3 ms·

Fascinating to imagine all the 16mm projectors hanging off the back of the consoles in order to simulate what would, many decades later, be a 1/8" thick OLED di

• KineticLensman 2y ago
  Interestingly the 1982 Bladerunner used CRTs for many of its computer terminals which (to me) give it a somewhat dated look - the screens have noticeable curves
  • JKCalhoun 2y ago
    Given the film-noir vibe and recycled-future look, CRT's might have been an intentional artistic choice.
• wkat4242 2y ago
  Yes and be didn't just predict space travel and display tech but also AI.
  • WalterBright 2y ago
    Arthur C Clarke collaborated closely with Kubrick on developing the story.
    • wkat4242 2y ago
      Oh yeah true I forgot it was just based on a book.
      • WalterBright 2y ago
        The book and movie were done at the same time. Clarke wrote multiple versions of it - see "The Lost Worlds of 2001". The concept is from a short story "The Sentinel" by Clarke.
  • Aardwolf 2y ago
    I don't know what the modules Bowman is unplugging in the HAL computer represented in the film back then, but today they can easily be seen as each being a CPU board, GPU or SSD. Maybe in the 60s they represented circuits with a few transistors, magnetic cores or tapes. It's interesting that the art style was made universal enough to work for computing technology of any era
• shiroiushi 2y ago
  >Was that "common knowledge" in the sci-fi community back then? That future displays would be flat, thin, rectangular? I really don't know, and maybe I'm assuming too much, but it seems to me that guessing that displays in the future would be flat, thin, and rectangular would be merely logical extrapolation, not any great feat of insight. Displays were already rectangular (basically) for many good reasons: we see this in both movie screens, and televisions. They played around with various aspect ratios, and found that people generally liked wide screens for movies, including extremely wide aspect ratios for "epic" movies like Lawrence of Arabia. Given the way CRTs worked, it would have been easier to have circular displays in those days, but they didn't, except for really, really old oscilloscopes. Long before CRTs, people already had photographs, and here again they were rectangular, despite camera lenses being circular. They didn't even like square photos, despite that being technically easier with circular lenses. So I think any idiot in 1960 could have guessed that displays in the future would remain rectangular. Of course, TVs at the time were not truly rectangular (they had rounded corners), but that was a technical limitation due to how CRTs worked. There was no effort to make movie theater screens look like that. Flatness too seems pretty common-sense. Photographs and movie screens were flat. TVs weren't totally flat, but again it was a technical limitation, and they made them as flat as they reasonably could with the technology available. Predicting thinness doesn't seem to be any feat of brilliance either: again, photographs and movie screens were very thin, obviously. Movie screens relied on rear projection, but that's a technical limitation. TVs weren't thin at all, but again this is a technical limitation, due to how CRTs worked. There were efforts to make CRT TVs thinner; I remember even reading about one attempt to have the CRT mounted sideways and somehow make the electron beam take a 90-degree turn. People didn't really want displays to be so thick. And as we saw from history in the 90s/00s, as soon as decent LCD flat-screen monitors became available, consumers quickly abandoned CRTs.
  • 486sx33 2y ago
    “but it seems to me that guessing that displays in the future would be flat, thin, and rectangular would be merely logical extrapolation, not any great feat of insight.” Well it did take Bell Labs to tell Kubrick this is what they thought the future would look like, I’d call that some amount of insight