Did Kubrick ever confront the fact that 2001: A Space Odyssey is nothing like our actual 2001?

Did Kubrick ever confront the fact that 2001: A Space Odyssey is nothing like our actual 2001?

Yes he wrote 9 books on the subject

No he died

He was dead by then.

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.

You mean boring, self-masturbatory dribble? Pretty spot on.

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.

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.

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

He adapted a book. He didn't actually create 2001 from scratch. Idiot.

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.

>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?

Just fucking kill yourself.

>mom, i'm trolling!

If you're not able to answer, just leave the thread you autists.

just doesnt matter bro. could have just as well been 3001.

Why do you think it's not? We landed on moon and if we really need to we can travel to Saturn.

> 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

>if we really need to we can travel to Saturn.
>Being this pop-sci

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.

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.

everyone knows what you meant, autist

Chill out, spergmeister. Keep up with the thread.

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.

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

What I never got was why wasn't he awarded a prize or something for creating the most effective cure for insomnia

But I do forgive the whole film, it would be autistic not to, it's fiction after all

>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.

Childhood's End was a meh show. Worth giving a shot but they lost a lot of the thinking points in the translation.

No, it wouldn't. But the same can be said for any 20 year gap in history

Did Sup Forums ever confront the fact that 2001: A Space Odyssey is a shit movie for 15-year-old director wannabe fags?

Name a better sci fi

blade fun

Only thing noteworthy about Blade Runner is the visuals and 2001 easily beats it in that aspects

spoken like a true retard

whatever stanley jewbrick

>2001 is bad

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.