Could this artificially intelligent pilot spell trouble for his crewmates? Unfortunately, HAL decides to shut them down first. And in the film, the ironies pile up even higher.
A HAL computer makes a mistake. A mission controller confirms that is a mistake — because his own identical HAL computer on Earth says so. Not that is simply a Dr Strangelove sequel. View Iframe URL. Audio: Listen to this story. To hear more feature stories, download the Audm app for your iPhone. Many who stayed jeered throughout.
Kubrick nervously shuttled between his seat in the front row and the projection booth, where he tweaked the sound and the focus. Arthur C. David Bowie took a few drops of cannabis tincture before watching, and countless others dropped acid. These movies, though cheesy, found a new use for editing and special effects: to mimic psychedelic visions.
The power of the movie has always been unusually bound up with the story of how it was made. He had one advantage over reality: the film could present the marvels of the universe in lavish color and sound, on an enormous canvas. If Kubrick could make the movie he imagined, the grainy images from the lunar surface shown on dinky TV screens would seem comparatively unreal.
In Clarke, Kubrick found a willing accomplice. Clarke had served as a radar instructor in the R. His reputation as perhaps the most rigorous of living sci-fi writers, the author of several critically acclaimed novels, was widespread. Kubrick needed somebody who had knowledge and imagination in equal parts. The Space Odyssey is not something one can just "go and see". One has to be ready for it, or it cannot be understood.
In fact I don't think it can be understood at all, at least not all of it at once. It is a philosophical journey to the infinite and beyond, a masterpiece of it's genre and still after 32 years technically quite impressive all the way to the powerful musical soundtrack featuring 'Also spracht Zarathustra' by Richard Strauss and 'Blue Danube' by Johann Strauss.
Take all the time you want, but eventually you are going to have to see this film. If it can bring some order and understanding to the universe of a struggling artist like me, it can certainly do it for you as well.
Or maybe I'm just plain crazy FAQ Why did we see 7 "stars" during David's travel into the wormhole and what is the meaning behind it? What became of the hominid monolith? When we see HAL reading the lips of the two men, we don't hear what they are saying. What were they saying to each other, when we couldn't hear them? Details Edit. Release date June 24, United States.
United Kingdom United States. Official Facebook. English Russian French. Journey Beyond the Stars. Box office Edit. Technical specs Edit. Runtime 2 hours 29 minutes. Related news. Oct 26 Indiewire. Oct 24 ScreenRant. Contribute to this page Suggest an edit or add missing content. Top Gap. In fact, they worked on pretty much all the specific technical features of HAL shown in And of course HAL was physically big—like a mainframe computer actually even big enough that a person could go inside the computer.
Back then, IBM always strenuously avoided ever saying that computers could themselves be smart; they just emphasized that computers would do what people told them to.
Somewhat ironically, the internal slogan that IBM used for its employees was "Think. An interesting letter from surfaced recently. The producer writes back, talking about IBM as "the technical advisor for the computer," and saying that IBM will be OK so long as they are "not associated with the equipment failure by name. Clarke always claimed this was a coincidence, and it probably was.
Like some other companies, IBM was fond of naming its products with numbers. But, rather curiously, there was not a single one starting with 9: there was no IBM series. And I suspect that was due to HAL. Hollister, who was interviewed in by the New York Times about why IBM—unlike its competitors—ran general advertising think Super Bowl , given that only a thin stratum of corporate executives actually made purchasing decisions about computers.
He then added "It is important that important people understand what a computer is and what it can do. OK, so now we know—at least over the span of 50 years—what happened to the predictions from , and in effect how science fiction did or did not turn into science fact. So what does this tell us about predictions we might make today? In my observation things break into three basic categories. Second, there are surprises that basically nobody expects, though sometimes in retrospect they may seem somewhat obvious.
Something people have talked about for ages, that surely will eventually happen, is routine space travel. When was released, no humans had ever ventured beyond Earth orbit.
And made what might have seemed like a reasonable prediction that by the year people would routinely be traveling to the Moon, and would be able to get as far as Jupiter. But actually it probably could have, if it had been considered a sufficient priority. Yes, space has always been more broadly popular than, say, ocean exploration. Will it ever happen? But will it take 5 years or 50? People have been talking about space travel for well over a hundred years.
A more mundane example of what one might call inexorable technology development is videophones. Once one had phones and one had television, it was sort of inevitable that eventually one would have videophones.
And, yes, there were prototypes in the s. But it was basically inevitable that it eventually would. In science fiction, basically ever since radio was invented, it was common to imagine that in the future everyone would be able to communicate through radio instantly. And, yes, it took the better part of a century. But eventually we got cellphones. And in time we got smartphones that could serve as magic maps, and magic mirrors, and much more. I remember back in the s trying out early VR systems.
But back then, they never really caught on. But something like that surely will. Though exactly when is not clear. There are endless examples one can cite. People have been talking about self-driving cars since at least the s. And eventually they will exist. People have talked about flying cars for even longer. Maybe modern drones will solve the problem.
But again, eventually there will be flying cars. Similarly, there will eventually be robotics everywhere. In other words, instead of relying on the structure of physical devices, one builds up capabilities using computation.
What is the end point of this? To me, this seems like an inevitable outcome. But whether these kinds of things will be considered worth doing is not so clear. Bringing back dinosaurs? Perhaps one of the oldest science fiction ideas ever is immortality. And, yes, human lifespans have been increasing. But will there come a point where humans can for practical purposes be immortal? I am quite certain that there will. Quite whether the path will be primarily biological, or primarily digital, or some combination involving molecular-scale technology, I do not know.
But I consider it a certainty that eventually the old idea of human immortality will become a reality. Curiously, Kubrick—who was something of an enthusiast for things like cryonics—said in an interview in that one of the things he thought might have happened by the year is the elimination of old age.
And even given such a theory, computational irreducibility means it can be arbitrarily hard to work out the consequence for some particular issue. For example, it perfectly well could be possible to scan an object at an atomic scale, and then reinterpret it, and build up using molecular-scale construction at least a very good approximation to it that happens to be much smaller. What about faster-than-light travel? Or conceivably one will be able to use quantum mechanics to effectively achieve it.
But these kinds of solutions assume that what one cares about are things happening directly in our physical universe. And, yes, at the level of the underlying hardware maybe there will be restrictions based on the speed of light. And, yes, in a setup like this, one can also imagine another science fiction favorite: time travel notwithstanding its many philosophical issues.
OK, so what about surprises? Computers are far more ubiquitous than almost anyone expected. Often in retrospect one imagines that such changes of thinking just occur—say in the mind of one particular person—out of the blue.
The first part of the movie shows an alien artifact—a black monolith—that appears in the world of our ape ancestors, and starts the process that leads to modern civilization. Maybe the monolith is supposed to communicate critical ideas to the apes by some kind of telepathic transmission. But I like to have another interpretation. No ape 4 million years ago had ever seen a perfect black monolith, with a precise geometrical shape.
But as soon as they saw one, they could tell that something they had never imagined was possible. And the result was that their worldview was forever changed. When I first saw fifty years ago nobody knew whether there would turn out to be life on Mars. But lichens or microorganisms seemed, if anything, more likely than not. But in general people seemed neither particularly excited, or particularly concerned, about this prospect.
Yes, there would be mention of the time when a radio broadcast of H. But 20 or so years after the end of World War II, people were much more concerned about the ongoing Cold War, and what seemed like the real possibility that the world would imminently blow itself up in a giant nuclear conflagration.
0コメント