Math Anxiety: Why Hollywood Makes Robots of Alan Turing and Other Geniuses
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
So much wrong there. Polish cryptographers broke Enigma, and built the first "bombe", a key-testing machine. Turing figured out how to speed up the process, at a cost in wiring complexity. Turing never "built a programmable machine", although he conceptualized one. Flowers designed Colossus, which wasn't a general purpose computer, just an electronic key-tester, like a Bitcoin mining ASIC. At Bletchly Park, Turing was part of a team headed by Dilly Knox, working with John Jeffreys and Peter Twinn.
There's a forgotten history of electronic digital non-general-purpose computing devices: Teleregister (stock quotes), International Totalizator (racetracks), and Reservisor (airline reservations). The WWII cryptanalysis machines, and the ENIAC, all belong to that category. Programming of those involved big plugboards, not loading memory with a program. That sort of thing disappeared in the 1970s, as CPUs became cheaper. (It's back, with FPGAs and ASICs used for high-performance special purpose tasks like packet routing.)
The real inventor of the modern computer was John von Neumann, who's never had a movie about him. He's the one who insisted that random access memory, with both code and data in the same memory, was the way to go, and that computers should work in binary. His 1946 paper (http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall12/cos375/Bu...) describes most of basic computer architecture, and will look very familiar to anyone who knows how a simple CPU works. In his spare time, he did some design work on the implosion system for the first atomic bomb, and, using an early computer he designed, the EDSAC, some of the design work for the H-bomb. Also lots of good papers on math and quantum mechanics. Von Neumann was a party guy, known for his dinner parties at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. Married twice, divorced once. Not much angst in his life; he was a cheerful sort and had a good life. Died young, in 1957 at age 53, so he didn't get to see the computer era really take off.
Even less well known is the inventor of modern cryptanalysis, William F. Friedman. Friedman turned cryptanalysis from a guessing game to a number-crunching problem. He headed the effort that broke the Japanese "Purple" code, a tougher job than Enigma. Much of the theory behind cryptanalysis is his work. The auditorium at NSA headquarters is named after him. He was a military officer in WWI, married once. Famous quote: "No new cypher is worth looking at unless it comes from someone who has broken a very hard one." Friedman really did break some major cyphers on his own.
Neither von Neumann nor Friedman had unusual personal lives, so they don't have movies. Both were probably smarter than Turing.
it is named after both william and elizabeth friedman, both of whom were professional cryptographers who worked for the US government.
I don't know. Every divorce I'm familiar with is dramatic enough for at least an arthouse drama if not full-blown Hollywood Oscar bait.
And I'm not sure why you would need the personality or proclivities of von Neumann to carry the entire film. The topics he was involved in are interesting and important enough for a good writer to work with. Many, many main characters are outright dull, but we enjoy movies about them for other reasons.
They can't seem to imagine a world where its hard work that actually pays off.
The plot of "Avatar" was depressingly cliche; a standard retelling of the standard action movie plot, done once again. The special effects made it worth seeing, twice for me. Rarely does a movie rise above such things.
http://www.amazon.com/Save-Last-Book-Screenwriting-Youll/dp/...
I liked when Avatar was described as "Pocahontas in Space". It's pretty interesting tooling around on TVTropes.org and seeing exactly how you can break down a movie into well-known and well-worn cliches.
It reminds me a bit of high school literature critique. It used to bother me quite a bit when we'd tease out these meanings from books since I couldn't believe that authors spent their time trying to come up with hidden metaphors on every page. It took a long time to change my perspective to recognize that these books were successful decades after they've been written because of those buried metaphors and tropes. All of the books that were facile and poorly written disappear into history, and whether the authors intended every single sunset to mean something unique, the books are worth studying because they connect in that way and for whatever reason, we connect with those meanings.
Warning for those who get sidetracked easily, TVTropes is a worse wormhole than wikipedia, but it's endlessly interesting to see what's behind successful media: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/Avatar
The ultimate laziness of avatar: The mineral they're after that is so hard to find that is the basis for the movie, what shall we call it? Ahem, unobtainium yeah that's a good name!
I laughed out loud in the movie theater when they revealed that.
There are plenty of playful scientific terms in the real world (the "sonic hedgehog" protein just to take one example).
Maybe they are mispronouncing Ununpentium.
However Unobtanium has been an engineering in-joke since the '50s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium
Really what makes it interesting is in the telling of the story. Did you end up writing Star Wars: A New Hope or another I Love Lucy episode?
If you look at Shakespeare almost all his basic story lines (and many characters) are taken from history or from other plays or stories. That does not mean that Shakespeares plays are "mostly taken from" earlier sources.