Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Synopsis is still overlong?

Reviewing the last month's edits, I see a little edit war briefly flared over the {{plot}} tag in the article. I think the synopsis is much shorter than it was last year, the music references and other cruft are removed. On my monitor, the synopsis is barely more than 1.5 screenfuls of info. I don't consider that overlong. I'm considering removing the tag. Discussion? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I still think its a little overlong. I believe the synopsis has some extraneous details that could be removed w/out damaging the section's coherence. I haven't had a chance to make further edits since last month but I will try to continue this weekend. Meanwhile, I'd like the tag to remain to cue others to jump in and assist, if possible.-Hal Raglan 21:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please try to limit it to 500 words. So every plot detail does not need to be mentioned. For example, the plot section is to excessive in describing particular situations in the film. It is, however, improving though, considering how long it was last year. BlueVelvet86 06:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Photographing the Monolith

This is a total aside, but recently I was recalling something odd with regard to first seeing 2001 at age ten. It involves the scene where the astronauts begin to take group photos in front of the Moon Monolith, but are interrupted by the squealing sound. I'm remembering my immediate interpretation, which was that the Monolith was angered by being photographed and was retaliating! Almost as if they had just met God, and instead of simply experiencing awe, their first instinct was "Quick! Get a photo of me with God!". Meanwhile, God's reaction was "I don't think so!" Later, reading the book and the explanation of the transmission to Saturn (Jupiter in the film), I guess I forgot about my inital visceral reaction until now. Did anybody else have a similar inital reaction? Sailorlula 16:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I can remember at one point thinking the Tycho monolith was "set off" by being touched by Floyd, until a later viewing indicated that the sun overhead might be the trigger. (Plus ... other excavators would have had to touch it to clean it off, unless it was charged in such a way that dirt was repelled.) Or ... "don't touch, it's got a car alarm!" :D David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Television prints

All versions of the film that I have seen on television carry a "Presented by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer in Cinerama" title in the end credits. Does anyone know if all TV prints, new and old, were made from 70mm prints, or did the 35mm general release prints retain the Cinerama title?

I don't believe that there were different credits for pritnts. The end titles were the end titles. If you don't have a recent DVD, I can peek at mine.... I'm pretty confident that non "television" pan 'n scan cuts were made from 70mm prints, but it's possible that ... at one time ... they were. Hard to know. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 20:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits by 172.190.32.51 and removal of "plot summary" tag

Anonymous editor 172.190.32.51 has recently reverted the article's summary section to one that is several months' old. This now-ancient synopsis had been trimmed by multiple editors in response to a consensus on this talk page that the plot outline as it existed months ago was overly long and full of irrelevant detail, editorial interpretation and Original Research. After I advised the editor of wikipedia's various policies regarding preferred plot length and the 3RR rule (which the editor violated), he/she has attacked me on my talk page as being "facist" and to date refuses to discuss the issues raised. I defy anybody to agree with 172.190.32.51 that his/her version of the synopsis is superior to the one that previous hard working editors had created. Also, the same editor has repeatedly removed the "plot summary" tag w/out adequate explanation. I don't necessarily want to get into a nasty edit war so I invite others to add to the discussion here before I do a full-scale revert. Thanks.-Hal Raglan 01:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to correct the false information in your statements with all due respect.I DID add that information, but then to your request, I removed MUCH of the original OR, and added more about the plot of the film and "synopsis." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.32.51 (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2007

It does appear that you self-reverted, 172. That's great! Now you can hash it out here on the talk page instead of edit warring. Excellent! And please sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~ per Wikipedia:Talk page. – Dreadstar † 03:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Several inaccuracies have been re-introduced to the synopsis. Many of these, including the length, have been discussed at length (including the occasion when I made major contributions to the plot, then amended them based on reasonable and concise discussion) here on the Talk page. I can't wade into the detritus of the 60+ edits over the last 24 hours, just hope that the synopsis has returned to close to its state on Wednesday. 172.190.32.51, please note: I caution the anonymous user (apparently new to editing WP in the last two days) to slow down, register, and discuss synopsis changes here. 'Nuff said. Further renegade editing, 3RR and such will be viewed (by me at least) as mischievious vandalism. I don't own this page, but I sure do care about (as do several others whose usernames appear frequently in this page's archive). David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis, inaccuracy checking

Rather than making my own reversions/changes (I've had my day in the sun), I'd like an editor to compare the current synopsis (1300 words, last I checked (including captions for images)), and compare with this longer version from last winter which I think was pretty solid on facts and plot details (e.g. HAL's deceptive "informal conversation" with Bowman, in whch the latter catches HAL in a ruse). The WikiProject Film guideline on this is something like 400 - 700 words, so some trimming would be nice, but ONLY if it can be done without removing plot details (like Floyd's interrogation by Leonard Stone on the station, Floyd's asssertion of security requirements on Clavius, Bowman and Poole planning to disconnect HAL while he/it spies on them). Have a go,.... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, he said in a jovial sort of Heywood Floyd voice, the Plot tag really says, the synopsis is "overly long or excessively detailed compared to the rest of the article." I don't agree with this now. The Synopsis is only about a 1200 words, but pretty brief. Since much of the plot is nonverbal, some descriptive text is necessary. Also, the film is over two hours in length, so a longer Synopsis section can be permitted. I'm beginning to think the Synopsis section doesn't need to be tagged as overlong any more. Discussion? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the synopsis has been trimmed considerably and most of the extraneous detail has been removed. The film is unusually complex in nature and any additional pruning could destroy the relative coherence of the section. I have no problems with the tag being removed at this point.-Hal Raglan 19:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Tag removed. I think it's as lean as it can get without removing plot points that actually relate to the story. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 00:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Pre-release cut: was it 19 minutes, or 24? + how many times do we need to refer to delete scenes (please consolidate)

Can someone with LOST WORLDS or MAKING OF check ... we have conflicting statements as to whether Kubrick cut 19 minutes, or 24 minutes, between test screenings and and the premiere. Also, if you can find direct details in Agel as to the cut man-ape death scene, and any Clavius scenes, my addition goes on memory and (in the case of the Clavius water pool) a still photo. We seem to be referring to cut scenes no less than three times in the Production and Release sections (!). Could someone consolidate these after reviewing a reference? TIA! David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll check the book tonite to see what the film's original running time was. However, wasn't the film edited after its initial theatrical release in a handful of theatres? I don't think the edits occurred after test screenings. I agree that one mention of the cuts is all the article needs.-Hal Raglan 19:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I only recall that he did test screenings, and then cut a lot out of the man-ape scene, including a death scene (I'm remembering something about Stuart Freeborn's remarkable work with flies around the actors). I have a still of a pic from Clavius with Floyd watching children doing art, around a large pool/fountain (which continues the motif of the water hole, drinking, "Poole," etc.). I hadn't heard about cuts from the Discovery sequences, but I'll bet Agel has the straight dope. (crosses fingers) Thanks for checking, Hal! Open the pod bay doors.... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

Guys, I'm (still) finalising an expanded Production section which will consolidate a number of things, however in the meantime I'll review/correct/merge these with the aid of Clarke, Agel, etc. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Great edits, Ian. Thanks! David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Director's cut?"

The infobox refers to a 7-minute longer "director's cut...." What is this? There's been no "director's cut" of the film. Could this refer to video releases which restore the audio-only entrance and intermission music? If so, this isn't technically a new "cut" of the film, just a presentation with those extras included restored. (I can imagine them left off the VHS release due to the limitations of the tape format.) Can someone explain this? TIA, David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a vague recollection of seeing 35mm cuts in theaters without the walk-in or any intermission. So ... that's all I can think of. If someone can't corroborate the "director's cut," I'm ... cutting it. >:) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

Removed. If a citation can be provided for a "director's cut" then it can be reinstated. Generally, though, I don't think "walk-in" and "Entr'acte" music is counted infilm runtimes. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 00:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, never heard of it either. Cheers, Ian Rose 00:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed -- there simply is no director's cut. Sailorlula 22:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Accuracy

In Scientific Accuracy, there is one point that probably ought to be made, but I'm not sure how to make it.

The section in the main article about Scientific Accuracy is important mainly because it plays an important aesthetic as a narrative part of the story. One reason being, as both Kubrick and Clarke stated (I won’t give the exact quote) to make the definitive ‘good’ science fiction film. (Though Kubrick must have been aware of films such as This Island Earth, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Forbidden Planet , even Pal’s War of the Worlds and Time Machine…..a few others). One supposes they meant the Hard Science Fiction film story of which there were few if any, (though one could count Destination Moon as hard science fiction).

Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs) 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In 1968, the use of tools was thought to be a (the?) characteristic that set humans apart from other mammals. But later Jane Goodall found chimpanzees make and use tools. Prior to her discovery, it was entirely reasonable for one to imagine alien intervention in human evolution as being the instigation of tool use. Today, this plot element seems dated.

This is a Scientific Inaccuracy, but one somewhat different in nature than the others. How to properly include it?

Tomday 02:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

When Dr. Floyd is flying to the moon, weightless, he sips food through a straw, yet when he lets go of it, the fluid falls back to the container, showing that the fluid in the straw is not weightless.

I don't think so. If the containers were elastic (and from their tray-of-plastic appearance, they almost certainly are), the container would suck the fluid back down itself. Much like a juice box, suction through the straw slightly deforms the container. When the suction disappears, the container springs back to its original shape, and the fluid is sucked back in.

The other points are good but I suggest striking this one from the list. -- 76.202.198.213 00:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue. I've never liked labeling this as a "mistake" as a) we don't know from what's on screen that the dispenser didn't have a way to reclaim liquid, b) it would make sense for such a design to be used for space travel frequented by untrained non-professional astronauts. You don't want a cabin full of carrot juice droplets, would you? Those stewardesses' work would never be done. Some people just like finding glitches in films, and eagerness to pounce on "mistakes" clouds reasonable suspension of disbelief. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. This old chestnut should be removed, and kept out in the future -- which is a chore since it's a favorite for newbies to gleefully point out. Agel's 1970 "Making of" book is probably the first source that claims this was an error. (See the caption on the image of Floyd sipping, LH page opposite Zero Gravity Toilet Instructions.) It's becoming more and more clear that there is quite a bit of unsubstantiated conjecture presented as fact in Agel's book. Sailorlula 22:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I cut the following from the list of errors: "* Immediately after the previous scene a shot overlooking the test site shows the lunar surface with Earth's moon in the background." That's the Earth in the background, not the Earth's moon. It's not an inaccuracy. (Brian Siano)

Why is there a section for Scientific Accuracy for a science fiction film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.32.99 (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Because 2001 is derived for the modern prose form of science fiction, SF. Modern 'hard' SF is not to be confused with Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers. John W Campbell banished these forms from his famous magazine Astounding/Analog in 1938, Hard Science Fiction. 2001 is Hard Science Fiction.Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs) 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As it is notable for it's accurate portrayal of the laws of physics - something uncommon for films of the time, and not common even now. I agree that the "liquid falling down the straw" should be removed. 91.108.99.35 22:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In Scientific Accuracy in the main article , the whole article itself, 2001's prime technical consultant Frederick I. Ordway II,is not mentioned once!

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0075.html

A reference of particular importance should be included

Part B: 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY IN RETROSPECT, Frederick I Ordway, III Volume 5, American Astronautical Society History Series SCIENCE FICTION AND SPACE FUTURES: PAST AND PRESENT, Edited by Eugene M. Emme, 1982, pages 47 - 105. (ISBN 0-87703-172-X) (ISBN 0-87703-173-8). A detailed account of development and filming of 2001: A Space Odyssey by its technical adviser, Fred Ordway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs) 16:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How come this valid reference was deleted from the main article, when under the heading Scientific Accuracy not all the entries are about scientific inaccuracies?!

REPLY: You wrote:

Ordway The reason for removing my reference to Frederick I Ordway published technical article passes beyond my understanding. Where should that reference go in the main article? - - - - - - -

Why is it hard to understand that your Ordway text just doesn't belong IN THE MIDDLE of a list of inaccuracies?

That said, Ordway is an under-discussed person who really was of importance to the film. Perhaps you should start a new section altogether in the article, where the contributions of key staffers like Ordway and Trumbull are covered.

Regards, --Sailorlula (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(1) Because the section is titled Scientific Accuracy not Scientific Inaccuracies.

(2) Read the first two paragraphs of that section , they speak to Scientific Accuracy, not one word about inaccuracy until paragraph three, that section needs a new section title.

Ok I will try to start a new section, though I don't agree with the reason given for not placing the reference in this section.

The reference is quite important because it is most detailed essay on the technological milieu of the film given by its prime technical adviser. -- A Jackson (talk) 18 November 2007

The use of the vacuum of interplanetary space as art. Kubrick uses the hard scientific fact that there is nothing to transmit sound in space as film art. When the point of view is outside a space ship or other such object in 2001 music is the only artistic sound framing. Otherwise we always have either silence or the perception of an astronaut, such as Bowman breathing. Recall the reentry into the Discovery, the hatch blows there is a little gas condensation in motion but not until Dave closes the airlock do we hear any sound. Recall also a point of view some distance from the Discovery, two meteoroids wheel by, absolute silence, no ‘whizzing’ sound, it is a beautiful creative construct. Many such examples occur in the film. (One does have to note that in the film Apollo 13 (film) a fair job is done of this, supposedly when the point of view is outside the spacecraft the sounds we hear are ones the astronauts hear inside the cockpits , supposedly the viewer is to figure this out for themselves, but the film narrative is a bit slip shod in this area, Kubrick never made that mistake.) unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs) 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Good article candidacy revived

Whoever tagged the article failed didn't put the date, and i don't see reasons. I think the article has matured. I'm submitting it again. If you fail the article, please provide specific and reasonable feedback. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination failed

This article needs many more references to support what is being said. The many tags in the article to this effect attest to this. Please consider re-submitting the article after improvements are made. -- Johnfos 06:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the article probably has too many screenshots to still qualify as fair use; maybe three or four should remain in the article. The image in the cast section needs a fair use rationale. Based on the article's length, the lead should be around three or four paragraphs and better summarize the rest of the article (see WP:LEAD). Before nominating the article again, consider taking it to WP:Film's peer review first to see if there are any other issues that should be addressed besides the ones listed here. --Nehrams2020 06:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There's so much info we can source on this film that if we marshal the work properly I don't see why we can't get it all the way to FA down the track. For the moment, I agree the lead should be the regulation three paras. As I said before, the Production section is a bit short compared with other sections, especially Soundtrack - I keep promising to expand it and will complete before long. I also think that the Scientific Accuracy and Imagining the Future sections are too long and shouldn't be composed of lists - it looks too much like trivia. I tend to disagree about the shortfalls in citations, there's room for improvement but there's a lot there. Agree it should be peer reviewed. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheese 'n crackers, there are 40 references. When is "enough" attained? I think we can start taking out unreferenced statements. E.g. the "harkens back to silent movies" in Soundtrack. Not cited, it's outta there. Agree with the image complaint, the pic of Keir Dullea was added only recently, and ... not sure it's needed.... I think screen shots are needed for key, iconic images (the monolith, the star gate, HAL's eye) which had penetrated popular culture and are instantly recognizable. Beyond that, we don't need to be image happy, even though the film is a primarily visual experience. Go for it, Ian, I think the article has benefitted greatly from multiple dedicated editors keeping each other in check. Sailor, Jason, you guys too. - David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, "Scientific accuracy" and "Imagining the future" could be combined, as the authentic flavor of the film and some of the props and set dressings were drawn from realistic proposals for actual space travel forecasts ... that authenticity was one of the film's big draws. It "felt" more real than the usual space operas that had come before. 10, 20 years later, I think people still looked to 2001 as a sort of very realistic look ahead. I agree, it's too "list-y" for WP; it needs to be rewritten as prose. As I've mentioned before, I don't like the "what 2001 didn't get right" section at all, and would expunge, as this ... is a film, not a documentary or crystal ball, and I don't for a minute think Kubrick was trying to say "this is what we'll have and what we won't have in 2001." He was telling a tale, a revival of the Iliad and the Odyssey in spacesuits and spacefaring ships, not trying to dramatize Popular Mechanics. The complaints that "we don't have a moonbase yet," are like saying, "Well in Star Trek, the 1990s were supposed to have Eugenics Wars, what happened?" or "In Clockwork Orange, Alex was listening to rich, high-bandwidth stereo on microcassettes, so Kubrick goofed on the prediction of Compact Discs." I think that section is like fanboy trivializing. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 03:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Dave, "Scientific accuracy" and "Imagining the future" combined, as well as shortened and delistified, is the way to go. Some of the items, especially in the 'didn't get right' part, are trivial in the extreme, incidental to the film as a whole, and hardly worth keeping. Cheers, Ian Rose 13:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Production

Following on from comments above, begun expanding "Production" by adding a "Writing" subsection (could be retitled "Screenplay development" or "Writing and preproduction", etc, suggestions welcome). Envisage a similar length for "Filming" and "Special effects" so let me know now if this looks like too much detail - however I think if we cut down sections like "Scientific accuracy" and "Imagining the future" in favour of stuff like Production we'll have a better-balanced article - note the old "Influences" and "Outtakes" sections are now trimmed and merged there. BTW, I believe the "Soundtrack" section should logically come after Production - thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose 17:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. The guide that I've used in adding or excising anything to the article, is ... the film was groundbreaking and important in the annals of cinema for certain things. These things can be referenced easily. Examples include the narrative slowness, the use of sound (lack thereof), the mundane but paradoxical dialog, the lack of easy answers, the state of the art effects, use of classical music for a "space opera," etc. Those hallmarks are worth discussing in detail in the article, within reason. Things like "what the film got wrong," "differences between teh novel and the film," these aren't things that film critics and audiences continually respond to, and so are not as notable. ... 'Notability ... is the name of the game, IMHO. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 00:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Spelling: US vs. UK conventions

I think I was chided a year or less back for changing from English-UK spellings to US spellings, as Kubrick was an American filmmaker, and the film was produced and released by a US firm, M-G-M. IIRC and I probably don't. ;) If you change any spellings from one convention to the other, please ensure that your change is consistent with the majority of the article. I know WP has a MOS for this, but don't know it off hand (and have too little time right this moment to find it). TIA! David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR? Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep! David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

Section header change

I was considering adding spoiler tags, but instead I have changed a section header from "Plot" to "Plot Summary," as per the recommendations at WP:Spoiler:

"If a plot point has made significant penetration into popular culture, it is often no longer necessary to mark it off with spoiler tags."

"A section header such as "Plot Summary," "Detailed Summary," or "Synopsis" can be considered a de facto spoiler notice [...]."

"A section header such as "Plot" or "Overview" can be ambiguous as to the presence of detailed spoilers [...] consider changing the header to something clearer."

I trust this is acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Scientific accuracy

There had been a cleanup tag on the "Scientific accuracy" section for several months. Many of the quibbles listed there are commonplace, but only one is sourced. To encourage the process of sourcing these examples, I've removed all but the sourced example and added an {{incomplete-list}} tag. --Tony Sidaway 13:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

2001 and Childhood's End a purposefully obscured connection?

You know the documentaries on Stanley Kubrick - Warner Home Video Directors Series 2001 Disk 2 got me to thinking. Very few SF writers are interviewed. Well Clarke is there, being a little coy some of the time.

Anyway that Big Question about what the hell is the film and ending about comes up many times. (I mean aside from the other major story line about HAL, which actually ties to the film's base story.) Some blah blah about it occurs.

I am sure this must be a cliché discussion by this late date. Let me beat a dead horse again!

When I saw 2001 in April of 1968 I had been reading SF since 1952, 16 years. I knew about the H.G. Wells /Olaf Stapleton connection to Clarke and of course had read CHILDHOODS END. It struck me first when Heywood Floyd first stroked the Monolith on the Moon, "heck, this is some kind of abstract re-interpretation' of BIG THINKS about advanced alien civilizations by way of Clarke's Childhoods End. (I mean Clarke's "The Sentinel" is really only a hook to hang the Monolith on.)

The ending of the film nailed it for me. The monolith is a combo Karellen/Overmind/Rashaverak all super concentrated and contracted by Kubrick into the Star Child. It's an abstracted/précis non-literal translation of Childhood's end.

In "Lost Worlds" Clarke toys with all this alien civilization scenery that does not work, no wonder Kubrick was off put with that final draft (drafts).

Surely Kubrick must have read Clarke's Childhoods End and Wells, for sure, and maybe even Stapleton surely H.G.Wells. He and Clarke must have talked endlessly about Clarke's feelings about transcendent Super Advanced Interstellar Space spanning alien civilizations; I mean it's almost explicit with the Monoliths. An Instrumentality 'indistinguishable'!

Seems to me Kubrick , for all the talk about it, and some of the work done on it had likely given up on a literal presentation of the 'Monolith' civilization long before the film was finished.

Kubrick always remained somewhat mysterious about the story, ... well it is a super swift synthesis of all modern SF BIG THINKS ideas, and he just thought it best to leave it that way, have a little fun me thinks.

Maybe it was an unconsciensly obscured connection?

Al Jackson , November 7 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert.a.jackson (talk • contribs) 16:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, such an observation is considered original research. If you can find coverage by reliable sources about this possible connection, that would be content verifiable for inclusion. Let me know if you have any questions about the understanding the difference between original research and verifiable content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In a way I agree, but having been a reader of Science Fiction for nearly 60 years now, and having discussed this idea with others knowledgeable of (and fans of) the film 2001, I don't think the idea is original with me. The connection of Kubrick's film to Childhood's End is almost self evident purely from reading the novel. The question is did Kubrick make use of an abstract narrative of the ending of Childhood's End to solve his problems with the ending of 2001! If so it is a brilliant construct. (There is some speculation in John Huntington's article at http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/3/huntington3art.htm). I would like to know if Clarke ever spoke to this issue , he probably did and I can not remember it. I think that it is an issue important to the Interpertation section of the entry for this film. Would like to hear more thoughts on it. Albert.a.jackson 10 ovember 2007

From what I can tell, there are recurring themes in Clarke's writings. However, considering that this is a film adaptation of the novel, it cannot be extracted from that article that Kubrick connected his film to Childhood's End. That article would be completely appropriate for describing themes in both the 2001 novel and Childhood's End, but it does not talk about Kubrick's approach in the film. You may want to take a look here -- there are numerous articles about the film itself available. Perhaps a reference to Childhood's End is among them. Let me know if you have any questions about researching these articles! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

An interesting reference site ... I have read some of the prose sources there, will need to look at some others it seems.

One correction, is it not common knowledge that the film 2001 is not an adaptation of Clarke's novel? The novel and film were created in parallel. In fact this caused Clarke some problems in finishing the novel since he left production before Kubrick finished the film ""The Lost Worlds of 2001"" .

(Er.. why is this discussion now listed under a heading of 'scientific accurary' when it has to do with interpertation?)

By the by seems the Scientific Accuracy section in the main article needs some serious expanding.

Albert.a.jackson 10 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs) 23:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The adaptation of the source material into a film will not always be thematically consistent. Here's an example: Ray Bradbury, the author of Fahrenheit 451 intended to show the alienation of people by media. However, the attached director for a proposed film, Frank Darabont, has politicized the theme, as seen here. The same thing can be said for Children of Men, which is the director's contemporary re-interpretation of The Children of Men. I understand that the parallels may seem obvious to you, but the readership will not always be familiar with the background. From what I've seen, the film 2001 is more celebrated as a Kubrick film than a Clarke film. That's why I encourage trying to track down a reliable source that describes connections to Childhood's End. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the first sentence in this reply. To be sure the film is indeed Kubrick's , but the Clarke-Kubrick interaction is "explicit" in the material Clarke has written about the collaboration , I did cite

""The Lost Worlds of 2001"".

And it is , as far as I can tell, 'thematically consistent'.

I notice now, in my reply ,in context, I should have referenced the main article, 2001: A Space Odyssey (film), the section 3.1 Writing , as related to the question of 'thematically consistent'. Pretty much explained there. My mistake!

Albert.a.jackson 11 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs) 15:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A simple question .....have you read Childhood's End?

Albert.a.jackson 10 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs) 23:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read Childhood's End. If The Lost Worlds of 2001 talks about the connection between Childhood's End and the film, you can include it in the article using the Cite book template with the respective page numbers. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Spacecraft articles

I have just went through the various articles about the spacecraft of the Space Odyssey series. They are:

Discovery One - former article; apparently deleted because of "copyright problems"
EVA Pod
Leonov (fictional spacecraft)
Orion III spaceplane
Aries Ib
Space Station V
Moonbus (2001 A Space Odyssey)

There was a lot of bogus information that was lacking a source (other than one fansite on a couple of them). I have deleted such information. Now, there is very little in each article. I suggest creating a new article such as Spacecraft of the Space Odyssey Series which lists information about all spacecraft from both films and all four books. Andy120290 (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice work deleting that fan nonsense. Sounds like a good idea to merge them into one. Cop 663 (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have created the new article titled Spacecraft of the Space Odyssey Series. It is not much right now (I only have had the chance to start it right now). It needs a lot more information before it can replace the articles we currently have on the spacecraft. Much help would be appreaciated. Andy120290 (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Clear intent

The article mentions that Kubrick "clearly intended" the dialogs to have some meaning... I'm not quite sure we can know if a director "clearly intended" something like that. I need a reference... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwerneck (talk • contribs) 02:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

• Rename Synopsis to Plot and reduce section per WP:MOSFILMS#Plot. It is too overly detailed.
• The Cast section should be revised to have real-world context. I would highly suggest writing in prose and excluding all the minor roles. Write about how these actors were chosen, how they approached their roles, how it shaped their career afterward, et cetera.
• Create an overall Awards section and either write the different recognitions in prose, or place all award-related content into a nicer table. There is unnecessary bias in giving "Academy Awards" its own subsection. Also, some recognitions, like the Laurel Awards, may be considered "reaching" in terms of mentions.
• Interpretations should not have been spun off but instead deleted. The present article is in terrible shape, and it should redirect to the main article with a cleaner Interpretations section using sources like these.
• Remove all originally contributed content from "Scientific accuracy" and "Imagining the future" and merge content from reliable sources into Production. The entries are too trivial for inclusion; notable examples would be covered by reliable sources. Editors should not indiscriminately add what they judge to be encyclopedic content.
• In "Sequels and offshoots", change the list of three entries into prose.

These are just preliminary suggestions if there are editors interested in making this a good article. If you have any inquiries about my suggestions, feel free to comment here. I can also comment on existing content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Erik. "Casting" was another subsection under Production that I was considering so I'm happy to put some info in there along the lines you've noted. I think we're getting consensus on "Scientific accuracy" and "Imagining the future" so I suggest someone like yourself or David work on that while I continue expanding Production. Tend to agree re. the other points you've raised also. Re. awards, does anyone really think the Kansas City film critics one belongs in the intro? No disrespect to Kansas City but it's not Cannes... Cheers, Ian Rose 08:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that violating Wikipedia's no original research policy trumps consensus in this case. My problem with these two sections is that the lists of entries are originally contributed. "The gravity in Clavius moon base appears to be that of Earth rather than the Moon." -- "appears to be" is definitely interpretative and not verifiable. There is enough encyclopedic content from books and academic studies not to depend on originally conceived lists. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, whatever the motivations, I think we're in violent agreement. Something fairly dramatic needs to be done about those sections - that's the consensus. My suggestion to you is be bold and combine/trim/rewrite those sections as discussed above. Cheers, Ian Rose 12:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

*Rename Synopsis to Plot and reduce section per WP:MOSFILMS#Plot. It is too overly detailed. I don't think we're going to win this one. We've had some pretty intense editing of the synopsis, and it's about as brief as it's going to get without removing details which keep it understandable, and relevant. As a regular contributor to the WikiProject Films, my perspective that 400-700 words is an ideal benchmark, but for some films (e.g. Lawrence of Arabia), a longer description is warranted. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The word count is 1,286. That is far too long, even for a film like this. I'll have to watch the film again, but I can see places where it needs to be shortened:

• "A Pan Am spaceplane docks to an Earth-orbital space station. The shuttle carries only one passenger, Dr. Heywood R. Floyd (William Sylvester). After arriving at the station, Floyd meets a group of Soviet scientists, including an old friend."
• Rewrite as: "Dr. Heywood R. Floyd (William Sylvester) meets a group of Soviet scientists, including an old friend, on an Earth-orbital space station."

This kind of summarization can be applied throughout; the ending is more of a challenge -- who says it's a "Louis XVI-style room"? "...seemingly transformed into a fetus-like being" -- seemingly to whom? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed it to 1151, so admittedly, it's not impossible to slice off a few words. I still don't think it is "far too long." This is one of the more important films of the 20th Century, and if the other sections refer to things that aren't even mentioned in an overly-short plot section, the reader may be confused. ... The WikiProject Film style guidelines are guidelines, not hard and fast pass/fail rules IMHO. -- Agreed, the "room at the end"'s appearance ought to be cited, and I'm pretty sure Agel or another reference can be used. citation needed tag added. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 20:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a two part suggestion. #1) Follow the text of "The scientists gather around it for a group photo but are interrupted when a continuous high-pitched tone is picked up by their radio receivers.", with a statement similar to "For a moment, a view of a satelite passing-by is shown to signify that a high energy disturbance in deep space had been detected. A techician some time later, correlating the time of the event on the Moon and the disturbance discovered that an energy beam had been sent directly to the Saturn moon of Iapetus.". #2) At this point to be able to jump to a new catagory of "Related Scientific Developements", with a sub-catagory "Iapetus". In 2003 we did a fly-by with the Cassini Space probe. Here are 2 descriptive links: from NASA, a detailed commentary. NASA: Moons - Iapetus, http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/science/moons/moonDetails.cfm?pageID=7; A Moon with a View, http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htm; 70.148.188.201 (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Viktor, 2008 Jan 01, 18:40

Nice thought but if we're talking about Saturn and Iapetus, that's related to the novel, not the film. In the film the beam is aimed at Jupiter so the Iapetus connection isn't relevant in this article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Note removal

• Though the crew quarters in the spaceship Discovery are arranged in a rotating wheel to simulate gravity, the wheel's short radius would require many RPM (5-10 RPM, depending on the actual radius) to produce Earth-like gravity. In the film, the centrifuge rotates at about 3 RPM (once every 20 seconds).

I removed the above section because it is based on Bowman running around the inside of the wheel. The wheel might very well be spinning at higher RPMs - that does not mean that Bowman would run at the same place. From the perspective of inside the wheel, there is no apparent movement - so Bowman's running pace can be whatever he likes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.131.1 (talk) 05:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Except, of course, it ain't Bowman doing the running. It's Frank Poole!68Kustom (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Failed Predictions

Other failed predictions of the film:

• The American astronauts seen onscreen are all male Caucasians. In reality, by the year 2001, US astronauts included men and women of various ethnicities.

Point taken, but ... In 2001, we see just two lead astronaut characters (and three in hibernation, with a few others here and there). Shuttle/Soyuz/ISS crews today are still mostly "male Caucasians," although yes, there is more balanced representation. 68Kustom (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Neckties have disappeared, replaced by turtlenecks. You know that did not happen. Erudil 15:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Technical Content and Spacecraft Design References for the 2001

F.I. Ordway, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Spaceflight, Vol. 12, No. 3, Mar. 1970, pp. 110-117. (Publisher: The British Interplanetary Society)

Realizing 2001: A Space Odyssey: Piloted Spherical Torus Nuclear Fusion Propulsion NASA/TM-2005-213559 March 2005 AIAA-2001-3805

F.I. Ordway, Part B: 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY IN RETROSPECT, Frederick I Ordway, III Volume 5, American Astronautical Society History Series SCIENCE FICTION AND SPACE FUTURES: PAST AND PRESENT, Edited by Eugene M. Emme, 1982, pages 47 - 105. (ISBN 0-87703-172-X) (ISBN 0-87703-173-8). A detailed account of development and filming of 2001: A Space Odyssey by its technical adviser.

Jack Hagerty and Jon C. Rogers, Spaceship Handbook: Rocket and Spacecraft Designs of the 20th Century, ARA Press,Published 2001, pages 322-351, ISBN 097076040X. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs) 12:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation: relation to novel version by Clarke

<old RfC removed>

I believe the novel by Clarke casts important light on the interpretation of the movie. I have put in some text to this effect into the Interpretation section. If this is problematic, let me know. Thanks! Wwheaton (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a problem. Please see the page Wikipedia:No original research for further information. You need to find sources that confirm your own thoughts. Mighty Antar (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is not my reference to Clarke's novel (which has extensive explanation that could not be fitted into a movie of reasonable length) sufficient? Surely Clarke himself is a reliable source! I could of course go through the novel and quote directly from it, but this seems more like original research than what I have already written. Would it be acceptable to simply point out that the novel is relevant to the interpretation of the film? And if so, to summarize the explanation given therein?

Sorry for being dense, but I don't quite get it. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Principally because you need to show that it is not only your opinion that Clarke's book is a clarified interpretation of the film's story, but also that this was the opinion of Kubrick. Only Kubrick really knew what he wanted the film to convey and given how obsessed he was with the detail of it, it is difficult to see why he would make the ending quite so ambigious unless that very ambiguity was precisely what he wanted. Mighty Antar (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

To some extent Kubrick does address this in An Interview with Stanley Kubrick (1969) by Joseph Gelmis The Film Director as Superstar" (Doubleday and Company: Garden City, New York) Copyright ©1970 Joseph Gelmis. I notice this interview not referenced on the main page. aajacksoniv

After mighty labors by Dreadstar & others, there is now an expanded and rewritten article on the interpretation of the film, which I personally think is at least substantially better than either the interpretation section here or the old separate article on the subject. Due to a contentious history it has been locked for a while, but comments, suggestions, and constructive criticism would be useful on the talk page, as a step towards reaching consensus. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Just checking to see if anyone thinks Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey should be merged back to its original location in this article. I don't think it should be but, the suggestion has been made..so...just checking... Dreadstar † 19:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because of length and to keep the focus of both parts, I now favor maintaining the separation. The film is obviously notable, and its article is currently rated at the highest level of importance/priority. Yet the meaning, or lack thereof, of this particular film is arguably a significant part of its value. If it were pure entertainment, it would still be a stunning visual and musical work of art. Yet, speculative as it is, that it is based on rich strata of reasonably credible and viable contemporary thought, touching on fields as various as astronomy, astrobiology, paleo-anthropology, evolution, artificial intelligence, psychology and the theories of mind, philosophy, futurism, and comparative religion [well, I have to stop somewhere!] -- can only enhance its importance, and make it almost unique in popular culture. That so many viewers have left it feeling bewildered is clearly inevitable (and maybe even desirable, as Clarke suggests), but a solid article on meaning and interpretative issues is therefore all the more valuable, to nourish that curiosity in the naive viewer, and not just leave it to wither. Forty years later (a biblical "long time"!) is a great time to start.

I feel passionately that it is very important to preserve this richness (and build on it in the future I hope) if the interpretation is merged into the article on the film, but a merge without much loss of content is at least conceivable for me, though not my first choice. Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No. It's too long. Cop 663 (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC) The article should not be merged because it's too long to be merged without unwarranted shortening. Cop 663 (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I right that you mean this article is too long to merge with the article on the film? At first I was confused and thought you meant the opposite (ie, that this article should be shortened and merged), but now I read it differently, so I guess I better check. Thanks, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarified. Cop 663 (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Voyage/journey beyond the stars

Re recent discussion on Title section, the following is from ACC's "Lost Worlds of 2001", book of 1972. I have not see my copy in years, but it is quoted on "The Kubrick Site: Clarke's 2001 Diary (excerpts)":

"The announced title of the project, when Stanley gave his intentions to the press, was Journey Beyond the Stars. I never liked this, because there had been far too many science-fictional journeys and voyages. (Indeed, the innerspace epic Fantastic Voyage, featuring Raquel Welch and a supporting cast of ten thousand blood corpuscles, was also going into production about this time)."

I guess I think it might better go in the Writing subsection of Production. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Boring

I just watched this movie and I find it hard to believe this piece of garbage won awards. It was boring, and any movie that needed to be explained failed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.88.65 (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all this page is really for comments about the article about the movie rather than about the movie itself. But, while we're here, let it be noted that 2001 has suffered more from transition from big screen to small than just about any film in history. In Cinerama (the '60s version of IMAX) many found it enigmatic but few found it boring. This is one of my favorite films, but on a medium to small TV set it probably is fairly boring.
The film is intended to be mysterious, but just as much in the sense of inspiring awe as inspiring bafflement.
I can introduce you to a few folks who find it hard to believe it won so few awards. It wasn't nominated at all for best picture.

--WickerGuy (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"The critics loved it, the critics hated it." Nuff said. This film is a think film, not a park your bain outside film. My best friend is of the opion that 2001 is the worst SF film he ever saw. The reason s he considers it the worst are the reasons I consider it to be my favourite film of all. To each his own.; --Jason Palpatine (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Time to Revert to the Earlier Plot Text?

IMHO, the newly tightened and rewritten plot entered on 8/18/08 is highly inferior to its predecessor. The writers of the new plot have walked in in the middle of the picture (so to speak) and ignored the rules of the road that have long been followed by most of us attempting to cultivate this entry (see the archived discussions).

Some of the broad problems:

• The story line is now too truncated, particularly the opening.
• The new prose is startlingly lame in many spots:

"Floyd then leaves the space station for Clavius in a different ship."

(BTW, if you're editing to tighten, why would you change "on a lunar shuttle" to "in a different ship", which is one character longer?)

• The text has been so tightened it now omits certain key points.
• The text lacks precision to the point that it introduces mistakes.
• Introduction of information not knowable solely from viewing the film.
• Introduction of info from the novel.
• Introduction of subjective, interpretive, unsourced supposition as fact.
• Re-introduction of soundtrack references, which were deleted by previous agreement.

Other nits simply annoy:

• 'Soviets' changed to 'Russians' -- this was hashed out long ago, and the consensus was that Soviets better reflected the director's intent.
• Inexplicable forward references:

"We eventually are brought to an elderly and dying Dave Bowman lying on THE BED" (emphasis added)

-- Huh? What bed?

The old plot was simply a much better read. I vote for a revert. What say ye all?

Sailorlula (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I also vote for a revert. I agree with most of your points but to me the main problem of the current version is what you refer to as "the startlingly lame" prose. I recently attempted to remove interpretive/critical commentary and the music references, but many of my changes seem to have been reverted.-Hal Raglan (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sailorlula has hit on all the probs - a third vote for reversion to the earlier version. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As the chief author of the shortened revision, I'll go with group consensus and bow out, unless we feel the new version can be sufficiently massaged.
Some two cents in my defense. I both undid Hal Reglan's changes, and then re-instated about half of them in a different style that I felt kept continuity better. So far, most revisions to my version seem to create as many problems as they solve (introducing more serious discontinuities and inaccuracies). If this is due to my version being just too intractable to work with, then it SHOULD be reverted, but if it is due to the new revisions being hastily done, then possibly the current one could be worked over more thoroughly. (I quite agree that my prose is stilted and stiff, but I also feel subsequent revisions were poorly applied bandages. See comment at bottom of this page for an example.)
Currently, the only soundtrack reference is the opening sentence with a footnote linking to the soundtrack version. All further soundtrack references were ditched.
Sorry, had no idea there was a Soviets/Russians issue.

BTW, IMO a very very brief allusion elaborated mostly in a footnote to the possibility that the satellite is a nuclear weapon ought to be in the article given that there are both visual clues (cannons, nuclear logos, flags of multiple coutries) to this effect and it is overtly mentioned by actor Frank Poole in the commentary on the DVD release in October, 2007 (not to mention Jerome Agel's book "Making of 2001"). Or else, mention it in the section "Interpretations of 2001"!! Hopefully, this covers all issues re objections

1. Introduction of information not knowable solely from viewing the film.
2. Introduction of info from the novel.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what constitutes a specific example of "Introduction of subjective, interpretive, unsourced supposition as fact." Did I introduce "mistakes" or just leave it open to very misleading interpretation? You can leave a message on my talk page or here.

At any rate, the question is really whether the new version is repairable or not? If you decide it is, please re-instate "moon shuttle", "Soviets" and such and try to get it more focused in areas where it is just way too vague to the point of being open to mistaken interpretation. Otherwise, just revert.

Also, as I noted in my previous message on this page, the Wiki guideline of plot summary being 300 to 500 words ought to be upped to 700, IMO.

--WickerGuy (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Did very trivial fixes. "Soviets" rather than Russians. "room" to "bedroom". "moonshuttle". Obviously, these don't address the larger issues.

--WickerGuy (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Afterthought. My broad purpose was to keep the plot summary short and simple. Obviously, in attempting this, I introduced a prose style that was stilted and stiff, as well as lacking in clarity, and possibly omitting key pivotal points. Brevity may not always be the soul of wit. SHould I attempt something like this again, I'll take a bit more time with the process.

--WickerGuy (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made a rough revision attempting to address the most obvious stylistic problems. It may still have more gaps/lacunae than others like. Generally, in places where transitions were not clear, I tried to insert the appropriate information bridging or 'hooking' one incident to that following. At this point I leave it in the hands of Sailorlula, Reglan, et al. pending further communications.

--WickerGuy (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Another rework. I have fleshed out the plot synopsis to include place descriptions in areas where their absence leads to a lack of clarity. Including captions of pictures, the plot synopsis has now gone up to 1224 words. It is now midway between the length it was at when I reworked it (over 1400 words) and my initial revision (just under 1000). (It's fairly obvious there is a danger in writing a synopsis of a movie you have seen 20 times.)

--WickerGuy (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to Maury Markowitz

Maury Markowitz is the first person to significantly modify my 8/18/08 (and heavily overhauled and reworked on 09/04 and 09/05) revision of the plot that I think really really works and improves it without introducing more obvious inaccuracies and forward references, and which I have not the slightest impulse to revert. Hopefully, with Mr. Markowitz's good work, there will not be a need to revert to the pre-August version.

The plot prior to my editing it on 8/18 was 1410 words. My excessively truncated 08/18 revision was just under 1000. My Sept. 5th overhaul was at 1224 words due to my restoring both scene transitions and scene setups and my clearing up material that was vague in response to the criticisms in this section of the talk page. Now it is up to 1296 words (including picture captions), mostly due to Maury restoring the Clavius cover story about the epidemic, a plot point which I had originally elected to omit.

One modest complaint about wikipedia software. It seems that if you introduce paragraph breaks into a text that were not previously there, then the "diff" function on the history pages for comparing versions starts reporting more differences than are really there, since it seems to be doing version comparison on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. Thus a superficial look at the software report on the difference makes the text look like it has been altered far more than it really has been, just because one paragraph was split into two. Maybe there's a good reason for this, and it really is a feature and not a bug. If not, it's probably not a high priority of wikipedia to modify the software, so that a new paragraph break gets reported as a minor difference. But I thought I would make a note of it.

--WickerGuy (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Photographing the Monolith (2)

The scientists gather around it for a group photo but are interrupted when a continuous high-pitched tone is picked up by their radio receivers.

G'lawd! What a banal way to describe a pivotal 'discovery'. Am I really remembering it so differently? That this was the first moment at which sunlight touched the monolith buried so long ago. That is, the moment when the monolith confirms that it has been purposefully unburied, and not by apes. So is the lack of mention in the article due to 'spoiler' concerns? Shenme (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, it has been flattened a bit, has it not? Up until the great screech, it is banal, humorously so, like Great White Hunters gathering while one puts his foot on the neck of a dead trophy just shot. It doesn't quite work geometrically that the Earth, Sun, and monolith align almost vertically just at the instant the sunlight first touches the monolith, but still, but let's not quibble. It was a great moment. Straight out of that older one in The Sentinal. Somebody should jazz it up, I agree. Wwheaton (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Union

I suggest that the section of the article that gives examples of predictions of 2001 that have come to pass be stripped of the "continued existence of the Soviet Union" claim.71.63.153.119 (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This was already hashed out long ago -- see the archived discussions. The consensus was that Kubrick did not anticipate the breakup of the Soviet Union (note the Russians' Aeroflot flight bags which include the hammer and sickle) and intended to show continued tension between the US and USSR. The reference was also kept in to help point out the tension to younger viewers who could easily be clueless.

Regards, Sailorlula (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarke didn't like it

James Randi recalls Clarke himself was disappointed with the movie. Listen here. Maybe this is something that would improve the article? You decide, I'm just a visitor. –TS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.77.253.50 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting. Clarke could be quite coy , in other references , especially a lot of his written material, he never really expresses a real disagreement with Kubrick's film narrative. He does not complain , as Ordway has, that the narrative voice over should have been kept. This is in fact the only instance I know of Clarke ever expressing a disappointment, would take it with a grain of salt. (Al Jackson) (talk • contribs) April 28 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs) 11:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Further looking shows that Clarke must have become very quickly reconciled to Kubrick version of the story, his only gripe being Kubrick's delay in the appearance of the novel.Aajacksoniv —Preceding comment was added at 01:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Clark has been interviewed many times about the film. There was even a broadcast of an nexcerpt on TCM yesterday. I do not recall any ocasion when he expressed dissatisfaction with the movie. --Jason Palpatine (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy

I would consider it courteous if editors would refrain from instantaneous reversion of non-controversial factual material which needs better sourcing. Except in the case of derogatory unsourced material about living persons, I believe it is acceptable to challenge such material on the talk pages if it is dubious, and revert if no substantiation is forthcoming in a reasonable period. Material which is obviously correct, but not yet fully sourced, seems to deserve correspondingly more tolerance. Thanks Wwheaton (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy Redux

Apparently, the reference to the PanAm spacecraft being an Orion III has been reverted more than once. Model assembly kits of this craft sold in stores as a movie tie-in all labeled it an Orion III. They can still be found on e-Bay and dozens of other sources of miniature space models on the Internet. Early drafts of the shooting script also refer to Orion III. These are online.

Similarly, there has been a deletion of reference to the first spacecraft seen being an orbital nuclear weapon. As noted, this is specified in the novel but not the book. However, early drafts of the screenplay had the Star-Child detonating these weapons at the end of the film, something Kubrick chose to eliminate as too similar to Doctor Strangelove. Furthermore, the craft as seen on film clearly has a cannon on it.

My own material concerning it being impossible for the sun to rise to the sky's zenith near the crater Clavius was deleted on the grounds that the film does not show the sun at its zenith. What is that light source just above the monolith? A flashlight??? I don't think so. The film jolly darn-tootin' well DOES show the sun at the sky's zenith above the monolith, when in fact (as I noted in my deleted material) the sun could never rise more than 30 degrees above the horizon there.

IMO, all this material deserves restoration. There is an online Science Fiction and Fantasy Wiki at http://www.infoshop.org/sf/Main_Page with a first-rate article on 2001. If the material doesn't get restored here, put it there.

WickerGuy (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The editorialising re. the original or implied purpose of the satellites which has just been added may be appropriate for the Writing section, or perhaps even as a footnote under the Plot section, but it doesn't belong where it is in its present form. Since some people clearly feel strongly about it I'm happy to initiate this discussion about where it might be moved or otherwise presented, but it shouldn't stay where it is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Listen, nobody is arguing that the PanAm ship wasn't, technically, named an Orion III. Hell, half of us built the Goddamned Aurora model of it back in 1969! We're just saying that nothing in the FILM ITSELF says it's an Orion III. The problem is including this little infonugget in places like the plot synopsis where 1) it's cluttering minutiae, and 2) a careful viewer of the film, and ONLY the film, could not discern that infonugget. This just makes plain common sense, and is the standard that's been followed here for years. An earnest viewer of the film should not be made to feel that he missed something, when in fact he's just unfamiliar with what Aurora Plastics put out in the 60s!

By the way, the early shooting scripts available online that you refer to are thought by many to be fakes.

NOW, all that said, I'll be adding back in the "Space Station 5" name to the article, because I just viewed the film again on Blu-ray. There is now enough resolution to discern "Space Station 5" under the Hilton sign behind the Soviets! How friggin' cool is that?! In fact, you can now read the text on the kiosks beyond the Hilton, which seem to read "Gifts", "Drugs", and "Cameras" (not sure about Cameras). I watched the other ship segments closely (I'm talking printer's loupe on the screen at 1080p) but can find nothing saying Aries 1B or Orion III. (I do see, however, that the liqui-paks carry a Seabrook Farms logo -- today's maker of premium frozen creamed spinach!)

With regard to the "satellites are nukes" -- dear Lord, please let's not go there yet again. This has been hashed out repeatedly and extensively in the past (see the archived discussions). Once again, the bottom line is that a careful, thoughtful viewer of the FILM ALONE really cannot be expected to make the leap. One could argue that the bone-weapon morphing into the satellite was Kubrick clearly telegraphing that fact to us, but given today's ever-dumbed-down audiences, that's really expecting too much.

With regard to the film showing the sun at zenith over the Monolith, and pointing out that this couldn't happen given the location of Clavius: why dwell on minutiae about the maximum degrees of ascension the Sun could actually reach over Clavius, when any careful observer of the film can point out many more basic, grave problems with this scene? Here are just a few:

1) Moments before the Sun AND Earth appear near zenith above the Monolith, Earth appears low and gibbous over the horizon --how'd it get so high in the sky so quickly?

2) The orientation of the dark portion of the low-in-the-sky, gibbous Earth tells us that the Sun is also low to the horizon as well. Again, how'd the Sun move so fast?

3) Even as the Sun is shown directly overhead above the Monolith, the TMA-1 excavation remains in shadow -- huh?

4) During the ape version, where the Sun and Moon are near zenith over the Monolith, the sky clearly shows sunset reds and purples -- sunset at noon, what gives?

5) The ape version is shown twice in the film. Though some time appears to have elapsed between the two showings, the Moon and Sun positioning (and sunset background) is identical. How could that be?

6) As an aside, many have observed that the pre-Stargate alignment of moons is utterly impossible.

All this seems to suggest one of two things -- either Kubrick was a lot sloppier than most imagine, or perhaps we're not supposed to interpret what we're seeing so literally. The aliens pulling all this off are so God-like, perhaps they can suspend the "laws" of physics themselves!

Regards, Sailorlula (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Scientific accuracy

Over under scientific accuracy is an old observation:

Where does the pod door go during emergency entry into the Discovery? There is an answer to this. The pod doors are built to move 'transversely' (from side to side, not in and out). Once the explosive bolts freed the door, the inference is that the door moves to the side in a recess built for that purpose. This a design avoids the danger by turning the door into a projectile.

Note: There was no debris from the door, only condensed atmosphere from the pod. Also it can be inferred is that the POD reaction control system is active to prevent it from translating or rotating due to forces and torques during ingress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, sorry, but this is really reaching. First of all, the general method in which the aerospace industry has long employed pyrotechnic bolts is utterly different from what you're describing. I can find no instance of a "spring loaded", actuated, or otherwise auto-retractable door mechanism in real life that operates in tandem with explosive bolts as you describe.

That said, the makers of 2001 could certainly have imagined something unique, but that's unlikely. Let's remember, we're talking about a failure-mode scenario for opening the door. What you describe, and what we see (earlier) in the movie -- the door SLOWLY sliding into and out of closed position laterally -- IS the normal mode of operation. The explosive bolts are there for when egress is needed and the normal door mode has failed, say, jammed; that is to say, the lateral door opening/closing mechanism is already toast.

Bowman purposefully blows the bolts, even though the door hasn't failed, because he's counting on it being out of his way nearly instantaneously (so the explosive decompression may blow him into the Discovery airlock). The zippy lateral retraction of the door that you posit simply does not happen subsequent to the explosive bolts being blown. Frame-by-frame examination of the film reveals that the door is there one frame and completely gone the next. For your lateral retraction theory to hold water, that'd have to be one mighty strong spring or actuator. Oh, and now we have to start worrying about the whole pod spinning laterally in reaction to your near-instantaneous door opening!

Sailorlula (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

First it is entirely possible that Bowman launched himself and was not 'blown' in. True there is some dramatic license in the film to get this action sequence, but there are so many things that Kubrick leaves unsaid to the audience to figure out that this seems a logical deduction. Even tho one at first thinks of conventional pyros blowing something in or out, it more logical for the reasons given above for the motion to be transverse and really not that unique an idea. The re-entry HAS to be 'zippy' , want to leave exposure to a vacuum as short as possible. Why in reality an astronaut would leave his helmet and gloves behind is a dramatic stretch, but its ok. I really don't see where the 'unlikely' part comes here. For instance, there are several frames that show that Bowman cut control of his POD from HAL, N/A HAL COMLK, it is amazing that Kubrick thought to insert this. Otherwise one would have to ask the question , why did not HAL take over control of Dave's POD, as he had done with Frank? As for the pod translating or rotating I had already noted the implication that the POD's reaction control system had been set , by Dave, to cancel out such motion, one would not want that anyway.

Another piece of evidence for door motion in the pyros blowing the POD door transversely is that Dave enters the emergency airlock from the viewers right and the expanding atmosphere of the POD cockpit from (the viewer's)left, as if something had slid from right to left. The actually logistics of film making does seem to be that the door was removed making it appear to the viewer that the door disappeared. The logical implication ,however,is that POD door can not be allowed to become a deadly projectile and must move out of the way.

Regarding the holding breath -- is any one else in doubt of this? To me it looks more like, after hyperventilating, Bowman strains to expel as much air from his lungs as possible. This looks quite different (to me) from your typical taking a deep breath. What may be confusing people is that once he's done this, he then has to hold the air out, which could look a bit like holding it in. It's a while since I've seen the movie but I did read Clarke's novella a long time ago and always remember how that scene reminded me of the passage in it for being faithful. I have heard that Clarke disagreed with the scene however, but his opinion may not be any more accurate than mine for all I know, so, comments anyone? Adytum72a (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the above observation (the question to exposure to a vacuum in 2001 occurs often) an extensive answer is given on NASA's Goddard's page: [1] It is true that Clarke in a documentary thinks that we are given the impression that Bowman is holding his breath, which he says was the wrong thing to do, however we don't really see what the last thing Dave does, he could had expelled all his air as you note. I have not timed the sequence but it would seem that Dave is exposed to a vacuum for less than 10 seconds (maybe less than that)and from what scientific knowledge we have now that was survivable, in fact he probably would have lasted even longer than that. One notes that Clarke, in the novel, does not have Dave execute this emergency entry that sequence is quite different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Left out of this section is what might be the only design flaw in the 2001 technology. That is the external hose fitting on Dave and Frank's space suits (they are not exactly so exposed on the Lunar suit helmets). It is seen most predominately in the scene after Frank get hits by his POD, the hose from the suit to the helmet is knocked loose. In that era the NASA Space suit did have external fittings such as that but were secured very tightly near the chest area. It would have taken a lot more than ramming by a POD to have knocked one of those lose. This is a piece of dramatic licence Kubrick could have dispensed with... just ramming Frank would have been enough.

THE LUNAR SURFACE - Wasn't this also an inaccuracy? The version created for the lunar landscape is not the same as we soon discovered during the Lunar landing missions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.179.153.163 (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the Lunar Surface with respect to the Lunar Bus , some of that looks a little like old Bonestell paintings, ... I am not sure that is highly inaccurate. If you mean the view from the Ares landing at Clavius Base and the Monolith research station, from what can be seen of the surrounding landscape it might not be 'soft' enough , but from what was known at the time looks accurate enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs) 21:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarke on HAL's Creation

"Probably no one would ever know this: it did not matter. In the 1980's, Minsky and Good had shown how neural networks could be generated automatically -- self replicated-- in accordance with an arbitrary learning program. Artificial brains could be grown* by a process strikingly analogous to the development of the human brain. In any given case, the precise details would never be known, and even if they were, they would be millions of times too complex for human understanding." --A. C. Clarke (2001: A Space Odyssey, ROC edition, trade paper back, 2005, pages 92 - 93)ISBN: 0-451-19849-2 / 978-0-451-19849-5 (USA edition).

• This is a remarkable description of thoughts about AI, and is probably due to Marvin Minsky uncredited but a consultant on the film , the implication being that HAL was created

by some kind of solid state simulation of biological evolution. Unfortunately in the 1960's Kubrick and Clarke only had the language 'computer' and 'program' while HAL is closer to what is now called a Strong Artificial Intelligence Strong AI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs) 14:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Clavius vs. Tycho

Under the heading "Scientific Accuracy" much has been made of the fact that the sun does not rise more than 30 degrees above the horizon at Clavius and therefore could not align itself vertically with the monolith discovered on the moon. But the monolith is not found in Clavius; it is found in Tycho, some 15 degrees to the north. This location is confirmed not only by the TMA-1 (Tycho Magnetic Anomoly 1) photos examined by Floyd on the moonbus, but also by Floyd's prerecorded briefing heard by Dave on Discovery I. Whether such an alignment would be possible at Tycho, even at the north rim, I leave to others to determine; but inasmuch as it is remarked under "Filming" that "the Tycho crater excavation scene" was shot first, some adjustment to the facts and/or figures seems to be in order.--Mailedfist (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Such an alignment of the Earth and sun is only possible in Copernicus Crater. The alignments of the sun and planets was creative license on Kubrick's part. This was the case with the Jupiter sequences. He knew what he was doing. But I do feel that with the shot, he should have used Copernicus Crater instead. CMA-1? --Jason Palpatine (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Plot changes made on September 1st were inaccurate

I undid the changes to the plot section on September 1st because they were actually erroneous. First of all it is ambiguous whether or not the music that accompanies appearances of the slab is actually heard by the characters, and even if it is, it is certainly describable as "wordless singing" and NOT as "humming" (!!!). Secondly, the tribe of apes that finds the tool did not have the pool and lose it to another. They tried to gain control of a pool they never had and failed!!!! Finally, if we're going to note that the transition from the Dawn of Man sequence to the year 2000 is an interval of millions of years, that would be in the transition from bone to satellite, and NOT in the transition from satellite to PanAm jet!!! The transition from herbivore to carnivore apes is good to note and I have restored it, and I have relocated the million-years jump to it's proper place.
About a month ago, I shortened the plot from 1400 words to just under 1000, and I did delete entire scenes and the subplot about the epidemic cover-story. It is still too long by Wikipedia standards (300 to 500 words) though they may be too stringent. (My call would be an average of 700 words is about right.) At any rate, we should be conservative about extraneous details.

--WickerGuy (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wickerguy, with regard to your points above, your enthusiasm is commendable but I humbly suggest that you're getting ahead of yourself. Three longtime editors of this page have big problems with your entire 8/18/08 rewrite of the plot and have voted for a wholesale revert to the earlier version -- see "Time to Revert to the Earlier Plot Text?" at the top of this Talk/Discussion page. You might want to respond to the problems pointed out there. Regards, Sailorlula (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Star Gate vs Stargate, Starchild vs Star child

I have noticed several different spellings throughout this article: Star Gate, StarGate, Star Child, Starchild, and Star-child. For consistency I have changed them all to Star Gate and Star Child. If another spelling is preferred for some reason, feel free to change it, as long as they are all the same. LK (t|c) 02:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the few times the editors have seemed to allow terms from Arthur Clarke's novel which are normally proscribed from this article as they are normally not necessary. (For example, here we do NOT refer to the ape with the bone as "Moonwatcher" nor to specific names for the space-plane, etc.) However, these exclusions are names of specific entities (one specific ape among many) rather than of general types (Star Gates in general), and we simply don't have a better alternative for "Star-Child" and "Star Gate". ("Floating space-fetus" just doesn't sound right, nor does "light tunnel" etc.).
For purposes of spelling these distinctive Clarke-universe entities, I suggest that Clarke's novel be used as reference. In Clarke's novel, it is "Star Gate" (two words), but "Star-Child" (hyphenated). Thus I shall just after posting this, be making the appropriate change.

--WickerGuy (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The plot misses explanations

In my opinion, the plot could not only tell what happens in the film, but also have more explanations about it. For example, it could explain the meaning of the monolith and why it sent the signal to Jupiter. What about the ear-piercing high-pitched radio signal on the moon? Or the tunnel of coloured light and what happens to Dave after that? This isn't an easy to understand film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schuenemann (talk • contribs) 03:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of the monolith is ambiguous and the film is intended to be enigmatic, and as such to explain is to potentially veer into introducing personal and subjective POV issues, although spelling out in the synopsis that a lot of what happens is in fact enigmatic might be an idea. Also could provide links to article on interpretations.

--WickerGuy (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the plot summary pointing out that the monolith is man made, except that men weren't around so it was intelligent being made. The audience can rightly conclude from this visual that there are aliens visiting earth. Helping the reader notice this is, IMHO, appropriate. Tomday (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You surely don't mean "man made". It is extraterrestial in origin, and possibly from another universe. --WickerGuy (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So let's include in the plot that the monolith was not made by the pre-humans, indicating there are other intelligent beings present. Long time Science Fiction readers will, of course, get the implication immediately. For others, well, why not help them understand?

I think the term "alien" encompasses both visitors from another place in our universe as well as visitors from another universe, and would be appropriate. Short and sweet. 98.234.191.219 (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope that those who are interested in this question of explanation will at least look over our existing Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. That article is far from perfect, but seemed the best we could do at the time. The discussion pages may also give insight re some of the issues that were raised. There was an earlier version (pre-2008) that was really embarrassingly awful (I thought), but as a wiki newbie I was startled to discover that even to suggest that the novel might offer insights into the film was considered WP:OR and instantly reverted. It was (and is) my position that the back story for the film could not possibly be laid out in detail in a film of reasonable length, so that in the end Kubrick removed all explanation from the film (which was originally far too long) and left really only the visual and aural impact, which is terrific and which no book can convey. Yet Kubrick and Clarke worked together very closely for more than 18 months at the beginning of the project, during which both novel and screenplay came to nearly final form. The movie and the novel agree very closely in all but insignificant details (IMHO), but the novel provides the modern scientific context without which the film alone is really unintelligible to a naive viewer (ie, one not steeped in space technology, modern astronomy, and astrobiology). Clarke was serious about the plot, which he developed in novels and short stories (as well as in serious technical and semi-technical monographs), for two decades before the film appeared. I think Kubrick was serious too (not that Clarke and Kubrick agreed about everything), though it made artistic and commercial sense to leave the interpretation issues out of the film, to the range of the viewers' imaginations. Thus the novel and the film, I maintain, are complementary parts of a single work of art and literature, which can only be truly understood when studied together.

So—if you want to explain the film, at least study the interpretation article, the fights that flared over it, and the issues that arose, and understand why we found it necessary to break the subject out into a separate (improved, I hope) article, before you recreate that whole drama here. If you have questions, do read the novel carefully, and see if many of them are not answered there in a clear and reasonable way. Then, if you can improve the interpretation article, please do! I would love to myself but it would take me weeks or months that I cannot spare. (Some Reliable Source really does need to write a book.) Remember, of course, that anything you say must be verifiable in reliable sources, independent of Wikipedia, or it will be ruthlessly expunged eventually, as soon as someone seriously disagrees with you. And, if you are at all moved by Clarke & Kubrick's feat, as I have been, do read Clarke's 1953 novel Childhood's End, which I contend holds the key to the whole subject. I think the basic story of "2001" essentially echoes the earlier novel, except for the addition of HAL and his implications for the future direction Life may take. And the same basic framework appears yet again in Carl Sagan's novel Contact (from a slightly more up-to-date vantage point), which received an outstanding transformation to film in the 1995 movie of the same name. (And if you do none of the above, just enjoy the film!) Wwheaton (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. So that's why the "plot" section is so bad. Layers of scar tissue. Oh well.

Tomday (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that one of the thing that makes the film so sublime is precisely its enigmatic character it is the sense of mystery (and numinous) accompanied by dazzling space images in tandem that makes it work. It is near-impossible to reproduce or convey this effect in an encyclopedic plot summary (at least not without introducing POV material.) Perhaps a much briefer (extremely brief) discussion of the relationship (not differences) between film and book is in order.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Who had the watering hole when?

In my original revision of the plot of 2001 circa August, I state (erroneously I now think) that the group of apes who had their minds expanded and transformed by the monolith had attempted to take away the watering hole and failed. On September 1st, someone tried to the correct that, and introduced many many errors into the plot summary. I reverted their changes. Just yesterday, another user made the same correction about the watering-hole. I took a second look at the DVD, and the correction is correct, and my original version wrong. (The transformed apes are in fact initially driven away from their water-hole.)

However, the confusion lies in the fact that the monolith-transformed apes return to the pool from the opposite direction than that to which they retreated. The pool is in between two high rock walls which form a kind of corridor. When the apes are driven away from the pool pre-monolith, their attackers came from what I will arbitrarily designate East and the losers (soon to learn about tools from the monolith) retreat to the 'West'. Post-monolith, when they return to retake the pool, they come back from the opposite side, the 'East'. It is this which was the misleading visual cue which led me to think the transformed apes had attempted to gain the pool and failed, rather than having been driven away from it, which is actually correct. It is of course natural for this to happen since the 'East' side of the corridor provides concealment for approaching attackers which the 'West' side does not do.

Thanks to Tom Edwards for the correction, and apologies to whom I reverted four weeks ago or so when they attempted same (although their other stuff was riddled with errors.)

P.S. Nonetheless, I am reverting the shape of the monolith from "cuboid" back to "rectangular", the former being too technical, and the latter being used by Clarke's novel.

--WickerGuy (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Could use some article help finalizing remaining device invention dates

As noted in my explanation for my edit-change, I discovered that voice-print identification already existed in 1968 when 2001 was released. Thus the "imagining the future" developed a fourth subcategory of "Futuristic devices already in use when film released" which now has one item (voice-print identification). I then went and checked as many dates on all the other futuristic stuff that I could.

Two items needed rewording. Old version of article listed as accurate film prediction the existence of "longer phone numbers for national and international dialing." This doesn't quite fly since national dialing became a reality as early as 1951, but international direct dialing was not available until well after release of 2001. Thus I reworded this to read "Telephone numbers with more digits than in the 1960s. (Long distance in-country direct dialing with 10 digits first emerged in 1951, but direct-dialing between countries was not possible till 1970"

An exactly parallel problem emerges with the old version listing "A computer that can defeat a human being at chess". Moderately proficient computer chess that could defeat slightly experienced players became a reality a few years before the film 2001, but the ability to defeat major champions was not a reality until decades later. Hence, reworded to read "A computer that can defeat a human being at chess. (First credibly challenging computer chess in mid-1960s prior to film's release. First defeat of a national champion in 1989"

What's still needed

Date for
"Electronic darkening of a normally transparent surface (Bowman uses a helmet control to darken his visor during an EVA"
and date for
"The use of credit cards with data stripes "
If anyone can pin down the dates these first appeared, it would complete the section for now. Help appreciated.

--WickerGuy (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi mate. Appreciate that you're taking a thoughtful approach to this, digging out the facts and attempting to find the citations, but I have to say that I'm not and never have been a fan of the Scientific Accuracy or Imagining the Future sections (see earlier Talk where their very existance in the article has been debated). While there may be a place for these bits in WP, in this article they have always appeared to me as list cruft and only slightly above Trivia sections (even cited trivia is frowned upon), as well as being too open to original research. If they must exist, I would advocate breaking them out into a separate article or articles, just as Interpretation has been. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the scientific accuracy section is just a tad easier to convert into a non-list paragraph format. On the other hand, it is much more vulnerable to OR problems and it seems far more paramount that appropriate citations be given for stuff in it. Likewise, the stuff in Imagining the Future is wayyy easier to fact-check so there's less danger of OR issues arising. But the only way to convert it into non-list format is to discuss it in the context of what the film-makers were thinking or might have been. I will put on my thinking cap. Consider this an intermediate reflection.

--WickerGuy (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Epilogue

I have converted these sections from list format to prose format, but omitted all references to the above-mentioned "needed" items, as I can find no info on the origin of credit cards with data stripes or electronic darkening of transparent surface. --WickerGuy (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Spake Zarathustra" vs. "Spoke"

Yesterday I reverted a change that corrected "Spake Zarathustra" to "Spoke", but then realized it's not so simple. I have added the following as a footnote within the main article.

Oddly listed in the closing credits [of 2001] as spoke Zarathustra but on the official soundtrack albums as spake Zarathustra. The book by Nietzsche has been translated both ways and the title of Strauss' music is usually rendered in the original German whenever not discussed in the context of the film 2001 although Britannica Online's entry lists the piece as spoke Zarathustra. This article currently follows the convention of the 2001 soundtrack album instead of that of the film's closing credits and uses 'spake'.

--WickerGuy (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

X-34

I reverted a suggestion that the PanAm shuttle inspired the X-34 technology development vehicle design. Besides lacking external support, whatever the vague similarities, science fiction imaginings (even Clarke's) do not inspire the actual configurations of flight hardware. This suggestion would get a horselaugh from anyone in the business. Wwheaton (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair 'nuf. I was trying to preserve all the material in the old list-format "imagining the future" in the new prose-format and in converting list-format to prose may have over-reached. Perhaps the X-34 reference should just be dropped then.

--WickerGuy (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent re-edits to Plot

Wickerguy, the aging part at the end is certainly open to discussion so I have no particular issue with rewording (though I don't think "with the film's POV each time switching to the later Dave" is really necessary). However you'll have to explain the benefit of again padding the plot summary with details of "idle chat" and editorialising like "in an extended sequence". It seems to me that after spending a lot of time working on this it might be time to allow for some other input... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ian, I think have a strong case on your first point and a weak case on your second.

While I'm a bit loose on POV (meaning WP policy against editor POV- I don't mean film camera POV) in analytic discussions of film (use of music, differences between book) and so forth, I tend to want much higher standards regarding not introducing editorial POV into plot synopses. And that's fairly hard with 2001. IMO in removing the future selves biz and just saying Dave ages rapidly, I think you introduce POV interpretation into the plot synopsis and lose SK's sense of ambiguity. The switching of film POV to future selves is how SK gets us from young Dave to old Dave in a short period of film-time and keeps the film riddling.

Your other point is much better taken. I'm trying (a tad ineptly I suspect) to convey a sense of the banality of most of the dialogue and its contrast with the breathtaking character with the scenery. I may be doing it in the wrong place. Perhaps a more focused brief analytic discussion of those scenes in "Section 11.3 Dialogue" is the way to go. The point is already made in 11.3 (the second of three paragraphs in the current version) but it could be more focused Ii.e. with examples) and less generalized. However, I was trying to hint at it in the plot synopsis without myself introducing editorial POV. (For example, if I said "banal" instead of "idle" in the plot synopsis, that would be out of line, I think.) In your favor, it can be argued that even slightly straying into character arcs, story mood, etc. don't belong in plot synopses, especially as I'm doing it only by a couple of stray hints. So maybe I'll tighten up section 11.3. --WickerGuy (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've made the points I want (a bit more explicitly) in "Section 11.3 Dialogue". Further removals of my small hints in the plot synopsis section will not be controverted or reverted (but please keep Dave in the bedroom more or less as is.)
--WickerGuy (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Replacing "Differences with the subsequent novelization"

I deleted this very brief (two sentence) section titled "Differences with the subsequent novelization" because it had on less than three serious errors:

• It credited the novel solely to Clarke and the screenplay solely to Kubrick, which contradicts statements in the "Writing" section.
• It listed only one major difference between the film and the novel, while the article on the novel goes into considerably more detail.
• It implied that the novelization was written after the film, while according to the "Writing" section (and elsewhere) they were written simultaneously.

In its place I've added links to the article about the novel in the "Writing" and "See Also" sections, and a "See Also" in the "Plot" section.

I do think we might add a brief Level 2 section linking to the article on the novel, but I think it should be down with other adaptations rather than so prominently near the top, and that it should have a more general title rather than just being about the differences. Suggestions?

The deleted text read: "Clarke's novelization was based on an earlier draft of Kubrick's screenplay. The mechanics of the showdown with HAL are the major difference as well as the replacement of Saturn by Jupiter. For more information see 2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(novel)#Differences_with_the_film"

GCL (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The section (which I wrote) would have been much better if it had read "major difference among others" instead of "major difference", and absolutely positively should have read "an earlier draft of his screenplay with Kubrick" instead of "an earlier draft of Kubrick's screenplay" and should have added material saying that Clarke wrote it while the final draft of the screenplay was being completed.

As such, a better version would have read: "Clarke's novelization was based on an earlier draft of screenplay with Kubrick, written while work was completed on the final draft. The mechanics of the showdown with HAL is the most substantial difference among others including the replacement of Saturn by Jupiter. For more information see 2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(novel)#Differences_with_the_film".

However, as long as the link is present in the article (it's very well placed now at the top of the plot section), I see no urgent need to restore this section.

--WickerGuy (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Awards section non-consistent format

The Academy Awards are organized in a table. The other awards are not. IMHO it doesn't look good, and the table can be removed. What do you think? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The Number 3

The number 3 makes a very large number of appearances in the film. This would seem to be worthy of mentioning in the article. --Deuxsonic (talk) 07:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Probalby only if others besides us have noted it, and thought of a reason for it.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)