The day 2001: A Space Odyssey opened in a theatre where I live the prac physics class at my university was almost empty much to the chagrin of the physics tutor. He didn't need to be told why his class had disappeared such was the film's publicly.
Next day we all cropped it especially me because I'd also just written a critical piece in the student rag about how badly science was being taught—right, it didn't go unnoticed (sometimes one loses one's presence of mind and that was just such an occasion).
I recall leaving the theatre with my mates in complete silence, we were essentially struck dumb while trying to understand or explain the film's unusual ending. Eventually we stammered out what we thought were explanations whilst trying to find the right adjectives. I cannot ever recall leaving another film in such a strange emotional state.
I am not and never have been a science fiction movie fan - Star Wars and such leave me bored to tears, I find science itself far more intesting, it's actually real and not just make believe. However, 2001 is in a different league altogether and for me the film remains one of the truly great film masterpieces. Much has been written about it so there's nothing I can add except to say it has stood the test of time—over a half century later it still thrills and entertains.
Only two weeks ago I saw the film again on TV and it still has retained much of its original aura. Yes, time and technology has partially caught up with it but only just—and I wish the film would be fully restored or digitally remastered to its former glory.
(I recall seeing a re-release of the film some seven or eight years after its first screening, this time in 70mm and not in its original Super Panavision format and I was somewhat disappointed as the print had lost some of its original lustre, the fantastic kaleidoscopic colours that appeared towards the end of the film were less intense and less saturated than the original (none of the copies I've seen since have equalled the truly excellent quality of that original Super Panavision print I saw back in 1968.)
I was confused about the AT&T complaint, since AT&T and the Bell system were the same My italics for the confusing part):
> What is even more interesting, however, is that Noll almost got into trouble for submitting the Bell System seal to producers who then displayed the seal outside of the video-phone booth in the movie (shown below). AT&T accused Bell System of violating a consent decree, which outlined that the Bell System could only cover domestic telecommunication. By depicting the logo in a space station in the film, it was implied that the System worked in space, which violated the consent decree … crazy right? Fortunately, they were able to settle the dispute.
Turns out this is likely be a typo. AT&T was afraid that the movie's depiction might imply that they were willing to violate their consent decree, and I guess the lawyers wanted to claim it was unauthorized in case the government contacted them. Kind of like the blustery letters lawyers sometimes send about trademarks: they have no intention of doing anything, but have to demonstrate that they "took steps to defend their trademark".
> After the movie appeared in early 1968, a manager at AT&T telephoned me to complain strongly that the Bell System seal had been used in the movie. AT&T objected because the use of the Bell seal implied that the Bell System was providing telecommunication service outside the United States, which court decree forbade it from doing. When I told the AT&T person that Pierce had approved my effort I was saved from the wrath. ...
The article discusses the picture-phone in 2001 as if it's commonplace technology today, but it really isn't. It's available, but people don't actually use it much outside of Zoom meetings for work. I've tried getting my family to use video chats to keep in touch since I live so far away from them, and either they can't be bothered (they just want to use voice, no video, and even this is rare), or they use their phone held in their hand so all I see is a blurry, shaky image far worse than the worst shaky-cam movie you can think of. We have the technical means to have great video chats, but we don't really use them; instead, people now prefer to communicate solely by text message, so we're effectively going back to something like a fancy telegraph.
The Facebook Portal (2018-22) was the greatest home videophone.
When it came out, I was living in a different country than the rest of our extended family. We got three Portals for Christmas: one for us, one for each of the grandparents. All of us still use the devices regularly to call other as well as other people.
The UI is grandma- and kid-friendly with big clear buttons and nothing extra. The camera is very good for family video calls because it’s a fisheye that’s digitally cropped and corrected to provide automatic pan and zoom. The kids can run to the other end of the room, and the Portal will automatically follow them and crop the image neatly.
The Facebook brand probably did it no favors, and they really dropped the ball during Covid by not having Zoom available until very late in the game.
RIP sweet dedicated family videophone. With how much money Meta lost on this, I don’t suppose anyone will try again anytime soon.
We went with the Lenovo Smart screen and used Google Duo. It worked really great. I would have preferred some dedicated buttons but we were able to get our 90 year old great grandmother to use it.
Alas this was backed by Google and they no longer think Duo is fun.
It seems that everyone want to be on the video conference market but no-one wants to cater to simple point-to-point calling.
I really hoped the SIP standard would rule the world by now. But that did not happen either.
As a family distributed globally we jumped on FaceTime for video calls early on. Each family had an iPad (later a few had iPhones too) and the UI was grandparent friendly. Actually seeing, as opposed to just hearing, my nephews grow up was fantastic. Being able to see art they made at school, see fancy dress costumes, etc. made the family feel much closer - despite 8hrs time difference.
My cousins use it in their family and love the product. It’s funny though that my aunt saw it at an Amazon store in the Mall, went to Apple Store to see if they had one, then went back and bought like 9 portals.
It boggles the mind that there isn’t a FaceTime video unit!
I think that's just your family- and friend-group or maybe local culture. My family and friends are always making video calls on WhatsApp. Probably more common than voice calls, but less than audio messages.
> It's available, but people don't actually use it much outside of Zoom meetings for work
This is just your environment. There are some cultures which embraced videocalls so much it's annoying to be around because, surprise! you can't make a quiet videocall in public.
I find video calls annoying when out in public because a) I don't want to be looking at my screen if I'm moving about and b) I probably don't want to hold my phone still enough to be worth anyone looking at me while out
But... as long as you use earphones not speakerphone, there's no need for it to be any louder than just a regular phone call? I guess maybe you meant that most people wouldn't bother using headphones at all... but tbh I see more people using speaker for voice calls than video calls, nearly every video call I see someone doing on public does involve headphones/earphones.
We have friends from an ethnic community who have a large extended family scattered all over the east coast and California. They literally have an all day Zoom meeting that about a dozen people are in at any given time. It’s kinda nuts but also really cool.
> The article discusses the picture-phone in 2001 as if it's commonplace technology today, but it really isn't. It's available, but people don't actually use it much outside of Zoom meetings for work.
Before Covid this was definitely true. However, since early 2020 there has been a significant trend of people turning their cameras on during conference calls. And not just for work, my local AFOL club has weekly zoom meetings where most participants use video. Family members will sometimes do a group video chat on FB.
I likely participate in more video calls per week than sci-fi writers and scientists of the 1960's imagined, mainly because the incremental cost today is zero (we pay for it whether we use it or not).
> people now prefer to communicate solely by text message, so we're effectively going back to something like a fancy telegraph.
While true, I don't think that makes video calls an irrelevant novelty.
I live on the east coast and my siblings live on the west coast of the USA. We mostly do video calls.
One time, must be at least 5 years ago, I was waiting for a bus in Flushing, NY and watched a woman doing one-handed sign language (eg. Not talking) on a video call walking down Main Street.
My teenager doesn’t understand why anyone wouldn’t FaceTime. I can’t get her to call on the phone - she video calls everyone (Of course she texts as well).
I feel this may be a generational shift, especially when you also consider the terrible spam problem that the phone system has.
I think of the classic sci-fi depiction of "picture phones", and they are almost exclusively a device mounted on a wall, much like the original telephone. Maybe it's just a usability issue, in that holding a phone pointing at yourself is a bit annoying?
Colossus: The Forbin Project had videophones everywhere, but they were shaped like tiny terminals, placed on desktops, and there is at least one scene where a someone wants to use the device and moves it to face them, so the devices are not fastened.
Everyone had a video phone in Space: 1999; it was called a Comlock. It could open doors and communicate via video. It would take another 11 years for iPhones to catch up! Sadly those people living on the moon in 1999 would never get to see one.
> We have the technical means to have great video chats, but we don't really use them; instead, people now prefer to communicate solely by text message, so we're effectively going back to something like a fancy telegraph.
The humble, asynchronous text message is tremendously efficient in helping people decide if it is worth having a synchronous call/video call.
My girlfriend facetimes her friends pretty frequently, and her 70-year-old mom every day. They both hold their phones in their hands but the image isn't all that blurry or shaky.
I find the Bell Labs phenomenon fascinating. This book highlights some of the fascinating parts and one of my favorites. It goes in more detail about the video phone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idea_Factory.
Just finished this book and I agree wholeheartedly. It is pretty mind-bending for me to consider the extent of the technological changes that happened in my grandmother’s lifetime, and how quickly those changes just faded into the background. I particularly liked how the author presented several different viewpoints at the end on what made bell labs such fertile ground.
> The case ended with a consent decree on January 24, 1956, containing two remedies: First, the Bell System had to license ... its patents ... Second, the Bell System was barred from engaging in any business other than telecommunications.
I'm still mystified, because telecommunications in space would presumably still be telecommunications, just light-seconds kind of tele-?
It was an issue because licensing their logo was not a telecommunications use.
Some more background on the consent decree, first one needs to understand what state of the art was in 1956 -
* No Digital anything, PCM was on the drawing boards, but not in production.
* Analog FDMA carrier, either over open wire, coax or microwave.
* DDD (Direct Distance Dialing) had just been introduced to large cities, but was still not universally available, even in places with dial service.
* Significant amounts of open wire carrier in large swaths of the country, the coming microwave and coax networks were still under construction.
* No transistors capable of much over 1 MHz
* Electromechanical Switching, however remreed and transistorized stored program switching was on the drawing boards.
* No Touch Tone dialing, all dial service is rotary, however significant parts of the country still have manual only service.
The big fear was Bell getting into computing or any other kinds of high technology - simply because of their steady revenue from the BOC's - they could sustain a loss on a new line of business for many years while they developed the technology.
To give further background, AT&T developed roughly half of the foundational technologies that powers our world today.
From other comments, I believe they were limited to regulated telecommunications, not just any telecom, and limited to the US and Canada (they didn't divest Bell Canada until sometime after 1956). They partipated (which included a lot of enabling r&d at bell labs, etc) in submarine cables and satellite communications to connect with other telephone operators abroad, but they didn't run telephone operations outside the country (and Canada). And they certainly would not have had a payphone outside the country.
Of course, maybe the space component would be considered in the united states for regulatory reasons, etc, in which case it's fine. Or maybe the FCC claims to regulate the space end despite lack of jurisdiction, that'd be fine too.
Next day we all cropped it especially me because I'd also just written a critical piece in the student rag about how badly science was being taught—right, it didn't go unnoticed (sometimes one loses one's presence of mind and that was just such an occasion).
I recall leaving the theatre with my mates in complete silence, we were essentially struck dumb while trying to understand or explain the film's unusual ending. Eventually we stammered out what we thought were explanations whilst trying to find the right adjectives. I cannot ever recall leaving another film in such a strange emotional state.
I am not and never have been a science fiction movie fan - Star Wars and such leave me bored to tears, I find science itself far more intesting, it's actually real and not just make believe. However, 2001 is in a different league altogether and for me the film remains one of the truly great film masterpieces. Much has been written about it so there's nothing I can add except to say it has stood the test of time—over a half century later it still thrills and entertains.
Only two weeks ago I saw the film again on TV and it still has retained much of its original aura. Yes, time and technology has partially caught up with it but only just—and I wish the film would be fully restored or digitally remastered to its former glory.
(I recall seeing a re-release of the film some seven or eight years after its first screening, this time in 70mm and not in its original Super Panavision format and I was somewhat disappointed as the print had lost some of its original lustre, the fantastic kaleidoscopic colours that appeared towards the end of the film were less intense and less saturated than the original (none of the copies I've seen since have equalled the truly excellent quality of that original Super Panavision print I saw back in 1968.)