Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Harry Lange source questionable

"Staff who continue to refer to "bombs" includes production designer Harry Lange (generally employed as an illustrator for the space industry) who has since the film's release displayed his original production sketches for what he described as "the orbiting bombs". [38]"

The source listed does not quote Lange directly. It's an article by Simon Atkinson describing a meeting with Lange at which he shows Atkinson sketches of spacecraft. Atkinson calls them "orbiting bombs and satellites", not Lange. Suggest rewording or deletion.Shirtwaist (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have slightly revised the quote. Nonetheless, as with the Agel citation (though not quite to the same degree- you're on much shakier ground there) you are verging on pettifogging and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Sure, Harry Lange might have never said they bombs to SA, but one is inclined to quote Saturday Night Live's "Wayne Campbell": "Yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my [posterior]"--WickerGuy (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The author of your source does not quote Lange directly, as you imply, nor does he say "Lange described them to me as bombs". Either represent your sources accurately, or don't bother posting them.Shirtwaist (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits

To be fair, designers who worked with Kubrick were frustrated by their inability to modify designs in accordance with changes Kubrick made in the script, and the section should reflect that.

However, when you changed
"he film's science consultant Fred Ordway, in a memo containing a series of suggested changes to the film sent to Kubrick after the film's release, refers to "the orbiting bombs" "
by adding "as one such proposed change to the original film" you totally violate his context.
Ordway is clearly and unambiguously referring simply and merely to Kubrick's dropping of the voice-over narration!!! To imply that Ordway's reference to the bombs in any way relates to "as one such proposed change" is simply inserting a blatant falsehood into Wikipedia.

I don't know the WP format for citing a DVD (minutes and seconds), or if there is one, nor a film documentary. The documentary is online for anyone to view on YouTube. I have already cited the exact title of the documentary. I presumed that like film plots you didn't need to have a specific citation. If I am wrong, point me to the place in the WP Manual of Style that says so, and explains how to cite minutes and seconds on a DVD or documentary. Either way, the material is verifiable and the sources are stated in the text even if minute-second location is not given. The Citation needed tag is generally given for statements that are completely unsourced. WP clearly states that the tag is for "questionable claims that lack a citation to a reliable source." Your insertion of those tags is utterly gratuitous!!!

Finally, as noted above, your current paraphrase of Walker omits the fact that I was careful to note that he uses present tense "are bombs" in both quotes, something I was very careful to let the reader know, and which your edit removes. A subtle but I think real violation of WP:UNDUE, and violation of the policy "Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited" from Wikipedia:No_original_research

This is three strikes in one edit. Please cease and desist from editing this section any further unless you propose the change in advance, or I will appeal to a higher administrative authority and request you be banned from editing this article.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ordway -- I think you should read your sources more carefully. The context of your original line, "The film's science consultant Fred Ordway refers to "the orbiting bombs.", related only to the addendum at the bottom of the page under the heading "What follows is Ordway's advice to Kubrick after the film was released:", which you failed to point out. Nowhere else on that page does Ordway refer to "orbiting bombs". His notation on his list of suggested changes reads "2. Without warning, we cut to the orbiting bombs. And to a short, introductory narration, missing in the present version." This is clearly and unambiguously(to me)Ordway's suggestion to Kubrick that he should return to his now-rejected premise that they were orbiting bombs, and that narration should be reinstated. Ordway's list only has suggested changes to the film, including shortening sequences and adding dialog in addition to the adding of narration, so him saying "we cut to the orbiting bombs" must be taken as another change. This is EXACTLY how I stated it in the article. He assumes they are bombs, and wants to convince Kubrick they should be bombs. That's all there is to that memo. If there is another Ordway reference to "orbiting bombs" in that source, please point it out.

DVDs -- "Template:Cite video Purpose: This template and the redirected forms {{cite media}} and {{cite audio}} are used to cite sources in Wikipedia, specifically, audio and visual media sources. A production can differ among versions released; it is important to use publication information for the exact version that was consulted. For example:A second DVD release may differ from the first. A subtitled edition is substantially different from an original version without subtitles.[[1]]

Walker -- See other thread

Threats -- They bore me. Do whatever you want. I will continue to make any edits I deem necessary that conform to WP policy, and my own sensibilitites, in order to improve WP articles...PERIOD.Shirtwaist (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You should have used the template , not the citation needed template.--WickerGuy (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Exegesis of Passages from Ordway and Walker- Continued from Previous Threads

This is starting to resemble a debate between Martin Luther and Erasmus over the exact interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans.

In the case Walker, you keep presupposing that he believes Kubrick had a strong linkage between nuclear stalemate and orbiting bombs so that if the first was removed and the second had to go. Walker's statements become perfectly consistent if you assume Kubrick delinked/decoupled the bombs from nuclear stalemate, let the stalemate go, and relegated the bombs to a back corner of the significant themes of the movie. A consistent reading should be considered more likely than an inconsistent one. Just what do you think Walker meant by the words "nevertheless" and usage of the present tense??

Did you notice that the 1st, 3rd, and 4th changes in the film Ordway objected to were all about removed voice-over narration and on the grounds that the absence of such narration makes the film more obscure and less clear? Did you notice that the one difference Ordway talked about was the absent narration, and what preceded that was simply phrased as a statement of fact?

Go take a course on Reading Comprehension 101 at your local junior college and then reread Ordway!!!

I will take care of the DVD citations, & rework the Kubrick statement.

Sincerely,--WickerGuy (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Re- your comments on Walker. Your very first comment on Walker is "Walker makes no distinction of which idea he's talking about-therefore the reader must assume he means both stalemate and bombs". If this goes, all the rest of your statements collapse like a row of dominoes!! As noted above, if that "strong linkage" is rejected, everything else in Walker makes full complete and consistent sense- which I would say is always the preferred interpretation of any passage in writing, anywhere, anytime!!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

As for Agel and Walker vs. Ciment, Agel and Walker are quite clear on having talked to someone (presumably Kubrick in Walker's case) very specifically about this issue. Ciment talked with Kubrick about a lot of things, photographic technique, reason vs. passion, natural lighting, optimism vs. pessimism, etc etc but gives no indication whatsoever that he ever talked to Kubrick specifically about the much-vexed satellites, and in context gives every appearance of simply giving his own reading here. The simplest Occam's razor view is that Ciment slipped on this point, and it didn't come up in conversation with Kubrick.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Also see my contribution above on the Soviet thread.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Walker -- And you keep presupposing that he believes Kubrick had a weak linkage between nuclear stalemate and orbiting bombs. Who will decide which presupposition prevails? You? Sure, if you interpret the vague, imprecise wording in that sentence in a certain way, all our WP problems are over, right? Are you insane? If the strong linkage is rejected, due to Walker's vagueness in his statements, and the reader assumes he's referring to the bombs only, then what? Let's just stick to posting things that can be verified, providing accurate quotes, stop presupposing and assuming, and be encyclopedic like WP wants. OK? Or you can always request a third opinion through WP:RfC, in fact, I STRONGLY suggest it. Ditto your nonsense about Ordway and Ciment.Shirtwaist (talk) 10:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid. As Jon Stewart said in his recent Daily Show segment regarding the rejected 9/11 bill "I give up". I'm happy with the edit as it stands, and as stated above I stick to the claim that I have established the balance of probabilities is on my side but I do not (and have not) claimed to have established complete certainty, and I think WP should reflect that.

I have been repeatedly clear that I prefer my reading of Walker primarily because it is smooth and consistent. I guess if you prefer chunky peanut butter to the "Peter Pan" brand, or you prefer French press grainy coffee to smooth Guatemalan coffee, you will prefer your rather "crunchy" interpretation of Alexander Walker to my notably creamier one. If I see someone in a video store renting "Space Odyssey" with a Nestle's crunch bar in their hand, I will assume it is you.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No third opinion request? I'm disappointed in your lack of curiosity of the opinions of editors at large, but so be it. I'm still curious, though, to know your reasoning for interpreting Walker as saying that Kubrick dropped the whole "nuclear stalemate" but kept the orbiting nukes idea intact. As you know, there can be a nuclear stalemate with or without orbiting nukes, but why are there orbiting nukes if there is no nuclear stalemate? Does Walker think Kubrick has them up there just for the thrill of it? Ever take any courses in fundamental logic 101? So much for smooth and consistent, eh?Shirtwaist (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to wait a week or so before filing a third opinion request. Walker does not answer your question. As I have repeatedly pointed out there are a myriads of possibilities on Kubrick's motives and it is unknown what his motive might be, and Walker simply leaves this unanswered. We simply know Kubrick stopped making this business a thematic centerpiece of the film. Kubrick didn't like to explain his films.

Fundamental logic tells you that sometimes there are more than two possibilities. You raise two separate questions. What in Kubrick's motivations for retaining them at all? I honestly don't know. And does their presence necessarily imply nuclear stalemate? Quite possibly yes. Most of the era from the 1950s to the end of the Soviet Union has been characterized as nuclear stalemate (which I think is more or less synonymous with "balance of terror") http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=6381

--WickerGuy (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Your point is actually a pretty good one in terms of plot logic. If they are nukes, they are now similar to what in computer science is called a "stray pointer" that points to something that is no longer actually there, like a sign saying this way to the Masonic Hall after the hall has been torn down. Again, it's anyone's guess what was in Kubrick's mind.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum

In computer science terminology, the question becomes did Kubrick "reallocate the pointer"? Or did he leave it up to those viewers who surmised they might be bombs to just draw their own conclusions?--WickerGuy (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Kubrick's motives are not at issue here, the issue is Walker's lack of ability to be clear and precise when talking about what he gleaned from Kubrick about this detail. Personally, I think SK was perfectly clear to him that the stalemate and the bombs went, because I know SK was highly intelligent and meticulous enough about detail to know that leaving orbiting nukes in his movie while simultaneously axing the "nuclear stalemate" idea was nuts(who were they pointed at...the Martians?). Like I said, either just the bombs go, or both stalemate and bombs go, there's really no other alternative. Kubrick knew that. Now, that doesn't mean the audience can't think they're nukes - or a nuclear stalemate really does exist - or think the monolith was the work of the devil, or whatever the heck they want to think. SK's motives are crystal clear; his overriding philosophy about 2001 is to let them do just that - think. And Walker should go through his book and correct misleading and confusing passages in it forthwith.Shirtwaist (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Alex Walker passed into the great Stargate of the Mystery on 15 July 2003. Had he read the Wikipedia Manual of Style back in 1971, I'm sure he would have been much clearer!!--WickerGuy (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I'd have liked to see him be interviewed extensively about SK right about now.Shirtwaist (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of that possibility, I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not suffer from severe cognitive dissonance which your reading of him necessitates.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Put very very briefly, I think SK chose to massively understate that the weapon-satellites were in the film, because they ceased to fit in with the overall thematic arc of the picture re the purpose and meaning of Dave Bowman's transformation. They now seem to simply serve as a small and brief reminder of humanity's capacity for aggression (now exemplified by the behavior of HAL, ironically), but to focus in on the weapons throws the viewers attention in the wrong direction (hence Walker's "red herring" analogy- originally formulated as something that throws hunting dogs off the scent of the trail.) This appears to me to reconcile all of Walker's statements. It is very very UNclear if by "nuclear stalemate" Walker is talking about a "theme" or a "plot device" (he says "idea"- wayyyy too generic a term) although for purposes of our debate here, that's actually fairly crucial, I would think.

Compare the first sentence of two consecutive paragraphs (emphasis added) "an early draft of the film script intended to make the point, via the narrator" and the next paragraph "instead of making a limited narrative [<-adjective not noun-WG] point,...film makes an imaginative connection with one's visual [visual vs. narrative-WG] senses". At any rate, that's the best evidence one has, given we can't query AW directly.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Floyd's Message

At the end of the "Jupiter Mission" section of the plot summary, the full text of Floyd's message appears. It's not usually a good idea to put entire blocks of dialog like that in a summary, and WP discourages it - WP:FILMPLOT, so I propose to streamline this to read: "When the computer is disconnected, a pre-recorded message from Floyd is played back on a monitor. In it, he reveals the existence of the four million-year old black monolith found 18 months ago in the moon's crater Tycho. He adds that it has remained completely inert, except for a single, very powerful radio emission aimed at Jupiter, and that its origin and purpose are still unknown.". Opinions?Shirtwaist (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend including the final lines of Floyd verbatim as the final line "it's origin and purpose still a total mystery" is very famous, and it's the last line of dialogue of the film (which might be nice to put in not too awkwardly)--WickerGuy (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I put the entire message in because I couldn't think of a way to meaningfully shorten it, but agree that you have found a way of doing so. I agree that keeping the "a total mystery" quote is appropriate, but disagree that explicitly indicating this is desirable; a footnote might work, though. YLee (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Soviet/Russian Issue- New Info

An old discussion on the talk page (2006) and an old version of this article notes that the Russian scientists have baggage with the Russian Aeroflot (airline) logo which contains the Soviet hammer and sickle. See it at http://www.seeklogo.com/aeroflot-logo-3923.html and here on Wikipedia at Aeroflot. Now on the one hand, Aeroflot decided to keep this logo AFTER the Soviet Union dissolved & they became privatized (because it had become so recognizable)!!! On the other hand, virtually anyone seeing the film in 1968 would have concluded from the presence of the logo on the baggage that these scientists were working for the Soviet Union!!--WickerGuy (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the logo on the bag in the film is so tiny, it's impossible to tell exactly what it looks like, let alone if the "hammer and sickle" is actually part of it.Shirtwaist (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The logo is right next to a sign labeled Aeroflot. If one sees a very miniaturized American flag next to a sign that in large letters says "Stars and Stripes" or "I Love America" even if one cannot count them you can presume there are exactly 50 stars. Likewise we have something shaped very much the general shape of the Aeroflot logo exactly adjacent to a very visible sign saying "Aeroflot". We can safely assume it is the Aeroflot logo, and safely assume it has a hammer and sickle, just as we can safely assume 50 stars on something tiny vaguely looking like the American flag on something next to a sign that visibly says "Stars and Stripe"--WickerGuy (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I "safely assume" nothing of the sort, as I can see nothing of the sort in the film. Either show me a screenshot that proves your point, or stop assuming. How come Clarke and Kubrick never call them "Soviets" in the script, but simply "Russians"?Shirtwaist (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

During the cold war, you didn't hear the term "Soviets" very much, at least not in the USA, except under formal conditions; it was typically "the Russians" (or "Rooskies", as Major Kong called them in Dr. Strangelove). I think it was because of the built-in assumption that the USSR was basically just Russia with a bunch of satellite states that were beholden to it. Remember when Reagan visited Berlin? When he made his dramatic statement about tearing down the Berlin wall, he didn't mention Honecker's name; he addressed "Mr. Gorbachev" - and East Germany wasn't even officially part of the USSR. Honecker was assumed to be just another puppet ruler, and that the Russians were really the ones in charge. In fact, anyone who said "Soviet Union" in casual conversation was probably immediately judged as a Commie dupe. (This was before the term "politically correct" was invented.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs is entirely correct that the term "Russian" was in far far more common use during that era than the term "Soviet" re a sense that the latter is a term coined by THEM. Similarly, in Doctor Strangelove the term "Russian" is used quite a lot!!!! (An early draft online of Dr. Strangelove uses "Russian" eleven times and "Soviet" three times.!!!) Thus "Russian" is very highly appropriate to the article, although I think we can assume they are Soviets.

As for the DVD, timings vary from one print to another (a few DVDs of Space Odyssey may not have the 3+ minute prologue of no video with only music by Ligeti). However, the scene stops are probably the same (not necessarily though) on all copies. When Heywood Floyd first approaches the scientists with him in back on scientists in front at 29:34 in my copy, both in front of Elena's chair and to the right of actor Leonard Rossitor's chare are blue/black tote bags. Elena's has a light blue stripe across the top. Both tote bags in the middle in highly visible letters say in Russian alphabet "Aeroflot". The bags pass out of view as the camera switches to the other angle just after 29:54. Underneath the wording "Aeroflot" is a logo of two outstretched wings which generally resembles in shape the standard Aeroflot logo. (It was the national airline of Russia at the time.) It is of course not at all possible to see the hammer and sickle (maybe in Cinerama but I wouldn't vouch for it). Finally, at 33;39 we catch a glimpse of a similar tote bag by a third woman (camera at opposite angle) but the logo (if any) is just off screen, though the Russian-lettering "Aeroflot" on her bag is quite clear. Current online copies of the logo (with slightly different placement of logo with relationship to text can be seen at http://www.russiablog.org/AeroflotLogoLarge.JPG (Russian lettering) and http://www.seeklogo.com/images/A/Aeroflot_Russian_Airlines-logo-B1691B60D7-seeklogo.com.gif (English lettering)--WickerGuy (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

All very interesting, but you started this thread on the premise that anyone seeing the film in 1968 would have concluded from the presence of the logo on the baggage which contains the Soviet hammer and sickle that these scientists were working for the Soviet Union. Fine, now prove it by showing me the Soviet hammer and sickle on the bags. Simple enough. It's possible the prop department was instructed to remove the Soviet hammer and sickle for whatever reason, yes?Shirtwaist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC).

No, I said that anyone watching the film seeing the "presence of the logo" (my exact words) per se and presumably with a modest experience of international travel and therefore generally familiar with the logo in real world would almost surely give the benefit of the doubt that it was the same logo then as now, unless there was concrete reason to go against that presumption. In particular if the logo is too small to visible even in Cinerama, it's even less likely the prop department was given any instructions to remove the hammer and sickle. It's possible that the backside of the Discovery model says "Jupiter or bust". Do you have the faintest idea how ridiculous you sound??--WickerGuy (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You're postulating that the existence of the Soviet Union and the allegiance of its citizens is based on nearly illegible baggage logos in a movie set in the year 2001...and I sound ridiculous?

I'm still waiting to see an HD screenshot from the movie of this wondrous logo of the proletariat, btw.Shirtwaist (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Occam's Razor says that you do not multiply suppositions beyond what is necessary but take the simplest and straightforward hypothesis that fits the known facts (though on the other hand you also need to collect the facts very thoroughly and be aware that the surface explanation may be false.) I am talking about precisely what the average viewer with some international experience watching the film in 1968 would be most likely to take as a "working hypothesis". A working hypothesis is always provisional and subject to being falsified.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, Occam's razor is a guide in further inquiry, not an arbiter of final conclusions. It has been stated "When competing [provisional/working] hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities". And you falsify what I have just said. I am talking about semi-illegible baggage logos shaped very much like the standard Aeroflot logo underneath a clearly written out (in Russian alphabet) "Aeroflot". You cannot count the 50 stars on the American flag in this picture http://imghost.indiamart.com/data/0/5/MY-353668/miniature_small_250x250.jpg but you can presuppose they are there.

You want to assume that because the picture is set 33 years in the future, it's likely Stanley Kubrick changed the logos. But the burden of proof in debate is on the party making the more extraordinary claim, or the claim requiring more elaborate assumptions. This is called the "law of parsimony". The burden of proof is not on my to supply your screenshot. You are being your usually willfully obtuse self.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, holy mother of mercy, Jethro!! Not the scientists but the Aeroflot flight crew in front of the picture phone before Dr. Floyd makes his call. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7J_WGI7Jygw/S45nUWsEWfI/AAAAAAAAExc/UpeRX2_3_u0/s1600-h/2001+A+Space+Odyssey+Pic+015.jpg

With apologies to MacBeth "Is that a hammer and sickle I see before me?"--WickerGuy (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

After reading all that, I'm amazed at how funny "Do you have the faintest idea how ridiculous you sound??" sounds coming from you. Very funny indeed.

That's a production still(thanks btw, that's one I didn't have!), not a screenshot from the actual movie. But I will concede that real Aeroflot bags were used as props, and that the dreaded "Hammer and Sickle" was part of the logo. Well done, Holmes, old boy...WELL DONE!!! However(there always seems to be a "however" doesn't there?), these are actual screenshots from the film(dvd) which include Aeroflot bags(notice how tiny and illegible they are):[[2]] - [[3]]. What in the world was Kubrick thinking when he decided to use contemporary Aeroflot bags in that scene? Was it "Hmmmm, now, how can I get across to all those wonderful people out there in the dark that those scientists are really "Soviets"?...I KNOW!! Don't Aeroflot bags have hammers and sickles in the logo? EUREKA!!! That'll show 'em! Yessirree!"? Or did he say to Robert Cartwright, his set decorator, "These Russian scientists need some kind of bags to carry with them. I mean, they can't very well go to and from the moon empty handed now, can they? They'll need at least one bag each for the Space Station V gift shop crap alone. Give 'em some bags, will ya, Bobby?" - then Bobby, like a good set decorator, goes out to the local "Aeroflot Bags R Us" store and gets some proper Russian Aeroflot bags(coincidentally with said logo), plops those bad boys down on the set, and waits for SK to yell "ACTION!!"?

By the way he shoots those scenes(see above screenshots), longshots with the bags off to the side and so far away only someone with binoculars in the theater would ever notice them - let alone their teeny-tiny logos, it kinda looks like he doesn't really care what kind of bags they are. They could be Al Italia bags for all SK cares. Although, Bobby wouldn't be that reckless with his job, would he. This looks like a job for...wait for it...OCCAM'S RAZOR!!!! Pretty much wraps it up for me. Any questions, Holmes old boy?Shirtwaist (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"far away and off to the side"? Leonard Rossiter's bag is rather low on the screen but dead-center and right up front, although inconveniently tilted away from the audience concealing half the logo. Either way,

most people evaluate data in combination with other data, on a cumulative basis.

Kubrick had already supplied plenty of evidence they were Russian, and even in a small theater one can read "aeroflot" on the bag (at least if you know the Cyrillic alphabet). Honestly, I doubt SK really believed anyone needed to be overwhelmingly convinced. The first four times I saw this film were in the now defunct format of Cinerama, for which the film was shot. Early prints of Space Odyssey were in the three-strip version of Cinerama which is extremely high resolution and was frequently projected on a screen about 100 feet high, a kind of '60s equivalent of today's IMAX. Today there are less then 10 Cinerama theatres in the world, but I would guess that the chances that the hammer-and-sickle had some visibility for some audience members to be somewhat high. Directors/producers are generally pretty careful with product placement in their films when it involves real existing companies or firms.

The word is "reckless" not "wreckless".

Careful with that Occam's razor. I'm afraid you might cut yourself.--WickerGuy (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You're basically here engaged in the debate tactic known as "moving the goalposts", one of several forms of denialism.--WickerGuy (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

With out the philosophical lingo, the point is that one should ask what does the film seem to be mostly/mainly suggesting without spelling it out?? It is, I think, that the scientists are Soviets.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

One gets a better (but not good enough) look at Elena's tote bag in this shot. In this view, it could just be a crescent moon (rather than a sickle) in the middle of the Aeroflot logo, but certainly enough to suggest that on a Cinerama screen if it is a hammer-sickle, everyone would see it. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_v27hJrrgr_A/RoG9MRn8JhI/AAAAAAAAIwo/MJ2e1r2gtjU/s1600-h/PDVD_009.JPG

Addendum

Keep in mind that in the 1960s, Cinerama had approximately triple the screen resolution of standard 70 mm film.

Addendum 2

You did catch from my earlier note, I hope, that there is a much closer shot in the film of the flight crew including the stewardess before Floyd makes his phone call. didn't you? At this point irrelevant (or just me belaboring the point), but a different production shot (in color) of just the stewardess is in Walker's book p. 225. It also unambiguously shows the hammer and sickle. Walker's photo caption says "Soviet spaceship attendant".

--WickerGuy (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

2001 was never shown in a three-strip cinerama process. There was only one strip of original film! It was shot on one strip of 65mm film and prints were either 35mm or 70mm single-strip. Where exactly were these "early prints of Space Odyssey in the extremely high resolution three-strip version of Cinerama which was frequently projected on a screen about 100 feet high" shown?? And why on earth hasn't anybody else heard of this amazing detail??? http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingcr6.htm

I still think Occam's Razor favors my less assumption-filled scenario that does not multiply suppositions beyond what is necessary, and takes the simplest and most straightforward hypothesis that fits the known facts. Maybe this Occam dude will come here and decide for us.Shirtwaist (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! You nailed me. My "source" for the Cinerama info is what my dear Dad told me when he first took me to see the film. Like Mel Gibson, I may be too credulous of things communicated to me by my paternal one.

Nice edits you did with material from Bizoni. I'll add the appropriate citation from Walker in the dated stuff section. Obviously, it's need there and the fact that Walker is cited for the same info in the "remnants" section isn't good enough. Bizoni's book is VERY hard to find!!! Even the local University (Stanford and Berkeley) libraries don't have it, nor do even the largest public libraries around here (San Jose and San Francisco). The cheapest used copy on Amazon.com is in the $80 dollar range.

I appealed to Occam's Razor very specifically because you said "Kubrick might have altered the Aeroflot logos". Kubrick might have decided to remove nukes from the film after his secret love affair with Arthur C. Clarke went sour, and might have replaced the hammer-and-sickle with the baking soda arm-and-hammer logo. Kubrick might have a tattoo on his shoulder saying "Mom and Dad". The illegitimacy of such an argument is exactly/precisely what Occam's Razor is meant to remove. (and precisely why I found your note there somewhat "ridiculous".) As noted, O's R is not an arbiter of final conclusions, but a method of deciding which hypotheses are worthy of further inquiry, or put more formally, not a principle of deduction, but of optimal induction. I think if the logo's shape alone (stretched wings) is recognizable to a well-traveled viewer in 1968 (that much is certain) next to the appropriate Russian word, said viewer is likely to presume logo is there intact & complete with hammer & sickle, and would subsequently make a "Soviet" connection. It is unlikely anyone (possibly not even Kubrick) would predict that after Russia circa 1992 dropped the hammer & sickle from its coat of arms & its flag (and I presume coins as well if it was there) that Aeroflot would retain it in their logo (which in fact is what has happened).

Although the discussion of the principle Anglicizes his name to "Occam", he is known properly as "William of Ockham" and died in 1348. His work is much commented on in the field of "philosophy of science", often cited by Isaac Newton, Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, and even Ayn Rand. Many in philosophy of science think it is too easily MIS-applied and are wary of it.

The last time I saw 2001 in a theatre on a big movie screen was in 2006, and I certainly wasn't looking for the Aeroflot logo. Last year (2009) one of the locally Mom-and-Pop-owned first-run theatres showed 2001 for a week prior to the opening of "2012", but I missed it then. Only another theatrical viewing can really decide if the logos are fully visible in all details or not.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

2001 was as you say, shot on SuperPanavision 70. According to Thomas Brown writing at http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/brown2.html "This movie was shot in Super Panavision 70, a process which produced a detailed & virtually grainless image, even when presented on the largest screen....There were always additional details you could see. Trademarks which are virtually invisible in even the best video transfers were easily read." And the Cinerama screen I saw it on in Dallas, TX (on opening night) was awfully large, the only three-story movie theatre (two balconies) I have ever been in, ever. The first Cinerama theatre ever built did indeed have a 100 foot high screen. See http://cinematreasures.org/theater/824/. My father's erroneous info on 2001's filming process was based on material he had read about How the West was Won. Thanks for the correction.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

HAL's Record

Shirtwaist is very good at shortening text that meanders too much. However, I feel that one should not introduce HAL's perfect record for the first time in this summary when it is actually the second or third time it is alluded to in the film. It gives the misleading impression that the secret EVA pod conversation is the first time HAL's record has ever been brought up! I've tried to fix this, but may have now had it discussed overmuch.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the text has to specify when HAL's perfect operational record was first mentioned. There is no need to keep to a strict chronological order of events if deviating from it is better from a flow and readability standpoint. YLee (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You may be right about flow. It seemed to me that what we had introduced was an implicit false chronology! At least, IMO it should be noted that somewhere HAL's record was alluded to earlier.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no need to do so. Unless the timing of the mention affects the plot somehow, mentioning the timing is no different from the sort of writing that WP:NOTED advises against. YLee (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ylee. The mission controller doesn't mention the HAL record, Hal mentions his perfect record to Bowman and Poole right before they go into the pod. More than one mention of the record is repetitive and unnecessary.Shirtwaist (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

After rewatching, Hal mentions his record in the BBC interview. Should it be mentioned there?Shirtwaist (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where it is mentioned, as long as it's just done once. There is no need to repeat it; readers can and will draw the proper conclusions. YLee (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe HAL's record is first mentioned in the BBC interview, then implicitly alluded to when Mission Control says it "seems rather incredible" (that's the exact word used) that the ground control's HAL says that the ship's HAL is "in error in predicting the fault", then immediately after HAL says "this sort of thing has cropped up before and it has always been due to human error, etc.". Finally, in the EVA pod, DB and FP agree that "HAL is right" about the HAL 9000 series having "a perfect operational record". I'm just reluctant to give the impression that the EVA pod discussion is the first time it is mentioned in the film, though it need not be referred to every time it comes up.--WickerGuy (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well then, if it should be said only once, I suggest it's most relevant in the pod, since Hal's "perfect record" is a real concern to them at that moment. On the other hand, it might be worth mentioning in the interview part that Hal asserts he is "foolproof" and incapable of error" just for the irony, and remove it from the pod conversation?Shirtwaist (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I would then do this. Say that during the BBC interview, HAL refers "proudly to the error-free record of the HAL 9000 series". Later, state that mission control says that ground HAL says that ship's HAL is "in error, though that 'sounds incredible'". And leave following paragraph as is including "They both have a "bad feeling" about Hal, despite the HAL series' reliability", though I prefer "perfect record" or "prior faultlessness" or "impeccability" to reliability. That last doesn't seem strong enough to me.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In other words, multiple full sentence statements regarding HAL's record is bad, but multiple subordinate clauses that mention it in passing is likely acceptable. The latter should not slow down, stop, or interupt the flow of the plot outline for expository purposes. At least that's my personal opinion.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Are Satellites also Weapons? Redux

Previously discussed in 2006 at Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film)/Archive 2#Are the Satellites Weapons? and in 2008 at Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film)/Archive 3. 84user (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Insert. I apologize for the abrupt way I did that. It would have been good if I had noted here rather than just in the comment that this was split off, put a link at the end of BB's comments, and recited at least part of them here. It is what WP calls "Sectioning" in the Talk page guidelines, which is considered acceptable practice in editing other people's comments (See WP:SIGCLEAN). It was presumptive to me to not ask your permission. WP says you should stop if they object. BB may have exxagerated. I think we should focus overtly on what Kubrick meant. Material more relevant to the discussion is below (in a few minutes).--WickerGuy (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sectioning should only be done "If a thread has developed new subjects". This was not the case, the subject in both sections was "Weapons vs. Satellites". Might as well leave it as it is, but be very careful if you intend to do that in the future. People get reported for doing what you did if they do it in error.Shirtwaist (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Since my post was moved by another editor without my permission, for clarity's sake, this is the post I was responding toShirtwaist (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC) -- "There is no doubt they are nuclear weapons. None. That doesn't mean everyone who watched the movie understood that. In fact, most of us didn't. They were just things orbiting. And overall, the typical reaction when the film was over was, "Wow! But what was that all about?" So we got Clarke's novel and got some clues about what was going on. You can debate whether the nukes are important to the plot description. You can't debate whether they're actually nukes or not. There's no dispute about that.←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 4:14 am, Yesterday (UTC−7)"

This plot summary is about THE FILM...NOT THE BOOK. It is completely irrelevant what the book says...IT IS NOT THE FILM. Plot summaries require simple descriptions of what appears in the movie, NOT what appears in the book. There is ZERO justification for including speculation and interpretation in a PLOT SUMMARY. Using the fact that satellites have national flags painted on them DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE NUCLEAR WEAPON PLATFORMS! I provide these analyses from THE KUBRICK SITE to prove that there is indeed difference of opinion about the nature of the satellites:

1) http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0001.html

"from the bone thrown into the air by Moonwatcher to the bone-shaped space vessel"

2) http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0005.html

"The bone cast into the air by the ape (now become a man) is transformed at the other extreme of civilization, by one of those abrupt ellipses characteristic of the director, into a spacecraft on its way to the moon" -- Michel Ciment "Kubrick"

3) http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0009.html

no mention

4) http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0010.html

" the first tool has become a spaceship"

5) http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0011.html

" the famous match cut from the sunlit bone to the nocturnal spacecraft (two tools, same deadly white, both descending)"

6) http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0013.html

"a scene showing Moon-Watcher throw a bone into the air"

7) http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0014.html

"The bone weapon becomes a space ship orbiting the earth, interestingly in Arthur C. Clarke's novelisation and in the original screenplay, the space craft is described as a nuclear missile launching platform. However this connection is obscured in the film, due it is said, to Kubrick's desire to distance 2001 from his previous Cold War epic, Dr. Strangelove. What is very clear though, is the progress humankind has made in fashioning tools. "

8) http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0018.html

"Moonwatcher leaves Africa after the first war, sails his tool/weapon into space and evolves into Floyd, on an episodic trip to the moon. "

9) http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0099.html

"the longest flash forward in the history of movies: three million years, from bone club to artificial satellite, in a twenty-fourth of a second. " -- AC CLARKE!

10) http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0023.html

"Kubrick jumps from the Stone Age to the Space Age in a single cut, probably the greatest time gap in any film"

11) http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0042.html

"...In a wipe that takes care of 3 million years of evolutionary history, the bone in its toss is replaced by a spaceship in flight"

12) http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0108.html

"The sequence of the bone hurled by the most advanced ape cuts to…[2a-b-c-d]...the atomic bomb satellite "

13) http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0022.html

"Watch for the precise moment when Kubrick cuts from bone to satellite"

"the celebrated slow-motion shot of a bone club in free-fall, cutting to the weightless free-fall of a military satellite in orbit around the earth"

Note that of the thirteen examples, EXACTLY ONE thinks it is a weapon, another calls it a "military satellite". I hope someday someone with some sense is allowed to edit this article, IF you and Wickerguy allow them.Shirtwaist (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Numbering of examples from one to 13 in above added by me.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no question that the original concept was that they were nukes. But as the author of the books that I cited both note, that idea was dropped from the shooting script. So maybe it doesn't belong directly in the plot section, since it doesn't really figure into the film's plot. But to deny they were intended to be nukes is silly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

BB, you are avoiding SW's point that at one point Clarke calls them satellites, but I address that below as we have all failed to note satellite is a more generic term.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't shout. We can still hear you. Your research on the Kubrick site is genuinely quite impressive, and you may have made a good case for making the current assertion more nuanced and qualified!! I could give you some counter quotes from published full-length books by Nelson and Rasmussen to the effect that they are nuclear weapon platforms, but this isn't a numbers game!!

A few points which are just musings out loud, but may help work to a resolution. They are not an argument, but food for everyone's thought.

You note astutely that Arthur Clarke himself says satellite, but because of my own unclarity I have obscured there should not be a problem here. I have allowed this discussion to get a bit off base since I really failed to note that technically, an orbiting nuclear weapons platform IS a "satellite", the latter being a more generic inclusive term, meaning anything in orbit!!! I regret having gone along with the imprecise and misleading "satellite vs. nukes" dichotomy (which means I need to retitle this section- just did it). Of course, they are satellites, but might they be also nukes?? Ordinary earthbound folk tend to equate "satellite" with "communications satellite", but this isn't really correct.

It seems that three of the 13 sources you have cited at least partially support this consensus. As you note, another says specifically "military satellite" (not nuke but a step in that direction) and source #7 cites not only the novel but early drafts of the screenplay and states the connection is "obscured" precisely because Kubrick nixed Clarke's idea of the bombs going off in the finale.

Other sources you cite say spaceship which implies human transport (though "spacecraft" used by other sources does not carry that implication). Are they confusing the first four entities seen (not counting the space station Dr. Floyd docks with) with Floyd's spaceship? Each of the four preceding satellites (we can agree they are satellites per above) is a different size and shape (not to mention different flag insignias). We don't have any visual indication the other four are carrying humans any more than we can directly see they are nukes, and source 2 (from one of the top Kubrick scholars Michel Ciment) in particular says "The bone cast into the air by the ape (now become a man) is transformed...into a spacecraft on its way to the moon." The first space entity seen is definitely not Dr. Floyd's ship. It is just as speculative to say it is on the way to the moon as it is to say it is a nuke. Ciment has most likely conflated five entities that when examined closely are different.

One source says "space vessel". It was originally written in German, and was translated by the German author, so that is probably "spaceship".

Numerically, this leaves us with

three mentions of "spaceship", which for reasons mentioned above is as bad or worse than nukes (speculation probably based on conflating Floyd's shuttle with the previous four separate and distinct satellites),

one "spacecraft on its way to the moon" (same problem- no indication any of the first four entities are moonbound)

one more "spacecraft" (acceptable). There are certainly unmanned spacecraft (though not unmanned spaceships- a contradiction in terms). I simply don't know if a nuclear weapons platform would be considered spacecraft or not, but I suspect not since spacecraft are generally considered to be for transport from one place to another.

two "satellites" acknowledged to be semi-military, a third simple "satellite" from Arthur C. Clarke which I have noted is a generic category which can include weapons platforms.

Source 7 speaks spaceship, spacecraft and nuclear weapons. The first and third I would say are mutually exclusive, but let's ignore that.

and four sources that make no judgment on the issue whatsoever.

It's clear the film as presented is ambiguous, but clearly some observers either have conflated Floyd's ship with the previous entities thus indirectly or directly engaging perhaps unconsciously speculative interpretation of their own (again no indication the first entity either has human cargo or is moonbound and it clearly is not Floyd's ship), and "satellite" is a generic term that does not excluding nukes. So with this in mind, I'm working on a further compromise edit.

OK now I will go with outside sources. Both Thomas Nelson in his book "Kubrick: Inside a Film Artist's Maze" and Randy Rasmussen in "Kubrick: Seven Films Analyzed" are convinced they are meant to be nuclear weapon platforms. The first is considered one of the best books on Kubrick published. Ironically, so also is the work of Michel Ciment who is your second source whose ""a spacecraft on its way to the moon" has the problems I mentioned.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is clear to any rational observer: there is no clear consensus by all available sources, whether published in books or elsewhere, that those objects are anything more than satellites. To suggest otherwise is evidence of a clear bias on one side against the other. Your musings can try to discount(with horribly convoluted logic)the interpretations of all those who differ from your bias till the cows come home. The painfully obvious fact of the matter is the interpretations of your few cited sources do not outweigh mine by any stretch of the imagination. The fact of the very existence of my sources should be enough for any WP editor with integrity to accept the fact that conflicting opinions exist on this issue. I'm astounded at your suggestion that Ciment, recognized as an expert on all things Kubrick, is mistaken in his interpretation of the "spaceship", but that your two sources cannot be. Unbelievable.Shirtwaist (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Addendum - "Satellite..."spaceship"...who cares? The point that seems to be eluding you is they are not referring to them as "weapons, "nukes", "orbital weapon platforms". What don't you get about that?Shirtwaist (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong. There is no question they are nukes. The only question is whether that's significant enough to mention in the plot section. I no longer think so. It's worth mentioning in a footnote. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

BB, let's try to address SW's legit points about divergent interpretation, and separate what they are from the more salient issue of Kubrick's thinking.

SW, Intro addendum. Ciment wrote long before the advent of videotape and DVDs (1982) and was relying entirely on memories of cinema viewings. While I think he's mistaken, I'm establishing he's making a point entailing an unwarranted speculative leap (moonbound manned spaceship). Perhaps Kubrick later decided to make the satellites more ambiguous (Ciment talked extensively to Kubrick, though mainly on 3 other films- Orange, Lyndon, Shining).

Thomas Allan Nelson does not directly state the jump cut is to a nuclear weapon but he does talk about the discarded ending of "detonating nuclear weapons orbiting the earth". However, I seem to have erred in overstating his position. Thank you for making me double-check my sources. Ciment is much better known than Nelson in film circles, but Nelson is a favorite interpreter of Kubrick among cultural historians and English lit types. (Nelson is an English professor.) Ciment is an internationally known film critic who has also written about other directors. (I'll have to double-check Sperb and Julian Rice).

As I have repeatedly stated, and you have not addressed, I primarily am making a statement about Kubrick's intentions and cite sources involved with the making and production of the film (!!!!) (actors who worked with Kubrick, known early drafts of screenplay, known explanations of why later drafts downplayed the weapons-element and two authors who were researching the production of the film rather than interpreting it) which I think carries more weight (certainly with regard to authorial intent) then the immediate interpretation of any critic or reviewer. The flag insignias from Germany and China are supplementary secondary supporting evidence, not the main Exhibit A. The main evidence is from people researched the production of the film or actually worked on the production. It is possible SK subsequently decided it could be left uncertain what the satellites are, but we don't know. Perhaps "originally" should be added to the main text before "intended".

It would be good to put all this in the "Production" section of the article but I believe personally we would need to add more material about the screenplay development (changes in the monolith's appearance, changes in the HAL breakdown scenario) to do that.

You are correct on the enormous divergence of critical interpretation (good research- I honestly don't dispute what you say- I don't know if that salvages my "integrity" in your eyes) although I don't know of anyone who after having pointed out the intentionality of the nukes thing disputed it (beyond its potential lack of appropriateness for Wikipedia plot-section because not evident from the screen version). As far as I know, there are no folks actually debating/fighting about Kubrick's original intentions (though both I and BB may have exaggerated the consensus on the interpretation) However, my counter-example about the enigmatic closing shot of "The Shining" is therefore quite flawed (divergence interpretation exists here as well as there) but we don't have much indication of what SK meant on the latter, while we do have as such on "Space Odyssey". (Yes, again SK might have changed his mind later and decided to leave the satellites ambiguous).

I rambled on too long (thinking out loud), and my writing style may have been as "convoluted" as Henry James (yikes!), but beyond rambling into making a number of potentially irrelevant (though interesting) points, I don't see the problem with my logic (which you called "convoluted") other than remaining inconclusive. I'm simply pointing out the two interesting facts that

a) other extant interpretations (that you did well to find) make unwarranted speculative leaps (there is no reason to think the first thing we see is a moonbound spacecraft or a spaceship). That doesn't contradict your main point about lack of interpretive consensus which seems valid. I didn't mean to suggest it did. But while it may also seem like a speculative leap to say they are nukes, as I have already pointed out we have evidence from the production history about SK's intent and we are making a statement specifically about SK's intent. (Yes, he might have changed his mind later.)

b) It seems highly likely that many reviewers conflated the four definitely separate & distinct satellite objects which first appear with Floyd's PanAm space shuttle (which doesn't appear until after the rotating space station), (I suspect this is almost surely the case with Michel Ciment though I can't prove it) the reviewers probably working from memories of a theatre viewing rather than a DVD. Those two points are all I'm saying. --WickerGuy (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no question that (1) those first couple of satellites were orbitting nukes; and that (2) Kubrick decided not to pursue that particular plot element, adding to the list of stuff he did in that movie that was obscure to the initial viewer. There was certainly some confusion about some things. The Agel book addresses the then-frequently heard question of what Clavius was. Clavius is a geographic feature on the Moon. The movie's assumption is that by 2001 we would have colonies on the Moon, so you probably wouldn't say "I'm going to the Moon", you'd be more specific. But many viewers at first thought he was going to a planet called Clavius. Meanwhile, the Anderson book makes a point of referring to the initial satellites as "space vehicles" or some such, and goes on to explain that that plot element was dropped, leaving us just with the satellites and no explanation of their purpose. For comparison, The Wizard of Oz has been studied frame-by-frame countless times, and there are various oddities left unexplained in the film. The "jitterbug" is the most obvious, but others include the affection between Hunk and Dorothy, and Hickory's tinkering with a "cyclone machine" which is obliquely referenced, but not by name, and does not appear on-screen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's go with citations, and focus on among whom there is no controversy.

I believe this definitively settles the issue once and far all!!!! The book "Stanley Kubrick, director" by famed British film critic Alexander Walker is described on the jacket as "is the only book ever written with Kubrick's cooperation." (Ciment's book has 3 interviews with Kubrick, but he wrote the rest solo.) On p. 181 we get the following- this is a direct quote (emphasis added)

It is here that an early draft of the film script intended to make the point, via the narrator, that a nuclear stalemate had been reached between the United States and the Soviet Union, each of whom has a nuclear bomb orbiting the globe which can be triggered by remote control. This idea has been totally eliminated from the finished film, though from national markings still visible on the first and second vehicles we see, we can surmise these are the Russian and American bombs. Kubrick dropped this aspect because, on reflection, it seemed to him to have no place at all in the film's thematic development. It was an orbitting red herring. It was made clear later, in the edgy encounter between the Russian and American scientists, that both countries were still living in a state of tense friendliness; and since some politically conscious filmgoers in the 1960s would know that agreement had already been reached between the powers not to put H-bombs into space, it would merely have raised irrelevant queries to suggest this as a reality of the twenty-first century.

In a subsequent essay that appears in the already cited (edited by Stephanie Schwam) "Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey" the one and the same Alexander Walker (who I repeat wrote the only book on Kubrick written with his cooperation) (Emphasis added)

What's not generally recognized, even by film buffs, is that two of the spacecraft seen circling Earth in the first grand panorama of the cosmos, each carry, respectively, US and USSR markings, are meant to be nuclear weapons. An early version of the screenplay proposed having the Star Child detonate these circling megatons. Arthur Clarke's novel......Kubrick eventually rejected it, opting for peaceful coexistence in outerspace and avoiding turning the Star Child into an avenging angel.

Shirtwaist, thank you for your persistence. Your excellent research on the Kubrick site has resulted in a useful expansion of the footnote in the main article, and elicits a partial retraction from me. Apologies for imprecise exaggerations about consensus. I was trying to be helpful in moving your remarks, and I'm sorry if that was intrusive. As noted above, this is what the talk page guidelines call "Sectioning", an acceptable form of modifying other comments, but it would have been better if I had asked you.
Again, we're making a statement in the main article about authorial intent, and given Walker's direct close connection to Kubrick (on top of the testimony of actors in the film) there really in light of the above quotes can be no doubt.
Re presence in plot section, Walker's first quote somewhat undercuts my opinion that their being nukes colors how subsequent scenes are perceived. Another critic- (I think Rasmussen- better double check) thinks that's so, but evidently Kubrick did not ("an orbiting red herring"). That last phrase of Kubrick (as phrased by Walker) provides good reason for moving this out of the plot section, but I personally would like to see a lot more material on the development of stages of the screen play before this is moved to the "production" section of the article.
Happy editing. I hope you don't run into anything quite this contentious for a while.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for re-quoting the very same quote I posted on this page over 24 hours ago:[4] in which Alex Walker makes crystal clear what was going on. In the book, he refers to the objects as "vehicles" or "satellites" or something (I don't feel like digging the book out again to check) and explains later as you and I both quoted. That should put the matter to rest. They are nukes, but are not explained as such in the movie. So from a practical standpoint, within the film, they are merely objects. But denying they were intended to be nukes is invalid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The debate has been sufficiently hectic & hurried that I rather carelessly missed that you had posted that. Of course, the new Walker quote helps reinforce it, as does what I have now posted about Walker's background re direct access to Kubrick (again making assertions about Kubrick's mental state sources close to "de man" carry most weight). Your points about "plot residue" (I term I have coined) in Oz is also quite interesting.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I did see your quote, but didn't realize the quote I found in Walker's book was the same one. This has all been rather frantic, as I say.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Wickerguy, for agreeing that any mention of bombs or Kubrick's intent should be moved out of the plot summary. But I strenuously disagree with your belief that the quotes you provided(thanks for those btw) settles anything except that they were ' 'initially intended' ' to be bombs - something we already agree on. Let's take the quotes one-by-one:

• "It is here that an early draft of the film script intended to make the point, via the narrator, that a nuclear stalemate had been reached between the United States and the Soviet Union, each of whom has a nuclear bomb orbiting the globe which can be triggered by remote control. This idea has been totally eliminated from the finished film..." -- in this last part, Walker is agreeing with me, in that they may have started out as "bombs", but the finished film nullifies that idea. It's clear to me that what he was saying was Kubrick changed his intent that the audience should assume they were weapons, in favor of them assuming they were merely satellites.
• "though from national markings still visible on the first and second vehicles we see, we can surmise these are the Russian and American bombs" -- Walker is referring to the original draft and how the satellites relate to it, not Kubrick's final intent. Paraphrased, what he is saying is: "The original draft described them as bombs, and from the U.S and Russian insignia on them that were left over from that idea, we can surmise that they were supposed to represent bombs, but since that idea was later dropped, that conjecture is no longer valid".
• "Kubrick dropped this aspect because, on reflection, it seemed to him to have no place at all in the film's thematic development. It was an orbitting red herring." -- speaks for itself.
• "What's not generally recognized, even by film buffs, is that two of the spacecraft seen circling Earth in the first grand panorama of the cosmos, each carry, respectively, US and USSR markings, are meant to be nuclear weapons. An early version of the screenplay proposed having the Star Child detonate these circling megatons. Arthur Clarke's novel......Kubrick eventually rejected it, opting for peaceful coexistence in outerspace and avoiding turning the Star Child into an avenging angel" -- This merely restates his assertion, quoted earlier, with the one difference being the words "are meant" instead of "were meant", which, unless he was contradicting himself, is presumably what he meant to say. What he doesn't say, and what I've never seen quoted anywhere, is the statement: "Stanley Kubrick told me that he wanted the audience watching his film to assume those satellites were weapons". I prefer to take Walker at his word when he says "...an early draft of the film script intended to make the point, via the narrator, that a nuclear stalemate had been reached between the United States and the Soviet Union, each of whom has a nuclear bomb orbiting the globe which can be triggered by remote control. This idea has been totally eliminated from the finished film...". "This idea" meaning the existence of bombs in orbit. I don't know about you, but I think that clearly backs up my position on this, not yours. However, if you can find a statement from a reliable and verifiable source to the effect of the one I presented above, I will gladly concede the argument.Shirtwaist (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, there's a fairly easy way to excuse this (if someone hasn't already): they may be anti-asteroid platforms. Big rock approaches earth, launch a missile and rock either goes 'foom' or the explosion pushes it away from Earth. HalfShadow 06:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sheer speculation--WickerGuy (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me the entire issue is speculation: you're speculating they're weapons platforms, after all. HalfShadow 18:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

HalfShadow, there is an obvious difference between informed speculation and wild speculation, and as should be clear from above and below there is plenty of evidence that at least at some point on developemnt SK intended these to be weapons, and we are simply debating what Kubrick thought their status was in the final version of the film which deliberately leaves a lot of stuff more ambiguous than earlier drafts. No the entire issue is NOT speculation.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Back to main discussion. SW, this is certainly your most articulate and cogent post to date, and I now simply remain undecided. The second Walker quote is from a different source than the first, and possibly separated by a few decades. The first Walker quote is from a book first published in 1971 with a revised and expanded edition published in 2000. I quoted from the 2000 edition, but I tend to assume that it's not much different from the older one. The other Walker quote is from an essay in an anthology edited by Stephanie Schwam also from the year 2000. You seem to be correct in saying that Walker's phrases in the one piece "totally eliminated"/"red herring" & from the other piece "are meant" are indeed in considerable tension, and the only immediate court of appeal (which at best tips the balance 55-45) is the word of actor Gary Lockwood (astronaut Frank Poole) in the DVD commentary. Baseball Bugs has Jerome Agel's 1968 book "Making of 2001" handy, but I don't. (Incidentally, the author of the book "HAL's Legacy" stated they were meant to be nukes in a public lecture I attended in 1997, but he never mentions this in the book, so that's not an acceptable WP source.) I think the precise wording of Jerome Agel may or may not be the next court of appeal, but as I say I don't have the book immediately handy.

However, while it's quite plausible you're right that at some point Kubrick ceased to think it mattered much of the audience really saw these as nuclear weapons or not, a third possibility is that he may been OK if a few clever (aerospace-savvy) members of the audience caught on even if the majority did not. This happens a lot in other films, TV, and plays, in-references (or in-jokes) for audience members in the know but not caught by all, and this would be somewhat (tho not completely) consistent with both of Walker's statements. (Keep in mind Kubrick was directing for a Cinerama release which is a humongous screen in which small details can be seen easily.) For example, viewers in the know will easily see that the villain in the recent Robert Downey "Sherlock Holmes" movie is modeled on Aleister Crowley but most of the audience will miss this. Some audience members will catch the visual references to the Book of Revelation in Ken Russell's LSD film "Altered States"- some will not. (There are even some science JOKES is "Star Trek: The Next Generation" which only people with knowledge of atomic physics will catch). Now WP is against plot interpretations requiring specialist knowledge (without citations) as much as against synthesis, but my point is to establish the high probability that to a specialist, the satellites are quickly recognizable as nukes, and certainly if this is so, Kubrick must have known it. Certainly, some folks saw weapons and others did not, and I want to now observe that some space specialists (or at least a small sample size of three) see nukes here.
Here is an example. Look at the 2010 book Military Space Power: A Guide to the Issues (Contemporary Military, Strategic, and Security Issues) by James Fergusson & Wilson Wong. On p. 108 the authors write

In Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey an ancestor of humanity throws a bone, freshly used as weapon, into the air, which is tracked by the camera until the scene jumps to the near future...and an orbiting nuclear weapons platform passes by. Metaphorically, this represents that human nature has not changed over the millenia between prehistory and the future. With respect to space weapons, the orbiting nuclear weapons represents a bit of a technological dead end. Through the lens of the early cold war, the imagery of Kubrick's masterpiece makes sense; the space race is intertwined with the nuclear arms race, with the orbiting of Sputnik only a few years earlier certainly raising the spectre of communist A-bombs.

Now these two authors are aerospace specialists, and recognized authorities on space weaponry, space warfare, and military astronautics. Wilson Wong is a security and defense researcher for the Aerospace Policy Research Group, and James Fergusson is Director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies and previous editor of Aerospace Power: Beyond One Hundred Years of Theory and Practice. Now I seriously doubt (though I can't prove) that these guys concluded the satellites are nuclear weapons platforms by reading a lot of film critics. I think (though I can't prove) that given their background, they simply recognized a number of obvious tell-tale signs which I (in spite of my having worked two years at NASA with the folks who tested the moon-buggy) do not recognize.
If memory serves, similar assumptions about Kubrick's intent appear in 1997s "Introduction to space: the science of spaceflight" by Thomas Damon, and I know they do in 2003's Bulletin of the atomic scientists, Volume 59 which has an article briefly alluding to the film 2001.
Again, a statistical sample of three isn't much, but there seems to be a tendency on the part of space specialists to quickly identify these as nukes, and if they are so discernible to specialists, Kubrick must have known it. I suspect we may have a case of something the director knows is accessible to some audience members but not all.
Other NON-science sources which see the satellites as nuclear weapons are 1973's "The great movies" by William Bayer, and 1992's "Filmmaking: narrative & structural techniques" by Bob Foss and 2007's "Voice & vision: a creative approach to narrative film and DV (sic) production" by Mick Hurbis-Cherrier. However, "Adaptations as imitations: films from novels" by James John Griffith insists this can only be known from reading Clarke's book and is as such not a legit reading treating the movie as a standalone item.
Let's begin by adding the word "originally" to the article text.
BTW, an infelicity of mine which you perpetuated in copying and pasting my copy of Walker. There is only one 't' in "orbiting".--WickerGuy (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(SIDENOTE: Let's use the indents as WP:indentation intends. Not indenting your replies makes for a confusing talk page.)

Wait a minute - you're the one who insisted on relying on a source "written with Kubrick's cooperation", aren't you? You supplied pertinent quotes from one, and I pointed out the flaws in those quotes - the most serious of which is that the source contradicts himself. Sources that contradict themselves should not be used in WP. You know that, right?

Then, you bring up interpretations of "scientists" who give their opinions on what they think they saw, but offer no proof that they were "written with Kubrick's cooperation", as you claim Walker's was. You can't have it both ways. Interpretations are interpretations, no matter who is giving them. I supplied quite a few(including Ciment himself), only to have them shot down by you because they weren't "written with Kubrick's cooperation". So unless you have another source "written with Kubrick's cooperation" you care to furnish(I have no idea if Agel was blessed with any such distinction, do you?) that specifically states they were told by Kubrick himself that he intended that his audience assume those satellites were weapons of some kind(and not what he originally intended, on which there is no disagreement), you're out of gas here. Now as to Gary Lockwood - can you give me the best quote of his you can find that supports your argument? I'm not sure which quote you're talking about.Shirtwaist (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Several good points here, but you are also connecting some dots here in my argument that I don't mean to have you connect (ie thinking I'm driving to conclusions I'm not trying to draw).

First some miscellaneous stuff.

For the record, I'm working on a strategy for moving this stuff out of the Plot section.

The quote from Gary Lockwood is from the audio DVD commentary that on several occasions I have noted is by actors Keir Dullea (astronaut David Bowman) and Gary Lockwood (astronaut Frank Poole) who one can presume had conversations with Kubrick about the matter. I simply noted for the first time that it is specifically Lockwood who says it (Unlike a collaborative book or film script, one can in an dual audio commentary tell who says what.)

My point on Agel's book is that it is not a book of critique or interpretation but a researched account/history of the production of the film. published in the same year as the release of the movie. It contains detailed accounts of stuff that was edited out of the final version, alternate special effects which were thrown out, the scientific research Kubrick did re consultation with NASA etc. I am inclined to think a detailed (and highly acclaimed) production history of the one movie has the same extra weight as a critical study of the director done with the director's co-operation. (Walker's book is a critical study of all of Kubrick's work. There have been dozens and dozens of such books written without working with Kubrick. But only two published books are production histories of this particular movie, which per se entail digging up info about the thinking of set designers, science consultants, script writers etc. etc. etc. )

I have problems with the distinguished and illustrious Michel Ciment only in part because of his lack access to Kubrick, but because his interpretation (a moonbound spaceship) not only involves an unwarranted speculative leap, but in high probability involves conflation of the 4 satellite objects and Floyd's PanAm ship, which written before the era of DVDs and VHSs is probable. (Heck, I read it the same way until the 3rd time I saw the film). Ciment is at his best in analyzing the Kubrick's photographic style and SK's relationship to modern art, European culture, and psychoanalysis. In this Ciment has few peers.

Now to my main point

I cite the scientists only to establish and/or illustrate the likelihood (which I cannot prove conclusively) of a third possibility which has the significance of possibly resolving Walker's apparent contradiction. Rather than

1) Kubrick intended general audiences to see them as nukes.

or

2) Kubrick dropped the whole idea of nukes

but instead

3) Kubrick rested content with the idea that specialist scientists in the audience would discern they are nukes, but it was not important for everyone to see it.

As I say, this goes on in film/theatre quite a lot. I earlier cited the Biblical Apocalyptic imagery in Ken Russell's acid-trip film "Altered States". A better example might be that the painting Norman Bates removes from the hotel wall to spy on Marion Crane in Psycho is the famous classic "The Rape of the Sabine Women", which certainly lends an extra dimension to the story. Art historians will recognize this while general audiences will not, and Hitchcock certainly knew that.!!!! My point is directors and playwrights strew their material with stuff they know only select members of their audience will catch. Walker has the vantage of direct access to Stanley Kubrick, while scientists have the vantage of knowledge of technology, although the scientists I cite admittedly don't explain how they arrived at their conclusions.

You say that "sources that contradict themselves must not be used in WP". (I certainly hope you mean with respect to the specific point on which they are contradicting themselves.) As I had intended to point out (I cut this observation from my earlier post), Walker probably wasn't thinking about the implications for Wikipedia film-plot policy when writing either piece, and as I took pains to point out, the two quotes from Alexander Walker (unless the "Space Odyssey" section in the 2000 edition of his book is substantially revised from the 1971 edition) are likely written 30 years apart from each other!!!!. And finally I also pointed out, the third possibility (Kubrick retaining info for specialists) I mentioned above somewhat (if not entirely) reconciles Walker's statements. Your claim that he contradicts himself is partly based on your interpretation of him and your interpretation while plausible doesn't take into account my (plausible but not provable) third possibility of Kubrick's mind that I have suggested. I could just as easily use the second quote from Walker to suggest your interpretation of Walker's first quote is mistaken!!! It's really a mild inconsistency, but you really have to go with your own reading of Walker to turn it into a significant contradiction, as I say Walker is really not focused directly on this exact question with which we are concerned!! We are trying to draw inferences from what Walker says, and Walker is really more unclear than contradictory, although you are right the two quotes seem to point in opposite directions. (But again consider possibility 3 listed above.)--WickerGuy (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

To sum up a bit more succinctly, since your interpretation of Walker is partly based on the binary either-or opposition of either 1) Kubrick wanted everyone to know they are nukes vs. 2) Kubrick decided for film purposes that they are mere satellites (possibly broadcasting "The Simpsons" to home TV) the claim that he is contradicting himself is slightly strained, although his imprecise wording re an issue NOT uppermost in his mind leaves him open to that interpretation.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wickerguy - Please follow established ident policy in talk! I can tell Walker is contradicting himself simply buy reading his quotes. No need for any interpretation. As for claim #3 - Walker never even hints at such a possibility, so unless you have sources that support claim #3, it is sheer speculation on your part and irrelevant to this discussion. Similarly, if you have sources that confirm Ciment, or any of the others interpreting the scene, were conflating, or confused, or whatever -- cite them. Walker makes two statements in opposition to each other. Period. So either we cite both conflicting statements, or we do not use them at all. WP policy is clear on this. I see no point in doing the former, as it would look ridiculous.

As for the "(initially intended by Kubrick to be a nuclear weapon platform)" still in the plot summary, do you propose it is proper to include all of Kubrick's initial intentions for all plot points? Should we make a note that a narrator was intended to be used, for example, and that Saturn was the first choice for destination of Discovery? Or do you think that would look ridiculous in a plot summary, and a much more suitable place for them would be in the Production section?Shirtwaist (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey! One WP opinion Wikipedia:Idents

"Outdenting:Sometimes a long discussion can cause indentation to become too deep, which may make it difficult to read, especially in narrower browser windows. In such cases you may consider 'outdenting' your post (also called 'undenting'). When doing so it is helpful to make clear what you are doing, for the benefit of readers. The templates {{outdent}} and {{outdent2}} exist for this purpose."

though I didn't use the templates. I will reply to your remarks shortly. I have to leave for a meeting soon.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not initially read Walker the way you do. I initially read Walker as asserting that Kubrick chose to eliminate the narrative exposition of a nuclear stalemate between the US and USSR. In the followup paragraph, Walker writes

So instead of making a limited narrative point [note Walker's use of "narrative" as a connecting word occurring in both paragraphs][I presume he's talking about nuclear stalemate] the film establishes its characteristic pattern by making an imaginative connection with one's visual senses through its display of the vastness of space and the variety of vehicles turning, careening through it....Blue Danube...imposes a feeling of order and elegance on their already beautiful movements.

And note (in addition to the paragraph connector word "narrative") that in the first quote, Walker uses the present tense "we can surmise they are the bombs" just as he does in the second quote from the other essay "are meant to be", which is why I think your reading of W is a bit strained. I think when Walter talks about Kubrick dropping material, he was referring to the narrative voice driving us to the conclusion of balance of terror, not to their being bombs per se. I could be wrong, but it isn't utterly self-evident to me that he has contradicted himself.

It would be of course wrong to mention Saturn, etc. in the plot summary.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws, and I think you know that. "Narrative" and "narration" are two different things. Instead of adding new Walker paragraphs one at a time, please post the entirety of your Walker evidence all at once so we all know exactly what we're dealing with. Can we assume this is all Walker has to say on the subject? --

"It is here that an early draft of the film script intended to make the point, via the narrator, that a nuclear stalemate had been reached between the United States and the Soviet Union, each of whom has a nuclear bomb orbiting the globe which can be triggered by remote control. This idea has been totally eliminated from the finished film, though from national markings still visible on the first and second vehicles we see, we can surmise these are the Russian and American bombs. Kubrick dropped this aspect because, on reflection, it seemed to him to have no place at all in the film's thematic development. It was an orbitting red herring. It was made clear later, in the edgy encounter between the Russian and American scientists, that both countries were still living in a state of tense friendliness; and since some politically conscious filmgoers in the 1960s would know that agreement had already been reached between the powers not to put H-bombs into space, it would merely have raised irrelevant queries to suggest this as a reality of the twenty-first century.

So instead of making a limited narrative point, the film establishes its characteristic pattern by making an imaginative connection with one's visual senses through its display of the vastness of space and the variety of vehicles turning, careening through it." And if putting a note in the plot summary about Saturn is a bad idea, so is the "kubrick intended bombs" stuff.Shirtwaist (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have Inserted a paragraph break in Walker citation, where Walker has one.

OK, let's move it out of the plot section. I'll have it done by midday tomorrow.

In answer to your question, this is (I believe) everything Walker has to say in the book Stanley Kubrick director. I don't know exactly what Jerome Agel says. Walker in his essay in Schwam's "Making of 2001" says they "are meant to be nuclear weapons", and actor Gary Lockwood (astronaut Frank Poole) in the DVD audio commentary says they are nuclear weapons.

My sense is that Kubrick dropped the focus on overtly establishing nuclear stalemate, and then simply re-requisitioned the bombs for a different slightly less significant dramatic purpose, and simply chose to not focus on the bombs. Mechanical engineers often take a device developed for one purpose and then choose to employ them for an entirely different purpose. So do creators of literature. I am inclined to this view since it makes all of Walker's statements consistent. In addition, it seems to be the most straightforward and simplest reading of what Walker says. It's a question simply of what is the main clause and the subordinate clause in W's sentences.

"It is here that an early draft of the film script intended to make the point, via the narrator, that a nuclear stalemate had been reached between the United States and the Soviet Union [that was the main clause], each of whom has a nuclear bomb orbiting the globe which can be triggered by remote control [subordinate clause]. This idea has been totally eliminated from the finished film [main clause], though from national markings still visible on the first and second vehicles we see, we can surmise these are the Russian and American bombs.[subordinate clause]

Finally, Walker uses "narrative" as an adjective (modifying "point") not as a noun!!! and then goes on to say "instead of" a "narrative point" Kubrick connects with your "visual sense". Of course, he is talking about the dropped voice-over narration!!!! It is you, I think, who is grasping at straws here.

Finally, Saturn never appears on screen, nor do we hear narration, but we do see the "entities originally meant to be bombs" so the situation is not exactly the same.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I've already changed it. Just out of sheer curiosity though I'd like to see exactly what Lockwood and Dullea say about this in the dvd commentary. If you have that handy, I'd appreciate seeing it.Shirtwaist (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Voice of Gary Lockwood as bone goes up in air (ellipsis [...] indicate pauses, not omitted material)

"There goes the bone....and it comes back a...in this case an armed satellite. That is not the space station, that's an armed satellite, so it's a weapon-to-weapon cut" (he says "armed" and "weapon" but never uses the word "nuclear")(This DVD edition with audio commentary released 2007 was produced by Kubrick's brother-in-law, Jan Harlan, who was also the executive director of all Kubrick films from 1975 to his death, as well as the executive director of Kubrick's estate after his death including the vast archive of memorabilia documented as "Kubrick's boxes" which was subsequently donated to a London University and has been the basis a traveling museum exhibit.)--WickerGuy (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)]

Addendum. In New York Times interview 1968 Kubrick is ambiguous about this. Full quote

New York Times: The opening sequence of 2001 shows an ape-man at the dawn of man's existence learning to use objects as weapons. He throws a bone-weapon in the air and it comes down as an orbiting spacecraft in the year 2001 A.D. What's the connection?

Stanley Kubrick: The link is very close, and the time period is really very short. The difference between the bone-as-weapon and the spacecraft is not enormous, on an emotional level. Man's whole brain has developed from the use of the weapon-tool. It's the evolutionary watershed of natural selection. Shaw said that man's heart is in his weapons, and it's perfectly true. There has always been this fantastic love of the weapon. It's simply an observable fact that all of man's technology grew out of his discovery of the weapon-tool.

Kubrick clearly has weapons on his mind, but allows the interviewer to stay with the image it is a "spacecraft".

Finally, all of this was hashed out on the Talk page here in summer of 2006 with the folks eventually deciding to NOT say in the plot summary these are weapons, though neither side mentioned Alex Walker and it was before the release of the audio-commentary DVD (October 2007).--WickerGuy (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that quote from Lockwood, Wickerguy. Unfortunately, we can't determine how he comes to that conclusion from that. Did Kubrick tell him that? Did he see the original script that said they were bombs? Did he read someone's interpretation that they were bombs and simply accepted it? Who knows. I was aware of the NYT interview, thanks, but since Kubrick was so vague I didn't think it was relevant. I'll keep looking for more SK quotes though. So, now we have two separate consensuses on the issue. Great! If anybody else tries to slip that in, they won't have a foot to stand on.Shirtwaist (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Walker Note In "Military nature of orbiting satellites"

At issue is a note, posted in the article by WickerGuy (talk), stating that a blurb on the back cover of the book Stanley Kubrick, Director was true at one time, but is now false. The questions are: 1)Are dust jacket blurbs valid sources of information which should be noted in WP articles?, and 2)Is it following the spirit of WP policy to have readers see such a contradictory and trivial notation as now exists in the article?(note can be found here: [[5]])Shirtwaist (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It may very well be true that this note is somewhat trivial and/or not WP:NOTABLE. I an not sure what is meant by Shirtwaist's claim that it is "contradictory". I felt that given the high reputation of the publisher, the misleading nature of its promotional statements (which I bought into for some time) about the uniqueness of the author's collaboration with the subject should be noted as a sort of "caveat" for readers of WP who then turn to the book. It may not be WP's place to be an arbiter of publisher's claims. The note now reads a bit more cleanly than the version quoted below. See [6].--WickerGuy (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC closedShirtwaist (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

I would ask Wickerguy what is the purpose of this note:

"The book is billed by the publisher, W.W. Norton, as the only book on Kubrick's work written with his co-operation, which was true when the earlier 1971 edition was out. Since then one other author of such a book, Michel Ciment, also had some of the archival access and help from Kubrick's production staff & family that Walker had. The 2000 edition of Walker's book makes the same claim"

The "only book with K's cooperation" note does not appear on the 1971 edition (which I have) which says nothing about either Kubrick's cooperation or "authorization". Ciment's book was published in 1980 and 1999(which I have) which means the 1980 edition was printed 20 years before Walker's 1999 edition(which I have) containing this note on the back cover: "Alexander Walker's 'Stanley Kubrick, Director' is the only book ever written with Kubrick's cooperation.". A note inside reads: Stanley Kubrick, who authorized this work. Since Ciment's 1980 book was obviously written with Kubrick's cooperation, as well as Agel's 1970 book, the publisher's note on Walker's book is blatantly false and misleading, and should not be used as a ref in WP. The notation in the article - "Alexander Walker in a book he wrote with Kubrick's assistance and authorization" is verifiably correct, and should be sufficient for the article, and makes the note totally superfluous and unnecessary.Shirtwaist (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if the 1971 edition actually said so- only that it would have been true when the 1971 edition was published. (BTW, only the paperback of the 2000 edition says this, not the hardback at least not the one in Palo Alto Public Library. It may not be possible to check both versions of 71 however. I think the paper was out next year in '72.) The online library card catalog of Plymouth State University says it of the 1971 edition, though not of their copy of the 1999 one, which led me to believe the claim had been made earlier. Likewise, the full wording of the new edition's publicity first says this and follows up with "This new edition, revised and expanded...." which leaves the impression that the claim was made with the first edition. Similarly, other publicity for the book reads "Alexander Walker's Stanley Kubrick, Director, first published in 1971, is the only book ever written with Kubrick's cooperation. This new edition, revised and expanded..." again seeming to imply the claim had been made re 1971.

It's an awfully widespread "meme" at this point. Aside from online university card catalogs there is

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/744634.Stanley_Kubrick_Director

See also http://www.filmsite.org/references4.html http://isbnlib.com/list/alexander?page=62 http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/744634.Stanley_Kubrick_Director

http://www.dealtime.com/xPO-Stanley_Kubrick_Director_by_Alexander_Walker http://www.keenzo.com/showproduct.asp?ID=2059459

http://www.boxesjarsandtins.info/boxes-stanley-kubrick/

http://www.alltheactionfigures.com/kubrick-rare/

etc etc etc.

Wouldn't you now like the opportunity to refute this claim? In the current context, the blurb functions simply as a source about itself (overtly acceptable by WP rules), and the current footnote is a kind of rebuttal.

(BTW, I suspect the claim is intended to be made of books that cover Kubrick's whole body of 13 films, so I'm not sure that Jerome Agel counts. If I'm right, they should have said "only book of its kind", rather than "only book". But yeah, they got superlative and said "only book" which is an obvious exaggeration.)

A good shorter version might be "The 2000 paperback edition of this book's expanded edition is billed by W.W. Norton as the only book on Kubrick's work written with his co-operation, which was true of the earlier 1971 edition. However, Michel Ciment's subsequent book also was written with help from Kubrick, his production staff and the access to his archives that Walker had." If you think this works and is an improvement, feel free to put it in yourself.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Re my earlier statement "Wouldn't you now like the opportunity to refute this claim? In the current context, the blurb functions simply as a source about itself (overtly acceptable by WP rules), and the current footnote is a kind of rebuttal.", I'm thinking of WP:SELFPUB which says that this is OK as long as "so long as: 1. the material is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties;...". These conditions are violated, but aren't we at this point actually rebutting the self-serving claim? I would be inclined to think this is acceptable. We aren't taking WW Norton at their word here.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, any direct assertion that WW Norton is wrong would be OR, as in WP:Synthesis. It's really too bad. Norton has a very high reputation in academia, as publisher of the Norton Critical Editions series. It's actually pretty disappointing that this was so off base.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my initial question, which was "what is the purpose of such a note?". Especially when WP:SELPUB clearly states, along with #1 and #2 you pointed out, that statements from self-published sources can only be used when "4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". There's not only reasonable doubt, there's outright proof they were either ignorant or outright lying! I suggest you either remove the note or give a rational argument that justifies keeping it there. What, exactly, is the point of bringing up a self-serving claim like that, only to rebut it? Much better for the article(and the source) not to bring up the self-serving claim in the first place!Shirtwaist (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The second half of my reply was precisely to say I put the note in to (gently & indirectly) debunk the claim, and was as such meant as an answer to your question!! I mean it's repeated so many times all over the Internet, and WW Norton is normally considered a very reliable source (bigtime college textbook publisher- Norton Anthology of English Literature- Norton critical editions- publisher of various Pulitzer Prize winning authors etc etc [not to mention the American paperback of A Clockwork Orange & Norton Critical Edition of same]). Norton's august and regal reputation in academia is why I was for several days quite prepared to say it trumped Ciment, until I looked in the "front matter" of Ciment and discovered that he too had access to Kubrick's film archives (as well as sharing with Walker the accolade of one of the few critics to whom Kubrick routinely gave interviews.)

Presumably, at least some readers of Wikipedia actually consult the sources cited by Wikipedia. Such readers are quite likely to come across the claim on the back of the book. Shouldn't we give a caveat?

I think you misread condition 4 of WP:SELFPUB. WP's request for "authenticity" I strongly suspect has to do with someone on the net impersonating someone else. If Alan Conway had a webpage pretending to be by Stanley Kubrick that would be a violation of WP's "authenticity" condition for self-published sources (as I understand it). Of the following two definitions of "authenticity", I tend to think WP is looking for the 1st not the 2nd

1. of undisputed origin or authorship; genuine: an authentic signature

2. accurate in representation of the facts; trustworthy; reliable: an authentic account

--WickerGuy (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Put differently, when not talking about it's own work, WW Norton as a publisher certainly fits WP's definition of a reliable source, given the large number of University textbooks it publishes. WP says (italic emphasis added)

"The word "source" as used in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability."

In the case of this promotional statement, however, WP Norton is no longer "third-party". We have caught an error, which folks who follow up reading this article are likely to run into. Shouldn't we have a caveat?--WickerGuy (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, in the extremely unlikely event that a reader sees that claim on the back of the book, they can read any of the other books that Kubrick contributed to and decide for themselves which books benefited from Kubrick's cooperation. WP is not an arbiter of the validity of dust jacket PR. The only reason you put the claim in the article in the first place was to bolster Walker's credibility as a source -- which is clear for all to see in the edit and talk history. The "rebuttal" only appeared later when you realized Ciment and Agel debunked the claim. Both the fallacious publishers claim and the rebuttal are ridiculous, unnecessary, and will only serve to make the article look like a joke. They should either be removed, or you should submit an WP:RfC and/or WP:DR request to settle the matter if this means so much to you.Shirtwaist (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, this is not at all very important to me. But I actually intended the note in its current format as a tribute to your persistence (you really are a very prickly porcupine aren't you??). I actually initially thought you in particular would be extremely pleased at the rebuttal!!!! And yet the rebuttal itself now becomes yet another basis for a personal attack on my fallible self. You could try a little more assumption of good faith. Can we eventually get to compliance with WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND??

However, since the claim is the very first statement made on the back cover of the paperback edition of a noted & reputable academic publisher, I do in fact think it quite likely readers will see that claim if they get the book. (It's not exactly buried in the middle of the second paragraph.) However, you are right that "WP is not an arbiter of the validity of dust jacket PR." You may be entirely right that this is "unnecessary" but I don't see anything particularly "ridiculous" about it. A reader simply looking at the article in its final form without tracing through all the back versions of the article or the talk page will see it a simple "caveat emptor" warning for people who consult the book which is being used as a reference, saving them a bit of time. (And I still think it likely the publisher probably had in mind books covering all of Kubrick's work, not books like Jerome Agel's.)

(BTW, I think you mean "refute" not "debunk" as the latter implies agency.)--WickerGuy (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am, in essence, both annoyed with myself and embarrassed that I myself took Norton's claim at face value for so long. As a prospective reader of WP, I would be grateful for such a note in the article.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

My only concern is for the article to be presented in the best way possible for the reader, with the ultimate goal of bringing it to FEATURED ARTICLE level. Your unnecessarily nonsensical note works against, not for, that goal. In that light, I will now submit a request for WP:RfC on this matter.Shirtwaist (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the note is not especially necessary. It may be a candidate for a new addition for WP:NOT. I fail utterly to see what is in the least bit "nonsensical" about it. It is needs a bit more clarity and brevity perhaps. In the meantime, I will clean it up.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Style Issues

The current version of Orbiting weapons banned before film premiere has no closure. Paragraphs & even moreso article sections are supposed to have a closing wrap-up sentence, and currently the next to last sentence simply dangles in a kind of metaphorical mid-air without landing anywhere. Is the removed sentence WP:OR because of WP:synthesis?? If that last sentence has to go, some other way of wrapping it up needs to be found.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope the revised version is satisfactory.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, detailed names of all the spacecraft from Aries to Orion slows down the flow of the paragraph of the other section. I have now kept them in with generic descriptions. (A good style test is to read something out loud.) The point is simply that multiple film designers had troubles working generically on spacecraft in the film due to script changes. (The actors on The Shining has similar problems re their character's motivations also due to frequent script changes.) It may or may not be the case then that the satellites' appearances contains real-world design anachronisms.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed at your (SW) attention to small details, which is better than mine as I go for sweeping broad-brush big picture kind of writing. However, sometimes brevity can be good stylistically. I will try to make sure it is not a triumph of style over substance, but it seems that a long list of what exactly Ordway worked isn't needed. (Why not just modify original "some of Kubrick's designers ....various spacecraft"? Then you get the sense we are not talking about ALL but SOME. This I think would fix your problems with the original version.) I'm simply making the point that multiple film designers had troubles working generically on spacecraft in the film due to script changes, which may or may not have impacted the appearance of the satellites.

BTW, the TV documentary "2001: A Space Odyssey - A Look Behind the Future" (never cited in this article) which aired prior to the film's release certainly gives the impression that Fred Ordway and Harry Lange were hired as a joint team. They are often interviewed jointly, and the documentary refers to them as the two hirees from NASA, although Ordway has been listed as "science advisor" or "technical consultant" while Lange is credited a production-designer (including sketch-artist), but the Imdb states Lange advised Kubrick on aeronautics (which he was knowledgable of).
In short, Ordway was the scientist from NASA while Lange was the artist-designer from NASA. The documentary doesn't say much about their division of labor, but the Simon Atkinson piece implies Lange bore main responsibility for the look of the orbiting satellites. --WickerGuy (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that while I have been grouping statements by speaker, you (Sw) have been going for a strict sequence of Paragraph 2-->maybe just satellites
followed by Paragraph 3-->maybe space weapons. I was earlier trying to keep all statements by Walker in one place, and recently keeping all statements by Clarke in one place, but the separation by topic is probably better.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, details are sometimes important, especially when cited sources are represented in the article in a way that is inaccurate and somewhat misleading. Case in point: you inserted info from Ordway, in a section specifically about the satellites, that gave the impression it was related to satellite design, when the actual source said nothing of the sort. On closer inspection, Ordway was talking about six specific models, not satellites. If I hadn't clarified that entry, the reader would assume Ordway was talking about satellites. The fact that designers couldn't keep up with script changes is a legitimate point, but without clear relevance to the topic of the section, it has no business being there. I've noticed a disturbing tendency on your part to represent your sources in a slightly misleading and inaccurate manner, and I've had to clarify several of your entries for precisely those reasons to prevent confusion for readers. This goes against core WP policy, and I hope it doesn't continue.

If you want to cite the "Look Behind the Future" doc, go ahead. I don't follow your point about division of labor or what relevance it has to the issue at hand.

Concerning sequence of paragraphs in "Military Nature of Satellites", I believe you created the section in a structure that went something like this:

• A1 Kubrick first wanted orbiting nukes, then changed his mind
• A2 Walker confirms this
• A3 Critics don't see nukes
• A4 Kubrick says their "spacecraft"
• B1 A lot of other people still think they're nukes(followed by different groups with same opinion)
• C Kubrick finally left it open to interpretation what the satellites were

I think that's a fairly good structure, although the list of people who still think they're nukes is overlong and belabors the point the section is trying to make, and should be trimmed down considerably(starting with the last paragraph). I think the section should keep that basic structure, but it's important for the first section "A" to only have refs pertaining to the fact that Kubrick dropped the nuclear stalemate/orbiting bombs idea and a lot of important sources agree with that, including Clarke himself. The following "people who still think they're nukes" section "B" should only have refs pertaining to that. Putting statements pertaining to "A" in section "B", and vice-versa, is only confusing and doesn't look good. For this reason, I think your Clarke ref in "B" should be removed, and my Clarke ref in "A" should stand. Not doing that only makes Clarke look schizophrenic.

As for the last sentence in "Orbiting weapons banned before film premiere": "this future forecast of the film in its early stages was dated before the film was released" is, I believe, OR and synthesis, and should be either sourced or removed.Shirtwaist (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of doing anything in the article with the "Future" doc, other than I am simply guessing that Ordway worked on the human transport stuff and Lange worked on other stuff including the satellites (that's what I meant by "division of labor"), although they were more or less hired as a team. Ordway's essay seems to me to imply it was a general problem that went beyond his own immediate work. He talks (quoting his own earlier memo) about "what ->US industry<- comes up with in terms of design suggestions for ->equipment<-" having to change!!!! This is the quote of which I was thinking. It seems to extend beyond the mouthful of the six main vehicles he himself worked on. Ordway also talks about "our" work -meaning himself and Harry Lange- this is clear from sentence one- and we know from other sources (Atkinson for example) that Lange worked quite specifically on the satellite design. (THough when Ordway in his memo says "we" I can't tell if he is talking about just him and Lange or the whole crew and beyond.) Is this WP:synthesis? At any rate there is an implication in what Trumbull (and Ordway) say that it is plausible that once the satellites were denuked (if they were) it may have been impractical to change their external design. I'm simply pointing this out as a possibility.

I am indeed dredging up sources on short notice (many of which I read eons ago), and you do submit them to more microscopic scrutiny than I. I do some extrapolation, and may conflate sources. Thank you for your attention to detail.

Clarke seems to me to say in the 2001 Channel 4 documentary that it simply isn't clear that the satellites are nukes in the final version, and so most viewers will see them as spacecraft. In the 1996 Channel 4 documentary (same director of both BTW) he simply talks about how the match-cut originated in Kubrick's mind when he first thought of it, and labels is as weapon-to-weapon or words to that effect. I don't see what is schizophrenic about this.

Schwam and number 35

I gave you the exact page numbers for the number 35 in Stephanie Schwam!!! I'm using the paperback edition published by Modern library in 2000- 352 pages. The hardback is a mere 326 pages, so the pages may not match. In paper edition- Bottom of page 4, "1965.....Spring. Kubrick begins to hire staff (35 designers..." page 83 "Kubrick assembled around him a group of thirty-five artists and designers"--WickerGuy (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Self-Correction on Walker

Contrary to what I said earlier both the paperback and the hardback of the later edition of Walker contain the promotional statement. It is simply much more prominent on the paperback. As I noted earlier, the very first sentence on the back cover of the paperback says "only book on Kubrick....". The hardback of the 1999 edition says this on the inside front flap after two earlier prefatory sentences which the paperback has removed from its blurb, specifically the hardback front flap reads "Stanley Kubrick...one of our greatest directors. Perhaps owing to Kubrick's [rarely giving interviews and reclusiveness] few books have been able to ...sufficiently explain the genius of Kubrick....[This book] first published in 1971, is the only book....". I missed this the first time I looked at it. It's actually a lot more blatantly self-serving than the paperback version even if less prominent and harder to find.

Ciment is more modest. In the very back of the earlier edition of his book, he simply thanks Kubrick "for the hours he was willing to spend with me and for the hitherto unpublished frame enlargements which he had specially printed for this book". The later 2003 edition of his book thanks Christiane Kubrick, Jan Harlan, and Leon Vitali, Kubrick's personal assistance for 25 years.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The final sentence of banned weapons

This was intended as summation and wrap-up rather than synthesis. Words to this effect can be found in the source on space weapons already quoted, currently in note 126 just a few sentences earlier. Do you think it needs to be sourced twice, just two sentences later? The exact quote from the source is "a treaty was signed banning nuclear weapons from a place where no one wanted to put them anyway; rendering the opening space scenes of 2001: a Space Odyssey with its orbital bombs obsolete before the prints even came back from the chemists."--WickerGuy (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum

This author is self-published, but he frequently writes feature articles for various film fan magazines, and copy for film documentaries, museums, and does corporate business writing. He may not fully satisfy WP's criterion for reliability.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum 2

There is no interpretation or invention in the closing sentence. It certainly meets the verifiability criterion. It does not however, strictly stick to the sources, so it may be simple synthesis. Do I quote a freelance writer who writes for fan magazines?--WickerGuy (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, Ordway only speaks about the six craft, not once does he mention or allude to satellite design, and to infer from that that he implied satellites were included is editor speculation and has no place in a WP article. I'd like somebody to find a ref that spells out exactly who came up with the satellite designs and who painted them. So far I haven't found one, have you?

Clarke - I didn't say ACC was schizophrenic, I said having him first say the satellites are not meant to be seen as nukes, then later on having him say in the "people who think they're nukes" section that it was a "bone to bomb" match-cut makes him look schizophrenic, or at the very least confused. Why should we do that? What possible purpose does that serve?

Schwam - I did find those entries, but they were not in Ordway's essay or "front matter". The one on page 4 was part of Carolyn Geduld's "Production Calendar", and the one on pg. 83 was in Jeremy Bernstein's "How About A Little Game". It would've been helpful if you had been more familiar with your sources. You should change your note accordingly.

Walker - Hopefully more editors, preferably admins, will weigh in on the RfC about this note. I will only say this - using the most common definition of "cooperation", was the publisher right or wrong to say "the only book ever written with Kubrick's cooperation" after Agel's book was published in 1970? My opinion is that anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty will say "wrong".

Final sentence - The first sentence of the second paragraph makes the last sentence redundant anyway. Why restate the obvious? Your "either dropped or severely downplayed this idea" also needs modification to conform to Walker - "totally eliminated from the film" does not imply downplaying, it implies "totally eliminated from the film".Shirtwaist (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not got the faintest idea who painted the satellites.

Generally, the two hardware designers and spacecraft consultants for the film were Fred Ordway and Harry Lange. As this online architecture course puts it "The designer of the space crafts Harry Lange and Fredrick Ordway worked along side many technicians from NASA, IBM and other institutions to develop and create space crafts that were technically accurate to the theories of that time." http://www.architecture.uwaterloo.ca/faculty_projects/terri/2001_questions.html I think in the Atkinson essay Harry Lange has been clearly established as a designer or co-designer of the satellites which discusses Lange's concept drawings for both "bombs" and "satellites" as well as "Concepts for the Aries, the Orion, the Space Station, Discovery." Clarke says nothing about how the satellites are meant to be seen, only how they are seen due to film's lack of clarity. There is no contradiction. I see I did indeed erroneously attribute the quote of 35 to Fred Ordway, but I had the page number correct. I was counting the production calendar as "Front Matter".--WickerGuy (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My either-or depends on whether you give Walker's book or Walker's essay in Schwam precedence. Certainly the Walker essay in Schwam is saying Kubrick chose to leave implicit and indirect what was spelled out overtly in the early draft. I thought you were saying "use both quotes or neither". If Walker makes inconsistent or unclear statements, shouldn't we assert both positions?--WickerGuy (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

First you say my closing sentence is OR, then you say it's restating the obvious?? My English composition teachers told me that paragraphs are supposed to have a topic sentence, supporting sentences, and concluding sentences. That's why the final sentence is there!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be a good thing to know who painted them, because that would be the person who would be making changes forced by the script if there were any, wouldn't it? Until we find a source saying who designed the satellites and what kind of changes were imposed on their designs, I'm afraid any mention of it is unacceptable, including anything currently available from Ordway. It could have even been somebody working independently of the Ordway/Lange team, we just don't know.

Atkinson talks about Lange's "concepts" for the "orbiting bombs and satellites", but doesn't describe them or post pictures of them, so we don't know if Lange went any farther than the "concept" stage with them, or design responsibility for them was assigned to someone else, or what. The only thing Atkinson is sure of is that Lange was in possession of "concept" drawings and that's it. If Lange really did finalize the design of the satellites, why wouldn't he have shown those drawings to Atkinson too, and not just the "concepts"?

I still don't see the need for quoting Clarke from the "Invisible Man" doc talking about the bone-to-bomb cut. What's the point? To hear him say the word "bomb"? We've already established Clarke saying explicitly "supposed to be an orbiting space bomb, a weapon in space. Well, that isn't made clear, we just assume it's some kind of space vehicle". He's telling the same "broomstick" story in both docs, but since "Making The Myth" was made after "Invisible Man", the former should take precedence as far as Clarke's opinion on the matter is concerned. Nothing else from Clarke is needed on the subject, unless for some strange reason you want to prove the point that Clarke once called it a bomb on another occasion, in which he doesn't say anything about what it's meant to be either!

Looking at the Orbiting weapons banned before film premiere again, everything in that subsection is explained elsewhere, except the bit about why they were banned, which can be easily integrated into the Military Nature section. I say the entire "Orbiting Weapons" section is redundant and unnecessary and should go.Shirtwaist (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed the footnote under RfC because of your objections re the Agel book. However, to say "if" they meant something..., it probably really does put the footnote into OR territory, so I think I'll just remove the footnote. I was puzzled by your earlier assertion the footnote was "contradictory". Now it seems you are just arguing it is false. (I thought you meant internally contradictory.) To qualify Norton's promo against both Ciment and Agel hedging it with two ifs is surely OR, so let's ax it.

You are correct that the earlier Clarke quote is a bit redundant. That is a reason for removing it, but is quite different from your earlier reasoning, of a superficial appearance of conflict. But he is still a production staff member who mentions bomb on some occasion.

The reason for the "weapons banned" section in the first place is that there is a larger section of the article entitled Imaginging the future which discusses issues like the non-existence of PanAm in the year 2001, voice technology, etc. Surely a mention of this belongs there as well. (And it is due to the overall nature of that section, that I have the closing sentence.)

I don't think anyone has written about the full genealogy of every stage of development of the satellites. And I don't even know if final designs exist in the form of drawings at all. However, it is wildly unlikely the satellites were developed independently of the Ordway/Lange team. O&L have been widely indicated as being the first and last word for the designs of all spacecraft in the film, supervising a team of modelers and everyone agrees that the satellites are spacecraft. I had hoped that the more general Douglas Trumbull quote which more overtly indicates that the entire production was plagued by designers having to accomodate script changes would do (which is also implied by the memo of Ordway's quoted in the larger essay). We don't know how the satellites specifically were affected by this, simply that the entire production staff was plagued by this problem. My original of this paragraph was careful to speak of "spacecraft" generally.--WickerGuy (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The RfC is now closed.

So Clarke mentions "bomb". So what? Is that even worth mentioning? He already clearly said "bomb" in the first quote. Guess what - Clarke says "bomb" quite a few times. Does that mean we should cite every single one? Come on. It's the quality of the article we should be concerned with here.

"Imagining The Future" is an excellent section to have, no doubt. But it's purpose is to explain predictions in the film that proved right and wrong. We now know Kubrick's intention was to present the satellites in an ambiguous manner. In that light, they are generally seen as standard satellites, which existed before and after the film. So the film was re-stating the obvious fact of existence of satellites at the time (although more advanced looking ones in the film). Why does that, or the fact that orbiting nukes were banned before the film, deserve an entry in "Imagining The Future"? If a viewer sees them as orbiting nukes, SK clearly got that wrong. But that's up to the viewer to decide, it's not a clearly defined aspect of the film. If they see them as generic satellites, they already know there's nothing special about that - everybody knows satellites are up there, and have been since 1957! As I said, almost everything in that "weapons banned" subsection has already been said elsewhere in the article. Why rehash it?

It's true O&L most likely worked as a team. But I think it's important to realize that there are two distinct groups of objects involved here; the physical models of the six craft that Ordway talks about, and the four painted satellite images that were used in the film. There were never, as far as we know, actual models built of the satellites. So how do we know their designs changed at all - script changes or no? For all we know, Kubrick told somebody to paint a bunch of futuristic-looking satellites without mentioning anything about them being weapons, and that's what they did. Can you prove otherwise? I'm convinced that this lack of information about the satellites' design precludes lumping them in with all the other physical models that, according to Ordway, did require changes from whatever source. Putting all that about design changes in the section, implying the satellites were included in that, is highly improper without clear confirmation from reliable sources.Shirtwaist (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll give a more detailed reply later. Beyond saying you have several good points- I have to say if those are painted images, the sharpness of the shadows of the antennas is remarkable. However, there are in fact extant production stills (including the one I cited for the Maltese cross) and photos in the 8-page program (http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/2001/html/page26.html) of the satellites which actually show them from different angles than they appear in the film. I'll try to dig one up later, but the view of them from alternate angles shows they are indeed models. We are constantly being reminded of the fine detail SK gave to every element of the production, so I can't believe modelers just slapped stuff together for it.

More anon.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Website "Starship Modeler" was prepared with help from a NASA consultant who had access to both sketches and models and states overtly the satellites were done using photos of models.

Popular Mechanics April 1967- Backstage Magic for a Trip to Saturn- by Richard D. Dempewolff states that the division was as follows (exact quote) "The team that bore the 'feasibility' burden included three indefatigable wizards: Fred Ordway, scientific consultant; Harry Lange, the designer who took Ordway's technical data and drew plans [sketches-wg] for workable space gadgetry no one had ever seen; and Tony Masters, an ingenious builder who turned plans into hardware [models-WG]." (Masters is the one of these three NOT hired from NASA - this distribution of labor is also confirmed by the Look Behind the Future" documentary done in '67) Similarly, in the notes to the 2001 museum exhibit confirms the third step- we are told "Production designer Tony Masters had assembled a team of effects artists who demonstrated remarkable talent and attention to detail as they translated two-dimensional spaceship illustrations into beautifully rendered three-dimensional objects." [7] & later says Masters worked from designs by Ordway and Lange.

So we have the PopMech article saying its 1.) Ordway-science 2.) Lange-2D sketches 3.) Masters-3D models while in the Simon Atkinson piece Lange shows his sketches of the "satellites and bombs" in addition to Aries, Orion, etc. although these first sketches are not displayed in the article. The 2001 Internet Resource Archive also asserts "Every detail of the production design, down to the most insignificant element, was designed with technological and scientific accuracy in mind."

Both on the testimony of "Starship Modeler" and on the combined testimony from a) Popular Mechanics on who did what (Masters translated Lange's 2D drawings into 3D models) and b) the testimony from Atkinson that Lange did drawings of satellites and bombs along with the Discovery, Orion, Aries, etc., we can be reasonably certain the satellites are not painted images. Incidentally, Ordway only mentions tangentially in one paragraph of that essay the work he did in designing the space-suits and helmet so I wouldn't assume the article covers all his work. But the quote from special effects supervisor Trumbull independently of the Ordway essay says that pretty much the whole production was effected by script changes, necessitating the building of a "control room" which carefully kept track of version changes in all hardware.

I've cut down the reference to Clarke's other quote to a footnote and a parenthetical aside, and drastically shortened the "weapons banned" section. I don't know if my trimmings to the latter will be satisfactory to you or not. I still have my writing hat on re the production stuff.--WickerGuy (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Pietrobon does not say they are photographs, he says "still images moved across the screen (and zoomed in and out) to provide the illusion of animation". A painting is also a "still image", is it not? He also gets it wrong about the "French airforce insignia" markings. I challenge anyone to prove to me there are any such markings visible in the film.

Everything you've said only proves that Ordway and Lange worked on designs for spacecraft in the film. We know that. When we come up with somebody talking about satellites specifically, and not the 6 main models in the film, then we can put that in the article. The "production still" you provided supposedly showing a model at a different angle is a frame from the film -- upside down.

I've moved the paragraph about spacecraft model design to its own section under main "writing" section, along with depiction of comps and depiction of aliens. That seemed the best place for it. What do you think?

I removed the "orbiting weapons banned" completely for reasons already stated. If you want to restore it, you'll need to prove why it belongs there.Shirtwaist (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Pietrobon quite explicitly speaks of a "source photo" used to create the animation. The roundel of the French air force can be seen at Wikimedia Commons [File:Roundel_of_the_French_Air_Force.svg] which I can easily see on the satellite even on a very small computer screen pausing the DVD at 20:17. You are quite correct about the upside down still. I did not see that at first. I think the move of the paragraph is fine. If the "predicting the future" section is deemed to be only talking about the final version of the film, then the section does indeed not belong there. If it is extended to include what was in early drafts of the film, then there is a case for it, though I tried to trim it to make it less redundant. THis is not necessarily a reliable source, but various amateur modeling kit clubs and manufacturers which make models of "Space Odyssey" craft routinely include models of the satellites and always attribute their designs to Ordway and Lange. They could be wrong, but it seems to be the broad perception among the modeling community. (Obviously, unlike Star Wars, no one entity is licensed to make Space Odyssey model ships.) If you are curious see http://www.2001-3d-archive.info/.

Also of note is http://odec.proboards.com/ "a scale model forum discussing all Craft from 2001:A Space Odyssey and their kits from all vendors".

On one page one poster writes (no source given but photos from some reference book given- note some satellites are telescopes) http://odec.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=reference&action=display&thread=9

"Just for historical reference:

Kubrick ordered 11 'Bombs' to be made by the model shop.

10 are known to still exist in photograph form. 5 made it to the directors initial cut, 4 made it to the final cut.

the others are: 6. US bomb #7

7. US imaging telescope

8. British bomb

9. US Communications array

10. US Deep space probe

11. Unknown. "

I certainly wish I knew what the source of the uploaded photos are. They are said to be production photos.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Pietrobon is an occasional contributor to this forum.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This photo on flickr.com states these are "Unidentified models from 2001: A Space Odyssey. These were constructed and photographed, but didn't appear in the film." They all look like satellites, and it has been said more than once (I have no idea where) there were satellites made that didn't make the final cut.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Here on flickr is a production sketch labeled "Bomb 1" http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_stringer/2072659517/sizes/l/ There are others.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That last pic on Flickr is the same one that appears in Bizony. I don't know who "Lee Stringer" is, but I doubt he owns the rights to that, unless he's Lange or Masters or Bizony.

Where does Pietrobon say "source photo"? I'm not saying he didn't say it, but I can't find it.

Those marks on the "French" satellite still look like red blotches to me, and I'm looking at a BluRay freeze-frame on a High-end 40" CRT HD screen. Are we sure that's not a hammer and sickle or something else?

It's a sad state of affairs when all the info on the satellites we can find is on unattributable websites. I've read everything Trumball, Pederson, Lightman, Bizony, Lange, and everyone else said about VFX in 2001 and not one friggin word on the satellites! Is this a conspiracy of silence or what?!? One promising source I'd like to find is the June 1968 issue of American Cinematographer - issue #588 Shirtwaist (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that the satellites (all four) occupy exactly 59 seconds of screentime (including a few shots of the Earth sans satellite) and make no notable contribution towards advancing the story line- they simply create a setting-, I would imagine that far more attention would be paid to all the other spacecraft in the film.

The full quote in question is "Image 4: (39K Color) This is the second satellite seen in the film. We believe this was conceived as "Bomb #1 - American", though details differ a little between this and the original concept sketch. This may be a picture of the source photo used to create the animation, as it's the same angle that appears in the film."

Looking at the French satellite (the third of the four satellites- the one on the right side of the Earth going into a sunrise) the French air force insignia is most obvious when it first comes into view from the right of the screen at 20:17. It's last frame is 20:24 where it's much fainter and looks splotchy, but at 20:17 (when some of the satellite is still offscreen), the French air force insignia is right on the left edge of the frame and close up. Here the FAF insignia is utterly clear and unmistakable on a regular DVD on a 9 by 4&1/2 inch window on an old Windows XP computer.

On EBay someone in 2008 was selling a model photo saying (caps theirs not mine- cut and paste) "THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE FRENCH SATELLITE MODEL FROM 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. THIS IS A VERY RARE PHOTO OF THE LIGHTING TEST THAT WAS FINALIZED BY KUBRICK HIMSELF. THIS LIGHTING TEST SHOWS DETAIL IN THE SHADOWS THAT OTHER LIGHTING TESTS DID NOT HAVE. IT IS A DIRECT TRANSFER OFF THE ORIGINAL ARCHIVAL 8 x 10 CAMERA PICTURE. THE PICTURE IS EXCEPTIONAL CLARITY AND PRINTED ON 8.5" X 11" THICK GLOSSY PHOTO PAPER." http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/2001-a-space-odyssey-french-satellite-photo.

Part of our problem is Kubrick's propensity to destroy sets, due to a deep desire that they not be recycled in other movies. Remember how the robot from "Forbidden Planet" was reused in a Grade B picture two years later and a decade later showed up on an episode of "Lost in Space"? Actual sets from the 1930s Frankenstein picture were reused in Mel Brook's Young Frankenstein. Actual sets from Zefferelli's "Jesus of Nazareth" are seen in Python's "Life of Brian". Kubrick was bound and determined that this sort of thing would never happen, and was really big on destroying everything after filming was finished including blueprints.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I see that quote now. This picture:[8]]is very interesting, in that the very small details match exactly with this frame from the film: [[9]], even the shadow patterns are exactly the same on both. If somebody had created that model from looking at the film, say, it's extremely unlikely they could make it match that perfectly. This suggests to me that it's the actual model, and that it was kept in the same position relative to the light in both photos. Which lends considerable credibility to not only the first photo being of the genuine model, but that a photograph of that actual model in that same lighting was used in the film, the only difference being the position of the camera taking the photos. And since the French insignia is very clear in the first photo, it's reasonable to assume that the same insignia is on the photograph of the model used in the film. Good work! This also means that first photo is incredibly rare and valuable as it's the only known photograph of one of the satellite models in existence. I'd love to try to get that pic into the SFX part of the article.

BTW, Agel says, on the "Orbiting Satellite" page, "model was about two feet long", and the next page - "satellite was a still photograph shot on a large horizontal camera". So there ya go - I was wrong, they actually were photographs of models. Now all we need is to find a technician talking about how they were designed and who did the filming and how. I could swear I read somewhere that the satellite sequences were done with stills (paintings, I thought) because Kubrick didn't want to tie up precious camera time with the relatively minor satellites in favor of the other 6 spacecraft.

Re: reused props - I recall seeing the "Forbidden Planet" robot and even set pieces from the film in a few Twilight Zone episodes(made at MGM studios). Sad, really.Shirtwaist (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The photo from the film you linked to and other similar ones online have considerably greater sunlight-glare diffused throughout the picture than when I view the film on my computer. It is plausible then that by adjusting contrast and brightness settings (wayyy easier on a good for-pay/non-free computer DVD software than on many actual TV sets) you would cut down the glare and see the insignia more clearly.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)