone's life.

Progress...or not? (3, Interesting)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | more than 8 years ago | (#13890598)

You know, this looking back can be facinating. Humankind succeeded in landing on the Moon (granted with effort) in 40 years (counting from pre-WWII to 1969). Thirty six years later we're struggling to go back. Is that a fair description? I think so. While we have progressed in many areas, we are hardly any better at getting off this planet than we were back then. Legend has it that when 2001: A Space Odyssey was first shown to NASA employees, they were awed by the vision of space exploration the movie portrayed. Up to that point, it is said that NASA was thinking in terms of sensor and robotic exploration. Sound familiar? It should, since that is the kind of mission we design today without exception. Apparently, it looks like the vision in the movie failed to inspire a real change. While I think robotic exploration is the right first step, how long does it take to make that second step of sending human explorers?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?