I do not agree. If they replaced natural selection with unnatural selection, then it would still be evolution, not manufacturing.
I think they are using a broader definition of evolution than you are. They are talking more of a “process of formation or growth” than the specific biological term in this case. I think this is fair as this process will be replacing the standard evolutionary process in humans. Also, though the process started with only Bowman, I believe that it was going to eventually happen to all of humanity.
Oh god, yes. The series Kaylee though. I like her more with the curvier figure that comes from a full enjoyment of life.
The movie never mentions the term “evolution” and I don’t recall Clarke using the term in his book either. Perhaps you are arguing against either the advertising campaign or what people say about 2001?
It is not clear in the book if there were any genes modified. Images of using tools were placed in the heads of Moonwatcher and the others. I think it can be argued that the ability to use the tools was already there, and the monolith just nudged them along.
As for the end, it is clear from the book that the aliens did evolve to leave their bodies behind. They also nurtured intelligence throughout the galaxy. So their transformation of Bowman can be considered remaking him into what he would be - far into the future - if man followed the same path. I have never seen any official claim that this had anything to do with evolution. I very much doubt the star child can be said to have any genetic material at all.
It’s mostly based on interpretation of the otherwise inscrutable ending for the movie (I haven’t read the book, but this thread is about movies anyway). Many explanations center around the Star Child representing the “next stage of human evolution”; if true (i.e., that’s an accurate explanation for what’s seen on film), it’s crap. If it means something else, fine. But, since the monolith aliens have been implicitly shown to influence man’s evolution, it’s not an unreasonable interpretation that the Star Child is, in fact, intended to represent further evolution.
Okay. Destination Moon. Sure, it’s dated. But scientifically accurate, allowing for actrual development of atomic-, rather than chemical-powered rocket (i.e., Nerva-type propulsion). It was purposefully written and produced to be just that.
Brazil is set “Somewhere In The 20th Century”. Although it is clearly in an alternative reality (in some non-specific city and country), there is nothing about that is really science fiction; as noted, all of the technology portrayed is actually very retrograde. It’s more of a social commentary than science fiction in the strictest sense.
The “androids” in Blade Runner are constructed biological organisms, not machines. While the concept of building a person out of parts is something of a scientific conceit, it is not at all out of the realm of possibility.
2001 posits that hominid evolution was influenced by the unseen aliens who created the monoliths; specifically, that they learn to use tools, originally a femur, later spacecraft and satellite weapons. The “starchild” step of “evolution” is metaphorical; that instead of biological evolution assisted or subverted by the use of tools (what Dawkins, et al would call an “extended phenotype”) it uses direct adaptation beyond natural biology and physical tools (i.e. men in pressure suites and spacecraft) into direct modification of the lifeform. This is beyond biological evolution entirely; hence, a new stage.
Stranger
In the Playboy interview with Kubrick, reprinted in Agel, p.330, the interviewer does talk about “cosmic evolution.” Kubrick mentions how sufficiently advanced aliens would be indistinguishable from God to us. Their manipulation of Bowman, and Moonwatcher, seems no different from animal husbandry. Are dogs the next stage of wolf evolution? No matter - the fact that we created them through breeding is not a dismissal of evolution. Quite the opposite, in fact. If we can rebuild genomes in 100 years (and I’ve read that viruses are now being constructed) and create a new lifeform, is that crap?
There is clearly a big Nietzchean influence, though Kubrick denies that’s the message he intended to convey in words. And, as shown in 2010, book and movie, this happened to Bowman alone. Every other human went on much as before. There is no evidence anywhere that mankind will evolve into star children - in fact in the book Bowman takes that form to symbolize how childlike he is as a “superman.”
Anyhow, intelligent design isn’t bullshit because it’s impossible, it’s bullshit since there is absolutely no evidence for it, and there is no reason to believe in it.
BTW, I think I’ve read pretty much everything Clarke ever wrote, and I have seen no evidence at all that he doesn’t accept evolution as much as you and I.
Second Gattaca for semi-plausible future and would like to add 12 Monkeys. The only time travel movie I’m aware of that makes sense. Gets better with each viewing.
Actually, the Replicants have a built-in 4 year lifespan, deliberately done because the designers were “worried that they might develop their own emotional responses.”
Rollerball (the original), while like Brazil is apparently some kind of alternative reality, everything in it is fairly plausible as I recall.
Oh yes, my thoughts exactly.
How’s about the tv-movie Threads for some depressing fact based joy.
I will admit that I was wrong about Kubrick’s message and/or intent. However, the movie, completely separate from external interviews, books, or anything else, is a muddled, psychadelic mess at the end. Many folks have reached the conclusion – again, absent these external cues that you are relying on – that it all represents how mankind will evolve / has evolved or some such. IF that is a correct interpretation, then the message is crap. IF that is not a correct interpretation, then, again, fine. That’ll teach me to rely on legions of internet wankers and pseudo-philosophers to explain what the real intent was. If it’s a metaphorical statement about Mankind finding his place among the stars, then there’s obviously no disgareement with biological evolution. If it’s Bowman being transformed by aliens into some other lifeform, again, no problem. Doesn’t make a damn bit of sense, and is more magical than scientific, but I can go with that.
Weird, I never had the impression that Bowman’s transformation is supposed to be the next step in evolution or whatever. I just thought the aliens were mucking about again just as they did with the ape-men in the first scene. They were, if anything, interfering with evolution–fortunately for us.
-FrL-
Thanks. I will agree with you that there has been an incredible amount of crap written about 2001. I saw it for the first time weeks after it opened in New York. Having read the Life magazine article, and having read most of Clarke’s books (especially Childhood’s End I had no trouble understanding it. I’ve explained it to people who’ve been confused about it for decades, and it only takes about 10 minutes.
I think the problem is that 2001 is one of the most visual movies ever, and that’s what Kubrick intended. No dialog at all for the first half hour, and none for the last. The best thing about it is what is left out. They tried to construct aliens, but failed. Not showing them worked far better. Even the trip sequence makes sense - insertion, moving through a series of gates across the galaxy, and then across the surface of a star (the interpretation in the book.) Incomprehensible, but think what a prehistoric man would make of being made to look out the window of an express subway train.
I’ve seen no evidence that the sequence was intended to be psychedelic. However, once they figured out that people were getting stoned, sitting in the front row that was usually empty, and watching it again and again, MGM sure marketed it that way.
I know I’m a bit tetchy on this subject, but I’ve seen it dozens of times, and have a lot of supporting material, including the original road show program, posters, and an article from the Times magazine from 1966 about Clarke where he talks about the movie which was in an early stage.
It’s also not clear what was going to happen next. The book ends with the same words about Bowman as about Moonwatcher after the transformation. 2010 and 2061 were about the aliens encouraging the growth of intelligence on Europa, and 3001 was a total mess.
Maybe I should start a “what should have happened after 2001” thread.
I may not be as devoted as you, but I saw it 6 times in the first few days of its release in the theaters. Most people I know consider it boring, perhaps because it was so visual, but I was enthralled. The depiction of space travel, including zero-G, was the most realistic ever done at the movies. I consider the movie a masterpiece.
By the way, I actually liked 3001 more than the other sequels. It certainly had an interesting premise. Would our exposure to the 20th century pace of technology provide us with a better ability to adapt than someone from the 10th century adapting to our time (even though the changes may have been greater in the third millenia)? I think the answer is definitely yes.
And it’s a (lightly fictionalized) true story, based on the (non-fictional and autobiographical) book Awakenings by neurologist and medical raconteur Oliver Sacks (who also wrote the science book with the best title in recorded history, The Man who Mistook His Wife for a Hat).
SF fans would be a lot worse off if we didn’t have the Foundation novels, which of course are entirely dependent on FTL capability. I don’t recall Asimov providing any sort of explanation for it, it’s just there.
My problem with 3001 is that he contradicts much of what is given as fact in 2001. I don’t mind him moving the dates much, but I do mind an ending that is
The moral equivalent of Independence Day.
The stuff on earth was fine, and I liked having Poole come back. Maybe I’d like it more if I reread it.
One of the robot stories is about the discovery of the hyperspace drive, the first linkage between the two series, long before the more recent ones. But since the Empire had hyperspace for so long, it is not surprising that everyone takes it for granted.