Its contemporaneous success at the time was tied to the rise of the late 1960s counterculture, which was somewhat of a lucky break.
As an asde, I've always loved the rotation-match space docking sequence: https://twitter.com/Doomlaser/status/981172150001373184 — that is the kind of engineering choreography that SpaceX's recent synchronized double rocket landing reminded me of.
And one of my early creative career highlights was convincing everyone at Tapulous to give me the go ahead to do a 7 and a half minute tribute to the 2001 stargate sequence as the final boss in Tap Tap Dance, set to Phantom Pt. II by Justice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-JLnyHT7IU#t=26s
It would have been interesting to have had the 'dialogue scenes' projected onto a smaller section of the screen and then expand out for the space scenes.
As to that particular project with Justice, it almost fell through because we were on a tight deadline to get the game out in time for the 2008 holiday season. We were working 18 hour days (or more) on the thing, and my best friend and collaborator surprised me on the morning of my 25th birthday in November with this Quartz Composer test visualization of what we wanted to do: https://vimeo.com/129257159 — I immediately sent it along to the office, and the CEO called me up and wished me a happy birthday. They were all floored, and he excitedly gave me the go ahead on the proposal.
Same here, seeing it also gives an urge to play Elite again.
Also, a recent discussion here on Kubrick and Clarke: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16781142
That's interesting! Also expensive, I assume?
See, this guy loved this bacon, but the store ran out.
So he found a wrapper and drove out to find the farmer.
No one was around. Wandering, he finely came up on the farmer holding a pig up into an apple tree.
"My God, how much time does that take!"
"Whats time to a pig?"
Sorry, to many words..........
Take your five year old to see the film 'Gandhi', the flicker and strobeing is unbearable.
An example would be that he's known for making actors do a hundred takes. Apparently he made Tom Cruise walk through a door for a hundred different takes! One interpretation of that would be that Cruise couldn't deliver what Kubrick had in his vision. The other would be that Kubrick was trying to tire Cruise out, so that Cruise be too tired to keep "acting", and bring out something neither of them expected, something "real" and "raw" and not rehearsed.
For a while, I was also obsessed with filmmakers who appeared to not adhere to a strict vision, and "discovered" their film, rather than try to construct the film to fit their rigid vision. The likes of Wong Kar Wai or Godard or Wim Wenders, who would write snippets of dialogue the same day they would shoot and improvise with actors. In particular, Wong Kar Wai was known for shooting for years on end, and discarding 95% of the film he shot. He couldn't have envisioned the final product at the beginning.
I find common in all of their approaches to include exploration. Filmmaking is expensive. It's not cheap like sketching with pen on paper, which is why I think most filmmakers "sketch" with the script, and less so while shooting on set, where every minute they are burning cash.
When I was a young teen, I'd look at the art of movies like Star Wars and I couldn't ever achieve anything like that on my own. What I didn't realize was that that art required iteration. Of course it's impossible to come up with a grand idea on the first try on a large canvas! Those concept artists didn't start by creating the final piece, but they drew hundreds of little thumbnail-sized sketches, playing with elements, this curve they like, or that feature.
I think of how much pre-visualization work went into the likes of Star Wars Episode 1, where you CAN'T stop the train once it's been moving, with hundreds of visual effects workers working on something that Lucas has decided on much earlier. In this, I think that the means of production of how people work have outsized effects on the final artistic product.
Probably "The Great Wall and the Tower of Babel", right?
I still hope that expensive university resources, like lab equipment, could be shared better. For example Columbia, CUNY, NYU could certainly co-own expensive equipment to lower costs and access instead of each of them owning their own, if only for the purpose of lowering tuition costs.
Right now this sharing is only true of information. The most liquid and sharable resource.
I don't want to hijack the discussion with well-worn issues, but even information isn't legally sharable in large part.
Do Not lick your ticket.
P.S. I didn't get to read the WSJ screed, i'm outside their club:(
One of my all time favorites. Just to watch~
Would you elaborate on where and what you've heard? As of 3 days ago, the HN stance appears to be the same as it has been for years and as described in the FAQ.
That's how you can read WSJ for free. Delete the tweet when you get to the article, if you're not super pumped about playing into they're coerced promotion game.