Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey

References to use

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. ISBN 0275983951.
• 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 (ed.). Sounds of the Future: Essays on Music in Science Fiction Film. McFarland. pp. 177–193. ISBN 0786444800.
• Stoehr, Kevin L. (2007). "2001: A Philosophical Odyssey". In Sanders, Steven M (ed.). The Philosophy of Science Fiction Film. The Philosophy of Popular Culture. pp. 119–134. ISBN 0813124727.

An IMPOSSIBLE claim

"This highly reflective, but extremely directional, screen material is capable of reflecting 100 times the amount of light that is projected onto it"

You cannot reflect more light than is projected onto something. Reflection is a number between 0% and 100%. No material is perfectly reflective and the only perfectly non-reflective material would be a black hole. Perfect reflectivity is 100%. The above claim that has been tagged "citation needed" is physically impossible so is false, I'm going to delete it. I think the author of this sentence probably misinterpreted "nearly 100%" to be "100 times". I don't know what the fact is on the material in question so won't edit it, but will just remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.246.210 (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This is correct, see Albedo. No more than 100% of the light can be reflected from any surface. The explanation of Front projection effect in this article needs a rewrite, because it is stating something that is obviously wrong.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A foot candle is a measure of luminescence (light falling onto a surface) not a measure of radiance (light being emitted). Various sources on cinematography state this is entirely possible. In addition to new sources cited in text, see [1]--WickerGuy (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"A foot candle is a measure of luminescence (light falling onto a surface) not a measure of radiance (light being emitted). Various sources on cinematography state this is entirely possible." The above is nuts. Whoever wrote that about his "foot candles" and "radiance" doesn't know anything about the physics of light or the electrical engineering of illumination. Furthermore, the "foot candle" is a unit that is completely obsolete, so why would you ever want to do anything with that one? In any case, when you shine X amount of light onto a surface, you always get less than 100 percent of it back, just as the writers above stated. Wicker Guy, please go to college somewhere in the highly technical fields. I happen to know what candelas and lumens are - the international units in light.
D.A.W., M.S. in electrical engineering, Georgia Tech, and a B.E.E. elsewhere, too
98.81.2.69 (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Greatest films list

2001 is featured in the news here, with two lists compiled by Sight & Sound.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Notes on recent civil edit-skirmish on Dawn of Man sequence

Recently, User:SummerPhD (rightly) reverted some material clarifying the Dawn of Man sequence that was bordering on WP:synthesis regarding the timing of the Dawn of Man sequence and the emergence of tool-wielding hominids.
To address these concerns, I cited two strong sources (two well-known Kubrick scholars) to the effect that the jump-cut from bone to space-satellite is one of millions of years (in spite of the fact that Homo Sapiens properly speaking emerged only thousands of years ago.) I then restored the overly verbose scientific material which was then deleted on the grounds that it is "off-topic". I then did three things:

a) shortened the remaining material, also
b) I further restored the assertion of four-million years to the picture caption but moved the footnote-reference to the left as it is merely a clarification of the term match-cut and as SummerPhD rightly notes says nothing about the time-span.
c) restored a shortened version of the remaining originally deleted material that I felt was phrased in a way more focused on its relevance to the film.

To my surprise, then all three of these changes were reverted. I have now restored only a and b, and will now try to make the case for both b and c.
Regarding b) if we have already adequately footnoted (now citing two Kubrick scholars) in the main body that the interval between Dawn of Man and the orbiting satellite is millions of years, we can surely also say so in the picture caption, as long as we do not misleadingly imply we now have a third source that says so. As such the ref-note in the picture caption does indeed need to be moved forward a few words, but there is no need to remove "millions of years" from the picture caption. The cited sources in the main body (Webster and Nelson) back this up. That should be sufficient.
Regarding c, there is a widespread misconception among viewers of the film that this is intended to depict the emergence of Homo Sapiens. This includes editors who have tried to change "millions" to "thousands" in the past, and at least two bloggers which don't qualify as reliable sources unless I push the rule of citing sources as sources on themselves. (That wouldn't really qualify either as strict interpretation of that rule.) As the (still) deleted material indicates, tools emerged in hominid evolution long long before the emergence of Homo Sapiens. Now to note this borders on violating WP:SYN but you can kinda sorta get away with it as long as you don't spell out the conclusion that the monolith has not triggered the emergence of HomSap. Also, there isn't any way to mention the misconception that this is HomSap without citing sources generally failing WP reliability tests. However, I don't think it is entirely correct to say as SummerPhD says that this is "off-topic".

The material I would like to append to footnote 24 reads

The key motif of the film's opening sequence is proto-human usage of tools known to have occurred over 2 million years ago. However, Homo Sapiens emerged only thousands of years ago, being distinguished by language, erect body posture, and so forth, but not by tools per se.

This is short, sweet and to the point, far less verbose than the old version (verbosity is a vice of mine). It does not directly state a conclusion about the sequence- thus it skirts the edge of WP:SYN without blatantly going there, and it is focused on the relevance to the film.
An example of a blogger that has erroneously pegged Dawn of Man as the emergence of HomSap is [2] as does this school essay [3]--WickerGuy (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, blogs and school essays get things wrong. That's why we don't cite them. However, including material about evolution is rather pointless, IMO. This: "However, Homo Sapiens emerged only thousands of years ago, being distinguished by language, erect body posture, and so forth, but not by tools per se" says nothing about 2001. Yes, you can cite numerous reliable sources about proto-humans using tools. We can also cite reliable sources about the temperature of the Sun, the discovery of helium, various theories put forth by Arnold Toynbee, etc. None of them, however, are on-topic. If you have a source stating that the key motif of the film's opening sequence is proto-human usage of tools known to have occurred over 2 million years ago, we can certainly say that "The key motif of the film's opening sequence is proto-human usage of tools known to have occurred over 2 million years ago." If it's two sources, though -- one discussing the motif of the film's opening sequence and one discussing the age of proto-human tool usage -- that is synthesis. Heck, you wouldn't want someone discussing the apparent conflict between the film showing proto-humans using tools 2 million years too soon (four million years ago vs. two million years ago)... - SummerPhD (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to say what the time span of the match cut is. All we know is that the book gives the age of the monolith on the Moon as three million years, and the film four million. The apes in the Dawn of Man sequence are clearly not Homo Sapiens, so this is not an issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Point mainly conceded. One could easily find a RS that the main motif of D-of-M is the discovery of the tool. Obviously, they are not clearly HomSap since quite a few people think they are, but until a RS emerges that says that Moonwatcher and Company are not, I guess we have to leave it alone. To include is at least implied synthesis, which one of WPs examples of improper synthesis is. I have twice before gotten implicit synthesis into an article (allowing the reader to draw the obvious conclusion), but here WP:Consensus seems to be against it. Cheers--WickerGuy (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ha. WP guidelines say (emphasis added by me) "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."--WickerGuy (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

None of my immediate relatives look like the characters in the Dawn of Man sequence. Anyone who thinks that they look like Homo Sapiens needs to go to Specsavers.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

More specifically, the 1965 screenplay says of Moonwatcher (Daniel Richter) "As he looks out now upon the hostile world, there is already something in his gaze beyond the grasp of any ape. In those dark, deep-set eyes is a dawning awareness-the first intimations of an intelligence which would not fulfill itself for another two million years." This confirms the view that the Dawn of Man is intended to be seen as occurring millions rather than thousands of years ago. The Homo Sapiens interpretation is just plain wrong, and the 1965 screenplay does not describe the match cut scene at all.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The only published screenplay is a rough draft to which Kubrick made many changes. The match-cut was "improvised". Kubrick had been working on the D-of-M sequence and at the end of the day he himself idly picked up a bone and tossed it in the air, and then a light-bulb figuratively went on.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: "to the effect that the jump-cut from bone to space-satellite is one of millions of years (in spite of the fact that homo sapiens properly speaking emerged only thousands of years ago.)" Huh? Time measured in "thousands of years" is less than 10,000 years. Anthropoligists state that Homo Sapiens had been around a lot longer than that: 50,000 to 100,000 years. The creatures of 2001 were at the time of the transiton from ape-men to men-apes: two to four million years ago. Still, the men-apes of 2001 were far more primitive than homo sapiens. They had a long, long way to go. The "Dawn of Man" was literally the dawn of men-apes, and not of homo sapiens, so don't get the two confused.

Furthermore, the names of species are common nouns, and not proper nouns, including homo sapiens, gorilla gorilla, and pans trogdylites. The exceptions include names of species that contained proper nouns already, such as Neanderthal man, the Pacific bottlenose dolphin, the Norfolk Island pine, and the Siberian wolf. This is not so hard.
98.81.2.69 (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Satellite or Missile Platform(s)?

Apologies in advance if I am rehashing an old argument. I recently re-watched the film with the script in hand and the satellites (there are 7 shown in total?) do appear to be missile platforms as indicated in the script. Does someone in the film actually have to refer to them as missiles to put it in the entry? Here is an online version of the script. http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/2001.html. --HullIntegrity (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC.

The 1965 screenplay states that they are orbiting nuclear bomb platforms, but Kubrick decided to downplay this in the final version, as he thought it was too similar to Dr. Strangelove. Nothing in the 1968 film clearly indicates that they are bombs, and this is an example of how Kubrick developed and changed ideas during the production.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Would not their very design (based, if I recall correctly, on actual plans for the retched things) justify calling them more than just "satellites"? However, that said, if I understand correctly, if it is not positively stated, or demonstrated, in the film as shown on the screen then it is not appropriate for the article. Would it also be inappropriate to add a parenthetical reference to the script or a note? The whole bone to bomb to (nuclear) spaceship to (incidental) starship arc seems vital (to me) for future research on the film. --HullIntegrity (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The section in the article "Military nature of orbiting satellites" looks at this in some detail. Although the possibility that the bone-shaped satellites are nuclear bombs remains, the 1968 release version of the film decided not to state this explicitly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That clarified it for me. Again, thanks! --HullIntegrity (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Search the Talk archives and you can find a HUMONGOUS and acrimonious debate between myself and another user which eventually compromised in the "Military nature of orbiting satellites" section of the article a collaboration between the two of us (I think I wrote about 3/4ths of it). The more research I did on the issue, the more it was clear Kubrick got nervous about the military nature of the satellites, both because of the Strangelove comparisons and the banning-space-weapons treaty that was signed just a few months before the release of the picture. To NASA experts, at least some of the satellites (in the final picture there are four) do in fact look like weapons platforms, and they were designed with that in mind, but we need RS to say so.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, at least you finally worked together! And on my end this whole discussion has helped with an article on SF film I am trying to finish. If there is no clear agreement on the satellites being missile platforms here, then I'd certainly better hedge my bets on that score as well. --HullIntegrity (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)