Talk:2010: Odyssey Two

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Raw notes for the movie; Please update article as needed with this text:
My God, its full of stars. bowman, commander 1999 Tycho Monolith Frank Poole Co-Pilot HAL 9000 Logic circuit

Monolith is 5 km long - Lagrange Point between Jupiter and Io. Heywood Floyd. National Council of Astronauticis, Leonov Russian ship, Discovery -> Io, Dr. Chandra. U. of Chicago, SAL 9000 "will I dream?", Floyd woken up 2 days early, weird data from Europa; sent probe to Europa; O2, C, chrolophyl, burst of light - loss of data "electrostatc buildup", ; Floyd (something to do with Monolith), somebody wants us to stay away from Eurpoa; aeorbraking procedure "untested theory" ; Curnow and Maxim go to the Discovery (covered in sulfer); Monolith (1 by 4 by 9) ; Max goes to it in pod; flash of light, ball of plasma goes to earth; Bowman to earth to visit his wife "I remember Dave Bowman", says good-bye, Dont go - Im alreay there, something wonderful, Chandra places tapeworm in HAL --> says Floyd was reason HAL malfunctioned - HAL was instructed to lie which was contrary to his programing which was to deliver truthful and correct data analysis = made hime paranoid. Bowman combs hair of mother, she dies with a smile on her face; announcements of the sinking of a Soviet destroyer trying to break the blockade of Honduras - 800 killed; American satalite destroyed - break off of diplomatic relationhips -- American leave the Leonov; HAL informs Floyd that someone is giving a message that they must leave in two days "It is dangerous to remain here", "look behind you", young Bowman in his orange environmental suit ->old man -> ancient man "something wonderful" -> fetus -> nothing; floyd goes to Leonov ; use Discovery as booster -> Monolith gone ; black spot seen from earth; chandra worried about HAL's reaction ; told him that Discovery will rendevous with the new space station; huge hole with clouds moving inward; HAL reports that phenomenon is 22,000 km wide with over 1 million monoliths '; HAL wants to stay to study phenomenon, Chandra explains why they have to leave "discovery could be destroyed". "Will I dream?". "I don't know"; Bowman says to HAL to raise the AE35 antenae towards earth ; One final message ; What is going to happen dave? Something woderful ; I'm afraid; Don't be. Jupiter begins to shrink then explodes a shockwave begins to expand 
ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS, EXCEPT EUROPA, ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE, USE THEM TOGETHER, USE THEM IN PEACE; A new star is born and the US president and the Soviet Premire recalled ships and planes upon seeing the new star; In his note to his son, Dr. Flyod says that his children will not know a world without two suns; they will know that life is out there -- children of the old sun will one day meet he children of the new world -- Europa ; steam, melt, swamp ; Monolith with new star in background:

Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider), Walter Curnow (John Lithgow), Lanya Kirbuk (Helen Mirren) R. Chandra (Bob Balaban), HAL 9000 (Douglas Rain) Dimitri Moisevithch (Dana Elcar), Maxim Brajlovsky (Elya Baskin), SAL 9000 (Olga Mallsnerd), Visual Futurist was Syd Mead
Theme was "Also Sprach Zarathustra" by Richard Strauss

No, please don't. -- Zoe yes, don't alter anything!

"they must leave Jupiter within seven days" - in the movie it was two days. what about the book? Helix84 04:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the book deadline was 19 days. -- Jason Palpatine 29 June 2005 07:19 (UTC)

No, it's 15 days. I have the book right here. "Good-bye, Doctor Floyd. Remember. Fifteen days." page 208, last page before "Devourer of Worlds". -- InsaneSonikkuFan

The book has it as 15 days; I assumed since it had 7 there, the movie had seven. I will change seven to two. -- InsaneSonikkuFan

The Europans assume (correctly) that the Monolith is what keeps humans at bay[edit]

So the Europans KNOW about humans? How? How'd they connect the debris on the planet with some alien species?

Because they saw the lights travelling across space, then when they approached Europa, there was an explosion (monolith destroyed them) an "an alien metal" fell onto the surface of the moon. They dont know about humans exactly, just connected the falling debris with the lights. Presumably, eventually, they will advance enough and the monolith would allow them to to touch it, to gain knowledge of engineering etc and first contact between the two worlds would occur.


-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Source of Dr. Chandra's name[edit]

Was Dr. Chandra named for Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar? I always assumed that this was the case, but I don't think I've actually read anything to confirm this. -- Cobra libre 15:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

No. Clarke reports in his end notes of both 2010 and 2061 that he chose the name at random from a New Delhi phone book. 19:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Dr. Chandra the movie character's name, with the character in the book having a much MUCH longer name (which I won't even try to type from memory), and which was abbreviated (at least in one of Dr Floy'd reports) as Dr. C? Jedikaiti (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The name seems to be Sivasubramanian Chandrasegaranpillai , tho that seems a name that could have come from the Colombo phone book.aajacksoniv (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


Just curious, how would Iapetus, and Saturn as well, be effected by the ignition of Jupiter, AKA Lucifer (theoretically, of course)? Here7ic 00:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Read the article. Both novel and film of 2010 follow the film of 2001 in locating the events at Jupiter, rather than Saturn (as in the 2001 novel).. Dysprosia 00:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Duely noted. I've done so. As a matter of fact, I'm reading 2061 currently. I was asking what some would speculate the effects of Lucifer would be upon the Saturnarian system. Nothing to do with 2001, although Iapetus was mentioned in my fore inquiry. Here7ic 00:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
If this hasn't got any bearing on article content, you really shouldn't be discussing this here. If you want a definite answer, try the Reference Desk perhaps. Dysprosia 00:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Here7ic 00:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


In Chapter 13 ("Worlds of Galileo"), about 5 paragraphs from the end, there is the line "Leonov hurtled past the orbits of Io and tiny Mimas" - an odd error, given that Io is a Jovian moon, and Mimas a Saturnian moon. Unless I've got this wrong, maybe it's worth adding as a trivia item? 11:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

My copy says "the orbits of Io and tiny Amalthea", which would be correct. If there was a misprint it's been corrected. 14:04, 12 March 2006 (AEDT)

Destruction of Earth[edit]

It didn't happen. Star Child Bowman only blew up an orbiting nuke, not all of the ones on Earth. It said that in the first one. Because Earth is mentioned after that little part of the story.

Stability of the Solar System[edit]

In order to get hydrogen to ignite Jupiter's mass would have had to been increased by about a factor of 100. If Jupiter were 100 times more massive the inner solar system would quickly become unstable , I don't think Clarke ever noticed this did he? See:[1] -+--aajacksoniv (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

One notes another thing changing Jupiter into a .08 Solar Mass Brown Dwarf without changes the state vectors of the Jovian satellites would cause them to fall into Jupiter in about 8 days. Changing their orbital velocity at their same positions may disrupt the dynamics of the satellite system. --aajacksoniv (talk) 11:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing you scientists fail to realize: What is the mass of the monoliths, and just how many monoliths consumed Jupiter? Since nothing is known about monoliths, except dimensions, not even mass, it is possible that the monoliths, which act as "super transporters" could either be of enough mass in quantity or be "transporting" enough mass from elsewhere to make the ignition work. ALSO: The intelligence which created the monoliths (admittedly far superior to Man) was able to control them over an unknowable distance (read 3001 again, please) and could, if enough imagination is used, be capable of creating stable Jovian and Solar systems. The failure is not in Clarke, the failure is in the lack of imagination of reader. The entire book is a work of fiction, not fact. Nitpicking never won anybody fame, fortune, or a Hugo or Nebula award, nor a Nobel Prize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think Clarke thought about it. The hall mark of 'hard science fiction' is to get the science right but first have a good story (as John W. Campbell demanded of modern SF). I concede that the Monolith Makers could , probably would have, omnipoint powers so Clarke could have tweaked the story a little to tell us that they kept the solar system stable. I still have a problem with the Monolith Makers in 2010, their actions differ so from those in 2001 I can see why Kubrick would have nothing to do with a film of it. --aajacksoniv (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have checked the last chapters of Clarke's novel 2010 carefully and find he is definitely saying that enough mass has been added to Jupiter to bring about a stellar fusion process, hydrogen burning. He does add some words by one of the Russians scientists about how this is a puzzle but Clarke takes no notice of how this would would mess up the celestial dynamics of the Jovian and the Solar System. --aajacksoniv (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Kubrick's reason for not doing 2010 was "been there, done that", not because the science was flawed. Halmyre (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Most all the science in 2010 is just fine, I know Kubrick actually never repeated a same or similar narrative. So that is the main reason. Clarke changed the Monolith Maker's from a transcendent advanced inscrutable civilization to high order cosmic alien diddlers. Clarke brought back 2001's Big Thinks concepts a couple of notches, he did not add much of anything to the first novel and especially the film narrative. I am sure Kubrick was not interested in that. The next two novels in the series just add a zero sum the story in 2010. --aajacksoniv 20:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Aajacksoniv (talkcontribs) --aajacksoniv 13:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Did they (presumably the creatures controlling the monoliths) actually ADD mass, or just use the monoliths to synthesize heavier elements from what was already in Jupiter's atmosphere, causing more matter to fall towards Jupiter's core, making it denser and triggering a collapse that led to the ignition of Jupiter? If memory serves (and I hope it does), that was the theory put forward towards the end of the book... Jedikaiti (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarke waffles about all this. First there is the implication that the monolith - 'von Neumann' devices are multiplying and that's what adds enough mass to start fusion. Maybe Clarke was aware of how this would mess with the celestial mechanics of the Jovian system , not to mention the solar system. (This would have been an area of physics that Clarke was knowledgeable about , especially because of his interest in astrodynamics.) Just before chapter 53 Vasili speculates on what has happened. Without explaining he says adding 10 Jovian masses is not allowed but that by some Monolith Maker magic the density has been increased to get the temperature needed for fusion. Might just as well have said the fusion temperature was magically created. Clarke , by way of Vasili, then does a lot of hand waving about various stellar structure problems which really does not add much to the physics. So in a way Clarke does , kind of, cover up the problem. If he only had not already presented the multiplication by the monoliths and the contraction of Jupiter which seemed the straight forward way to get a 'stellar Jupiter' by mass addition. (It would have been clever if the Monolith Makers had of used magic to adjust the orbits of all solar system objects to account to Jupiter's mass increase!)aajacksoniv (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Differences between Book and Movie[edit]

It is somewhat humorous that neither this or the movie article make any comment about the substantial differences between the two - with its heavy-handed Cold War subplot, the movie comes off like some sort of sci fi version of the beginning of the "Day After." Knowing as we do now that the Soviets collapsed some 20 years earlier than the events in the movie (I'd tell you why but then this would become some sort of flame war), this really dates the film and makes it virtually unwatchable since it comes off like just so much propoganda (which I guess it was). As the book doesn't descend down this route (nor did 2001 movie or book), they hold up much better and don't become all stomach-turning preachy - gravitational dynamics of changing Jupiter's mass aside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Trivia about Ridley Scott Alien[edit]

The 1979 Ridley Scott movie "Alien" is alluded to when Walter Curnow says to Max Brailovsky "Whatever happens- please don't go chasing after off after the ship's cat" while in the still derelict Discovery. Later, Max wishes "that movie" had not been put in the ships library.It is noted that Max laughed at the movie when he watched it but not why he laughed. Incidentally "Alien" appears on Clarke's list of the "best science fiction films ever made" I have deleted the passage above from the entry as it is not verified and contains grammatical errors. Interesting piece of trivia though - perhaps someone can improve and re-insert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Relations to Reality[edit]

This section seems trivial at best. Should it just be deleted? On an unrelated note, I'm new to editing here. I added some citations, made corrections, and restructured the "Discontinuities" section. Suggestions and criticism would be welcome. Mtkahn (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


I won't make the change myself but it seems inappropriate to have capitalized the word "Stargate" in the plot summary section. It's as though the author had that other film (or TV series) in mind when writing it. Given that that word really has little or no meaning outside of that other franchise, I think a strong argument could be made for choosing a better word or phrase altogether. In any event, it certainly should not be capitalized if left in place. WavSlave (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)