Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey

• Talk page archive

Anecdotes

Why are so many little tidbits of autobiographical trivia insterted into the plot summary? For people who have never seen the movie or who are merely wanting to remember what the movie was about, it would really disturb the flow of the read. Scotto 12:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Sierra Mist Commercial

I think the super bowl commercial for Sierra Mist that featured monkeys and 'Also Sprach Zarathustra' should be mentioned, but I don't know enough details to do so. Someone please help. Clarkefreak ∞ 03:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Original research?

The section headed 'Interpretation of the Film' looks like the speculation of contributors, which would qualify as original research. It's not a survey of notable interpretations advanced over the years.

Quite agree - and much of it is based on interpretation of the book, which should not be here.

I would strongly agree if the issue were one of fact, but the main issue regarding original research being problematic (that of verifiability) is absent when it comes to a subjective interpretation - such is inherently unverifiable. I do agree that the material is in violation of the original research prohibition, but it is unclear to what extent it is doing any harm, since it contains inherently unverifiable material.

Given the fact that the material is still original research, it would be a good idea to shelve the interpretation section, and possibly some other parts of the article, and replace them with whatever is available from outside, citable sources that accomplish the same goals of providing a sense of the richness of meaning of the film. Although, personally, I think to clear up further confusion, it would be better to rename the term "original research" to "original thoughts," since I think that is a better description of what should apparently be excluded under the intent of the rule, and which would clearly apply to, as the instant example, subjective commentary on the interpretation of the film, which is inherently exclusive from the issue of verifyability.

So, is there consensus on changing "original research" to "original thoughts," and naturally, still banning the same? Or should this be an issue for the "original research" talk page?

Although some may consider "originality" to be synonymous with "novelty," maybe the word "original" ought to be struck out from the "research" unless an actual date can be supplied with a given viewpoint?

RudolfRadna 16 September 2005 19:50 (UTC)

I was bold and stripped the OR from the "interpretations" section on HAL (and a paragraph before than on "monolith as God".) There was a lot of it, and it is now gone; I've left the Kubrick, Clarke and 2010 material in. I've now removed the OR tag; I think we're good to go. (It's tough to deal with OR when it's something as fun as 2001!) Sdedeo 23:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

That's good, but I'm not sure if "research" is the appropriate term for this. Is thinking about what a movie or poem may mean really research?

RudolfRadna 8 October 2005 17:40 (UTC)

Perhaps this is the wrong place to complain about it, but I don't like the page "Space Odyssey" which states that this film forms part of a series created by Clarke, Kubrick and Hyams comprising two films and several books. The film was created first and is independent of everything else. It was based very loosely on the short story "The Sentinal" but only very loosely indeed. Given that the film was so much the joint work of Kubrick and Clarke, and Kubrick had nothing to do with what followed, I feel it is very wrong to associate it even with Clarke's subsequent books, let alone the 2010 film. It was certainly never intended to be part of a series at the time, nor did Kubrick ever give retrospective approbation to linking it to the books or the Hyams film. JRJW 5 December 2005

I can see where you're coming from. It's not that it was meant to be part of a series, or was part of "The Sentinel" story or any of that. It's that all of the stories are related. Now, Clarke himself has even stated that even his seque;l novels aren't to be taken as literal sequels to 2001. But they all have a common denominator story/thematically-wise. That's why they're grouped as a series. The Wookieepedian 11:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I have just edited the page to make it a bit clearer (though not sure I've stated it very clearly!) that Kubrick was involved only in the first film, and that the later efforts were either Clarke on his own or Hyams working from one of Clarke's novels. I was very disappointed with a lot of the later work. For example, ascribing HAL's behaviour to him being unable to reconcile his operational perfection with living a lie just makes him out to be a malfunctioning computer, rather than the much more intriguing idea that as a computer attaining human intelligence level and self-awareness, he has also developed human frailties. Understandably, given the time it was written, 2010 (book and film) has the cold war as an important plot element, but of course that now dates it severely JRJW.

• I really don't see the point in having an interpretations section for this article. Interpretations, especially for this film, are not facts, they are opinions. I don't see the place of opinions in an encyclopedia and think the sections providing interpretations of the film should be removed. --Allseeingi 21:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point, but I think even if the interpretations (including some of my own, I should confess) are removed, at the least there needs to be a link to some of the better known published opinions. The Kubrick site has a number of them; I've finally gotten around to putting in Kubrick's own quote regarding HAL and a link to the site from whence it came. JRJW

• Interpretations are a necessary byproduct of any commentary. Writing about anything requires an act of interpretation (even writer's who just parrot other writers). The "rules" governing how articles are written for Wikipedia privilages the parrot paradigm. This is somewhat unfortunate, although the discussion pages (while not applauded) occasionally buck the regurgitation rule.

My POV

Not that anyone cares, but with the exception of Never Been Kissed, this is perhaps the worst movie ever made. I think the film is broken into thirds, instead of what the article says. The first part is the monkey/people thing. The second is the middle part with HAL, and the third is the acid trip/need crack to understand thing at the end. The second part is very well done and deserves respect, and the first part isn't even that bad. The trouble really starts when you go on a fly-by of colors for about 10 minutes or so. The movie is really long, and would be better if some of the "motionless" outer space shots were clipped just a few seconds shorter. I suggest renting the movie, press play, and then fast forward, watching it in high-speed until, and after, the HAL part. Don't worry, you won't miss anything. Okay, I'm done complaining. I know some of you can't wait to jump down my throat, so have at it. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

As a wise fictional man once said: "You must learn patience." Yeah, the movie may drag a little at some points, but it's not really meant to make you excited or entertained like a normal movie does. It's purpose is to make you think. Everythin Kubrick and Clarke did in the movie was for a reason. They knew exactly what they were trying to do, and many have never quite understood that this movie isn't like most. The Wookieepedian 22:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to be as logical as a HAL 9000 unit to spot what's wrong with Lord Voldemort's argument: how could a film in three parts of which the first isn't 'that bad' and the second 'is very well done and deserves respect' be 'perhaps the worst movie ever made'? Either LV hasn't seen many films, or he is pitching for a job as a headline writer on a British Tabloid (except a requirement for that job would be ability to write amusing puns). I saw the film for the first time on 1 January 2001, at a special presentation at the National Film Theatre in London. I thought it incredible then and still do. Yes it's slow by modern 'standards' (and even for its time), and yes the ape scene is a bit dated and the stargate journey a bit naff to modern eyes sans lsd, but it is possibly the greatest cinematic achievement of the C20. But don't take my word for it: consider how much of a following and how much serious literature it has created. If you choose not to be a part of it, that's up to you. In that case, however, and especially if Disney films are more your thing, take advice from Thumper in Bambi: if you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say anything. JRJW 3 December 2005

In defense of Lord Voldemort, I agree that the acid trip at the end of the film detracted from the rest of the movie. (One problem with arguing over abstract art is that the creators et al can always hide behind "you don't understand," even if their attempts truly are miserable failures.) On the other, this film has been quite influential, both in concept and style, and you can't let a lousy ending get the better of you (like with Huckleberry Finn). In short, while I used to knock this movie and most of other Kubrick's works, I've come to realize that he's a great director who just sucks at making good endings for films (and, as it's the last thing a movie goer thinks about when seeing a film, it often leaves people with the same sort of feeling LV and I have.) --mwazzap 02:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sexual Symbolism

Hello Wookieepedian -- we seem to be in conflict now over the inclusion of the "sexual symbolism" passage. The inclusion of this passage is a violation of no original research. There is nothing wrong with including it as long as a reasonable source (newspaper, magazine, journal article) is cited as a source for the speculation. However, as it stands, the paragraph should not be included. There are just too many random interpretations that could be made of the film, and wikipedia should only cover those that have been made by reputable sources. Again, I have no problem with the content of the passage, only the fact that it is unsourced by any outside writer. Sdedeo 09:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• I personally recall sexual interpretations floating around in the seventys. Discovery was a sperm. The hotel room an egg. The stargate, a fallopian tube. The monolith, genetalia. Was any of this published? Orally yes. In print? Don't know. Do Wikipedia's rules on "no original research" exclude oral history? Theoretcially it shouldn't, but in practice, it would, because oral history can't be substantiated in the same way as inscripted history. When David Bowman looks back at the pod from which he has (presumably) just emerged (in the hotel room) it is no longer there. The past has been erased.

Merchandising

It might be nice to have a merchandising section included within this article. I remember I few items I used to own, these were;

• A six inch tall posable Action Man type figure wearing a space suit based on the 2001 suit design. Can't remember who made this, but I got it as a birthday present circa 1973 0r 74 I think???
• An Airfix kit of the Pan Am Space Clipper that took Floyd o the space station
• Best of all, a plastic self assembly kit of the moon bus that took Floyd to the TMA crater. this was great, it was about a foot long and had a removable roof so that you could see the pilots the passengers and their cargo. I think it was made by a company called 'Aurora'???

Unfortunately I don't remember this stuff in enough detail to add the section myself, maybe somebody else recalls thsi stuff and other merchandising? quercus robur 00:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It needs to be very comprehensive if it is to ever be a fe3atured article. And of all films, this would be the best for that. The Wookieepedian 00:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Synopsis should stick to the film

The current synopsis includes material from the film as well as the book, and adds considerable interpretation. It would be better that it report only what is seen in the film, which really can stand on its own. Interpretation should be in a separate section. --Macrakis 04:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed this, and I agree. As it currently stands, it attempts to bring in info on Kubrick, Clarke, and the book, and tends to drift away from the story at times. It seems to attempt to analyze things too much. There is a separate article for the book and the film, and I belive we should keep it that way, with only a clear section mentioning the differences. The Wookieepedian 05:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

In the synopsis, I've changed the phrase "where it influences a group of hominids to learn how to use weapons and eat meat" to "where it influences a group of hominids to learn how to use weapons, the first tools" as protohumans were omnivores and thus always able to eat meat, though their new tools likely changed them from being primarily scavengers to predators.--Andymussell 23:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I wrote most of the current text for the synopsis (what was there before was minimal.) I agree with the comments above. I just reworked the whole Dawn of Man section (since I wrote it, I felt free.) It is now (albeit from memory) a lot closer to a film-critical description of the action. I did put a little bit of "intentional stance" stuff in there, that is in agreement with the book, and I borrowed "man-ape" the name "Moon-watcher" from the book because the typical cast listings use it (and who wants to read "man-ape leader" 175 times in a synopsis?)

I redacted some material about the larger story implications, and added some more qualified objective descriptions which give something of the mood of a specific shot or scene in the film but which aren't necessarily part of an absolutely literal description. I have tried to make these "interpretive" statements ones that reasonable people would call "obvious," though I am well aware how very much Kubrick wanted his film to be impressionistic. I put the action 4 million years ago because either Sean Sullivan or Robert Beatty says it's the time TMA-1 was buried while they're on the moonbus: this, however is presumptive from just watching the film, and relies on the book's reasonable suggestion that the intervention of the monolith with the man-apes and the burial of TMA-1 took place during the same approximate timeframe (the old text put a range and mentioned the man-apes as Australopithicenes, though the species isn't clear in the film.)

Basically, I just wanted to make a stab at implementing all the above suggestions. What do you think? Edit mercilessly (I will change my wholesale typing errors when I've had a minute to chill and play piano instead of QWERTY for a while.)

Sorry, this is Alan Canon 00:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC) (Signature and timestamp added in next edit due to negligence on my part.)

Spoofs section

I think the references in other media listed in the spoofs section, and the trivia section, should probably be forked off into its own article. And I'm guilty, I just added a reference myself. There's also the 'appearance' of the Discovery's pod in Watto's junk shop on Tatooine in Star Wars Episode I that didn't get mentioned.... :) Oh, also Clarke and co-writer Stephen Baxter quote a couple of the lines in the Time Odyssey series, and has anyone incorporated the "contest" that Clarke had for HAL's first line? I believe it was along the lines of "Good morning doctors. I have taken the liberty of removing Windows 95, and all references to it, from my hard drive." --JohnDBuell 00:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and (since someone duplicated the material into a spoofs and references section anyway) have at least sorted them into their proper sections, with a note at the top of the Trivia section to the effect that entries there are about the movie itself, and that spoofs and references should be moved to the appropriate section. Maybe that'll make it easier to move Spoofs and refernecs Alan Canon 21:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate Items

The use of "Thus Spake Zaruthustra" by Elvis Presley and Ric Flair is mentioned twice, once separately in Spoofs and References and again, together, in Trivia. Once is enough. CFLeon 22:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The Wookieepedian 01:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Making the Move

I put in a reason when I moved it, but I don't know where it is, so I figured I'd say something here. I moved this article because I felt that the novel and the film needed to share equal standing, since they are really of equal importance, so I figured I would parenthesize both articles and put a disambiguation page up. Please discuss your feelings about this here.

On what basis could you possibly say "the novel and the film needed to share equal standing, since they are really of equal importance"? The film is one of the most famous motion pictures in history; the novel has nothing like the global fame or even the standing amongst other novels. It is nowhere near as famous in its own right. You only have to look at the grossly inferior sequel film, which was based very closely on the novel 2010, to see how much the original film was the result of a unique collaboration between two geniuses. The later stuff was like Art Garfunkel's solo career: worthy in itself, but not worthy of comparison with the more famous collaboration JRJW January '06.

Clarkefreak ∞ 23:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the disambiguated title, but I think the redirection can be improved (Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey). Shawnc 23:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

In making your move you managed to make all of the items on the archived talk page disappear. There were several things of interest on it and if it can be recovered it would be nice. If not this will give you a good reason to ask wiki-editors about how to do these things before you make the hard work of so many who came before you vanish.User:MarnetteD | Talk 01:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The archive has been relinked. Shawnc 05:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What was the monolith prop made of

I removed a sentence that said the monolith was cast of black lucite. I found sites that claim the prop was made of wood coated with graphite (here and here). Other sites do mention a lucite prototype, but don't seem to imply it was the final version used in the movie. Does anyone have a copy of "Lost Worlds of 2001"-- I seem to recall it talks explicitly about what the thing was made of.-Alecmconroy 15:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

predictions

Maybe I missed something, but it appears that you haven`t mentioned video phone and phone cards as correct prediction. And did film realy mention USSR ? There were russians, but I guess they didn`t mention SU.

Jump cut?

The cut between the bone and the space ship is called here a "jump cut". As far as I can tell, this is not correct; indeed the jump cut article itself explicitly says that the 2001 cut is not a jump cut. The correct terms appear to be "plastic cut", "match cut", or "graphic match". I will correct the text. --Macrakis 01:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else think the movie was slow

One thing I noticed was that the movie's pace was very slow. If the plot was distilled down to its bare essence, how long would the film be? Less than an hour? That was my main problem with the film was this slowness in the film. I hadn't seen where anyone else had said so in the main article, so I was wondering if there was any sort of consensus about the pace of 2001.
JesseG 05:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I finally(?!) saw it last night. Some of the slowness seems to be about the tedium of space travel, some of it seems to be setting a mood, and showing off possibilities in cinema before moon landings were possible. Ronabop 11:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Try imagining this film hurtling along at a fast pace with MTV-style editing and Friends-style snappy dialogue. Just think about it. That would totally miss the point. It's a film about silence, mystery, and million-year time spans. Anyway, in answer to the question, yes, the pace should be mentioned in the article; try reading some of the 'external reviews' on its IMDB page and you should find some useful quotes from reviewers. The Singing Badger 12:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Too many times have I read this complaint on the IMDb message boards. As Ronabop pointed out, what many people don't seem to understand is that the film is purposefully slow to depict space travel in a reallistic way. It also seems to allow the viewer to take in everything and ponder what is on the screen. If it went at a pace in the style of MTV (like so many seem to want it these days), then the viewer's head would be spinning for sure! :D The Wookieepedian 18:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The movie is slow because that's how Kubrick paces his movies. See AI or Eyes Wide Shut for examples of this (if you can tolerate these movies). The same pacing is present. There's something creepy about the pacing; I think that's the point.

Stanley Kubrick did not direct AI; Steven Spielberg did. -Bungopolis 23:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The slow pace is a result of a neo-realist strategy (ala Andre Bazin) in which scenes unfold in "real time" rather than compressed through fast cutting and montage. The final sequence (in the "hotel" room) cuts through traditional neo-realism, not by compressing time, but by reversing time or at least the relation between observer and observed. Apparent point of view shots predominate but they are from locations no longer occupied by David Bowman who has become the object of his own erased gaze.

2061,3001

I know this may be not the right place for this, but maybye we should put some info on the possibility of film adaptions of 2061 and 3001,

Edits by 69.143.172.3

Should all the edits 69.143.172.3 made to this page be reverted? It sounds like a lot of uncited analysis to me. --Tifego 05:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well now that he's started changing around the links so much and removing some I'm guessing the answer is "yes". But I could be wrong, in which case, somebody un-revert it. --Tifego 05:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Russian speech

Not sure there's a place for this over here, but it would be nice if someone that speaks russian included - in the Synopsis, subsection "TMA-1" - translations about what the russian scientists say when they talk to Floyd.

Removing POV paragraph

I have removed the following paragraph from the "Allegory" subsection of "Interpretation," because it is clearly non-NPOV:

Although these allegories and symbols are "left to the eye of the beholder", it gives one pause to think that any director in the history of cinematography would even attempt such a bold and thought-provoking work, i.e.: three separate allegories underlying a separate surface story. But when the director is Stanley Kubrick, you have to consider it quite possible.

If anyone thinks it can be scrubbed up a bit and put back in, I encourage it, but I don't think this paragraph is at all necessary or encyclopedic. -Dayv 22:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Reading further, the entire interpretation section is (IMO) in need of serious editing for both length (an issue throughout this obsessively detailed article) and non-NPOV content. -Dayv 22:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• When Bowman arrives in the hotel room, his initial POV, from inside the pod looking out, is of an empty room. A reverse angle sees him still experiencing the stargate (flashback?). Returning to the pod's POV, (looking out into the room), we see that Bowman no longer occupys that POV for he is (shockingly) now standing in the room. Bowman's previous POV (inside the pod), that we occupy, has been vacated by him. When we look back at the pod, from Bowman's new POV, (standing in the room), the pod has vanished. This erasure of POVs (happens again with Bowman in the bathroom vs Bowman eating dinner) consolidates with the shot of Bowman eating dinner vs Bowman in bed. The two Bowman's now occupy the same shot (ie. at the same time). What was previously open to audience interpretation (playoff between recollection and perception) becomes closed. Bowman is definitely looking at his future self. In the earlier playoffs it might have just been our interpretation. As we come to occupy the dying Bowman's POV, the earlier POV (just like the others) is also found erased. If only the Wikipedia POV police could be erased as easily as Bowman's.

Cleanup tag

The article contains legion repetitions. Examples are HAL's lip-reading and humanity's landing on the moon. 128.95.15.78 04:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

English please -- what are legion repetitions? -- Jason Palpatine 05:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Something is wrong

HELP! I just did an edit of th article and the system just amputated 2/3's of it! I can't fix it. Somebody -- HELP! Jason Palpatine 13:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Problem fixed :) For your reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting

Riddle | Talk 14:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)