In Reply to: starstuff posted by late on November 3, 2001 at 18:18:05:
2001 still stands up IMO. Beyond the premises of aliens, monoliths and suspended animation, pretty much all of the space travel/special effects in 2001 hold up to the realities of physics - which are as valid today as they were then.
Clarke was a scientist and a sci-fi writer - (Like Fred Hoyle I believe). He "invented" the theory of the geo-stationary orbit which makes stationary communications satellites possible - he had a cutting edge knowledge of the physics involved.
Most remarkable is that at the time, only a handfull of humans had ever been in space and the Apollo moon landing occurred after 2001 was in the can. Comparisons with Star Wars etc are pointless. None of their effects are remotely realistic. Fireballs do not occure in space, starfighters don't turn like F-14's. Gravity and the english language are not universal. When they talk on the phone they have normal communications, even though they are lightyears apart.What amazes me most, is that a 2001 scenario could still happen and if it did, it would happen much like Clarke/Kubrick foretold. The only major change is that no-one would be wearing stovepipe plaid suites on the space station :~)
BTW My wife and my sister both hate it. They both fall asleep in the exact same spot, when HAL first starts to show signs of losing it. I can watch it over and over.
Cheers
John K
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Technically - JDK 17:49:29 11/05/01 (1)
- Re: Technically - demonica 19:31:34 11/06/01 (0)