• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spielberg looking to make the next 2001?

Data Holmes

Data Holmes

Admiral
Admiral
I was stumbling around on the net as I usually do when I stumbled across a reference to a movie currently in development by Steven Spielberg called Interstellar. IMDB Page

In June 2006, Steven Spielberg announced he would direct a scientifically accurate film about "a group of explorers who travel through a worm hole and into another dimension", from a treatment by Kip Thorne and producer Lynda Obst. In January 2007, screenwriter Jonathan Nolan met with the studio to discuss adapting Obst and Thorne's treatment into a narrative screenplay. The screenwriter suggested the addition of a "time element" to the treatment's basic idea, which was welcomed by Obst and Thorne. In March, Paramount hired Nolan as well as scientists from Caltech, forming a workshop who will begin adapting the treatment after completing the script for Warner Bros.' The Chicago Fire.
Click to expand...


I've also seen speculation that Tom Hanks is connected with this project in an "unofficial way" at present, but some rumors are that he's going to sign up once the film is ready to go into production...



So, is this Spielberg's attempt to create the next "2001"?
 
I'd be interested to know what "scientifically accurate" means in this context.
 
bigdaddy said:
Have we even found a wormhole yet?
Click to expand...
Sure we have. In dirt.

Other than that they are currently nothing more than theoretical constructs created by mathematicians who consume wayyyy too much caffeine.

If Speilberg simply must delve into epic scifi, why not do one of those classic novels that were supposed to become films but never have, like RAMA or Eon?
 
In this version Dave finds out that HAL is his father reborn in a computer.

Thus giving us the Spielberg trademark of having a Father/son element he always seem to find a way to add in his movies.
 
Mistral said:
Rii said:
I'd be interested to know what "scientifically accurate" means in this context.
Click to expand...

Yeah, me too. It's not like we've shoved anything through a wormhole before, y'know?
Click to expand...

Science isn't just observations. Science is constructing theories that codify and explain those observations and make predictions beyond them. The things we do know about the universe allowed us to develop the General Theory of Relativity, many of whose predictions have been confirmed by experiment, so we have very good reason to believe the theory is a good model for the way the universe works. And wormholes are one solution of the equations of General Relativity. They arise from the same math that explains the force of gravity holding you in your chair and holding the Earth in its orbit around the Sun.

So it is definitely possible to tell a scientifically accurate story about travel through a wormhole. It's simply a matter of depicting it in a way that's consistent with what the theory predicts about travel through a wormhole. This is what hard science fiction has been doing since the days of Jules Verne -- telling stories that go beyond direct experience but are accurate in representing the predictions of scientific theory. Because science is not just about describing the known, it's about using the known to make testable predictions about the unknown.

Of course, even the most rigorous hard-SF works take poetic license when it serves the story, and I'd expect even more license from a movie. Still, if a major filmmaker like Spielberg is making an effort to produce a film that's actually grounded in credible science rather than the usual fantasy fluff and lazy, incoherent rubbish, that is something to be celebrated. I also heard recently about several big Hollywood names (perhaps including Hanks, I'm not sure) forming a group that was dedicated to promoting more plausible and accurate science in the movies. That's something I'd really love to see happen.
 
How the film ends: Scientist/astronuat comes home after galaxy-wide catastrophe only to find his children waiting at the front door. They run forward to meet him and everybody hugs while corny John Williams score swells.


God, I HATED WoTW.
 
Tulin said:
How the film ends: Scientist/astronuat comes home after galaxy-wide catastrophe only to find his children waiting at the front door. They run forward to meet him and everybody hugs while corny John Williams score swells.


God, I HATED WoTW.
Click to expand...

Or Dave has a son and the son outsmarts fricken HAL 9000 in the movie:rolleyes:
 
TremblingBluStar said:
If Speilberg simply must delve into epic scifi, why not do one of those classic novels that were supposed to become films but never have, like RAMA or Eon?
Click to expand...

Those stories already exist as books. Why not create something new? I'm about sick of film being used to bring old stories to the masses.
 
^Most of human creativity since the dawn of time has been about bringing old stories to the masses. Virtually all of Shakespeare's plays were adaptations of earlier works. That's how worthwhile stories are kept alive -- by retelling them, reinterpreting them for new audiences, finding new meaning and relevance in them.

Besides, most "original" ideas are just recyclings of old tropes with the names changed anyway. Pick any "original," unadapted zombie movie and it's probably going to be derivative of the best-known zombie movies of the past. Pick any "original" action thriller and it's going to be a reworking of some great action thriller of the past. Most movies are unoriginal in execution even if the title and the character names are new and the specifics of the plot are shuffled around a bit. Originality is in the approach. An innovative filmmaker can bring more freshness to an adaptation of an old story than a hack filmmaker can bring to a totally "new" story.
 
Christopher said:
^Most of human creativity since the dawn of time has been about bringing old stories to the masses. Virtually all of Shakespeare's plays were adaptations of earlier works. That's how worthwhile stories are kept alive -- by retelling them, reinterpreting them for new audiences, finding new meaning and relevance in them.

Besides, most "original" ideas are just recyclings of old tropes with the names changed anyway. Pick any "original," unadapted zombie movie and it's probably going to be derivative of the best-known zombie movies of the past. Pick any "original" action thriller and it's going to be a reworking of some great action thriller of the past. Most movies are unoriginal in execution even if the title and the character names are new and the specifics of the plot are shuffled around a bit. Originality is in the approach. An innovative filmmaker can bring more freshness to an adaptation of an old story than a hack filmmaker can bring to a totally "new" story.
Click to expand...

Ok, I wouldn't dispute any of that - I know there are no truly original ideas - I'm just a bit tired of movies playing second fiddle. I'm not against film adaptations of great books, or comics, or tv shows or plays, or even remakes of other films - if they are done well, but I don't see why, when someone comes up with an original property, people say "yeah, but these books haven't been filmed yet" - you've read the books, you know the story - maybe this new story will be good too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top