This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hertfordshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hertfordshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
Booker, M. Keith (2006). "2001: A Space Odyssey". Alternate Americas: Science Fiction Film and American Culture. Praeger. pp. 75–90. ISBN0275983951.
Redner, Gregg (2010). "Strauss, Kubrick and Nietzsche: Recurrence and Reactivity in the Dance of Becoming That Is 2001: A Space Odyssey". In Bartkowiak, Mathew J. Sounds of the Future: Essays on Music in Science Fiction Film. McFarland. pp. 177–193. ISBN0786444800.
Stoehr, Kevin L. (2007). "2001: A Philosophical Odyssey". In Sanders, Steven M. The Philosophy of Science Fiction Film. The Philosophy of Popular Culture. pp. 119–134. ISBN0813124727.
First, I do not know of another film article that has a section by this title. I have to ask what use is it? After all this is an encyclopedia not People Magazine. Next, 10's of 1000's of people had reactions like this - why is RH's any more important than anyone other persons. If the consensus is to include it IMO this one mention has WP:UNDUE problems. A section like this would need more than one persons negative reaction to the film and should include an array of "celebrity" reactions. Other input is welcome but, per WP:CONSENSUS one should be formed before the section is reentered. MarnetteD|Talk 01:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Forgot to leave this link to show the info that the IP wishes to be added. MarnetteD|Talk 01:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
My general bar for content (of any kind) is this: does inclusion enhance the reader's understanding of the subject? In this specific case, the answer is clearly no: Rock Hudson's reaction tells me absolutely nothing other than the fact that Rock Hudson was confused, which does not help me to better understand the film. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, there's no need for a section on its own, esp. with no context of who Hudson is. Infact, this conversation can serve no purpose.... LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 07:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It is of minor interest, and does not need to be mentioned because it is WP:TRIVIA. What it shows is that initial audience reactions to the film were mixed, something which could be mentioned without an anecdote involving a Hollywood star.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 08:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
As I said when I reverted this addition myself not long ago, Hudson is not the only celebrity whose reaction to this film has been recorded, and if someone wants to start a "Celebrity reactions to 2001" article or list, then fill yer boots, but let's not clutter this article with such trivia. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I also concur. In addition, this is not the kind of film that warrants reporting celebrity reactions. A film about celebrities or the paparazzi would warrant reporting such reactions as relevant. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
If it could be tied directly back to the film, that'd be OK. For example, Galaxy Quest has reactions from various Star Trek alumni. But a random anecdote about Rock Hudson is kind of weird. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
This edit recently added a much lower figure to the box-office number in the infobox, sourced to The Numbers. I appreciate that The Numbers is considered a reliable source—and one I have used myself before today—but extreme care must be taken in using it for older box-office data, since in many cases it mistakes the old style gross rental for the box-office gross. In this case, the $12 million figure it has down for 2001: A Space Odyssey's foreign/international gross is incorrect.
Variety reported gross rentals up until the 1990s, and the $12 million figure is actually the foreign gross rental as reported by Variety at the end of 1969, and The Numbers has unfortunately confused this for the box-office gross. The rental is typically only half the exhibition gross (so the foreign gross at this time would have been around $25 million). This is not an uncommon error at The Numbers, and while I would regard it as reliable for sourcing the box-office for current films care must be taken for older films. To illustrate the problem here is another notable example: The Numbers has the foreign gross for Cleopatra (1963) at $14 million. Again, this is the foreign rental: Cleopatra had earned $38 million in worldwide rentals by 1966, with $23.5 million coming from the United States (see Hall & Neal, p.166); simple arithmetic tells us that the foreign rental at this point was $14.5 million (which more or less matches the foreign gross figure at The Numbers).
The problem is exacerbated for 2001 because it was re-released in 1974, 1977, 1980 and 2001 and The Numbers omits foreign earnings from these reissues too. In this instance, The Numbers is simply too incomplete to be used as a source. This leads us to the next question: if The Numbers is wrong, is the TCM database correct with its $190 million worldwide figure? There seem to be no sources to corroborate this figure either, and Kolker (2006, p.16) has the global gross at $138 million. That is a substantial discrepency—over $50 million—but there are a couple of explanations for this: i) Kolker's figure doesn't include all the grosses either; ii) Kolker and TCM may have used different formulas for converting the theatrical rental to grosses. In truth either of those figures could be correct and the Kolker figure should perhaps be added to the infobox, but either way, the figure The Numbers has down for the foreign gross is far below the true value. I hope this clarifies why I reverted the edit. Betty Logan (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Surprised there isn't a section about casting TBH. There's this very interesting article on the BBC site today, stating the Kubrick initially cast Nigel Davenport as HAL, but later decided he did not want a British voice. Not sure where to add this into the article at present. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 17:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
If it is just a sentence or two add it to HAL's entry in the cast section. Betty Logan (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
There's some inconsistency in how HAL is spelled (currently 17 instances of "HAL"— of which 8 are "HAL" used alone and not part of "HAL 9000"— and 27 instances of "Hal"). The HAL 9000 article exclusively uses "HAL" yet the early screenplay draft uses "Hal" when characters address it with speech. The novel also uses "Hal" as a nickname. Any thoughts on this? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The usage should be consistent. The screenplay probably has "Hal" when the word is meant to be spoken as Hal (as in Shallow Hal) to distinguish it from when it is supposed to be pronounced as an acronym i.e. Aitch-Ay-Ell. Regardless of how it is pronounced in the film it is still an acronym so that is the form it should take in written English. Betty Logan (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)