Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Screen displays

The current article says:

• Among the failures to predict future technology are the ship's computer interfaces, with numerous small screens displaying FORTRAN code, instead of screens with multiple "windows" and graphical user interfaces.

Actually, most displays of embedded systems applications do not feature screens with multiple windows and GUIs. Have a look at modern airplanes for example: very often, selection is done with buttons (around the screen), not with a pointer device. And as the screens are rather small, multiple windows partly hiding each other would prove horribly counter-productive (and dangerous...).

Industrial displays are far less eye-candy than what you'd have in a BMW car. The only goal is efficiency, there's no need to make something look better if it doesn't work better (ask an Unix-shell guy what he'd think of GUIs ;-) ).

--193.56.40.253 12:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

J vs I

In the book, Clarke sent Discovery to Saturn instead of Jupiter. The Big Brother monolith was found above the moon Japetus. I know the correct spelling of the moon's name is Iapitus, but Clarke spelled it with a J in the book. I had edited this into the article, but you undid the edit. Why? Robeykr 04:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I believe the correct spelling is Iapetus (eye-ap'-i-tus, Greek Ιαπετός) but the English spelling being Japetus. Similar effect with Jonah, in the Bible, who is written Ionas in Latin. A linguistic technicality issue.

... The writer of the above ("Verces"?) is correct. In Latin it's called the "consonantal I" or some such. It's also observable in the Latin "Iesvs" for "Jesus", which comes from the Greek "Iesous", which comes from the Hebrew "Yeshua" which is actually the same name as "Joshua". The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, hence the different names in English usage.

Some critics suggested at the time of the book and film's release that "Japetus" was Clarke's way of being funny, i.e. that he was making a "jape at us". Wahkeenah 22:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Nonetheless, shouldn't book-related details be kept on the book page? I have removed it from the film Synopsis, which is certianly not a place for discussion of etymological details of the related book 202.126.102.3 02:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Featured article?

Don't you think this deserves to be nominated for a featured article? I can't do it because I'm not around regularly enough to respond to all the objections promptly. 68.118.61.219 15:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New section

I don't see any value in this new section of Simpsons references. This movie has ben parodied hundreds of times - are we going to include all of them? The heading doesn't make any sense either.

Pop Culture

• On January 1st, 2001, at sunrise, a black monolith was found to be rising above a hillside in the Pacific northwest; it was measured and found to be 1' x 4' x 9'. It disappeared after sunset. News coverage of the event appeared at the time, but almost all of it has since evaporated.
• At the end of the The Simpsons during which Homer becomes an astronaut, Bart throws a pen into the air that spins around much like the bone in 2001. It then cuts to Homer as the 'star child'.
• One episode of The Simpsons features a home automation computer which resembles the HAL 9000 computer. It gets visual input from the familiar cameras with the red lenses, it talks with its inhabitants, the house can be entered through a round pod door, the computer tries to kill people and it finally gets disabled because its circuit cards are pulled out. The title of the episode is: Treehouse of Horror XII - "House of Whacks" (production code: CABF19) and was aired in the year 2001.
• Episode 4ACV03 of Futurama features a talking red eye in the Planet Express Ship. This eye falls in love with the Bender robot then becomes irrational after Bender breaks up with it. The ship cuts off the oxygen and gravity for the crew and intends to kill everyone by flying into a quasar. Fry and Leela deactivate the ship's personality in similar manner to the one taken by Dave in 2001: A Space Odyssey. There is also a musical montage with the song Daisy during Bender and the ship's courtship.
• Yet Another episode of the Simpsons features a scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey. When Herbert Powell comes to the Simpsons Household, earlier in the show, Homer wins $2000 to which he buys a vibrating chair. When Homer turns the power level up to Maximum, he descends into a world much similar to the Psychadelic Stargate Sequence. Right up to the colorful eye. Another scene like this appeared in Futurama when Leela assumes that Fry is dead from a Superbee Sting, but comes to visit her in her dreams. When she opens the floating coffin in one of her dreams, the same sequence happens, right down to the colored eye again.

68.118.61.219 00:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

"The film then leaps millennia (via one of the most innovative jump cuts ever conceived) to the year 2001" Sorry for being ignorant but can someone explain me why this was an innovative jump and what is the fuss about it? I'm sorry for being as young as I am. Helix84 04:35, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think innovative is the wrong word: 'startling' might be better. The fuss is that the bone turns into a spaceship, thus showing the consequences of the ape's discovery in one simple cut!!! If that doesn't excite you ... ah well... The Singing Badger 14:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Does anyone know the scene in You Only Live Twice that Sir Arthur is supposed to have a cameo appearance in? Kuralyov 02:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I don't have time to get involved with this article, but the film has been a passion of mine since it was first released. Somebody should get a copy of The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel and study it carefully - it resolves many of the outstanding issues here and is a uniquely great film book.

---

The article says that the monoloth was buried on the moon soon after the apes find it. I thought I remembered (don't have the book with me - can't check) that the original monolith in Africa was dug up in as well as the one on the Moon. So there were 2. Does anyone know if they were actually the same monolith, or 2 separate ones?

I seem to remember that in one of the increasingly silly sequels the one in Africa is found and placed in the UN. That makes it different than the one on the Moon.

The monolith placed in the United Nations Plaza is the original one dug up on the moon (TMA-1). TMA-2, the one orbiting Jupiter, went all von Neumann and turned the planet into a star. In 2061: Odyssey Three, a descendant of it has established itself on Europa, where it accelerates the local life-forms' evolution in the same way that the Africa monolith did for Homo sapiens. In 3001, a flashback shows an archaeologist digging up what they call TMA-0, which is implied to be the same monolith from the first movie's "Dawn of Man" sequence.

Anville 15:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

The references to the Sentinal continue to be made. This misses the much stronger links to other stories, like Childhood's End, and most of Clarke's writing through the 1960s. There's certianly nothing about the greater evolution of man in the Sentinal!.

---

Was it Saturn?

No, the book's conclusion was set at a moon of Saturn, but the movie was set around Jupiter.

the psychological strain on HAL causes him to sabotage the ship's antenna control system, breaking the link to Earth; HAL's behavior becomes increasingly suspicious

First, this may be interpretation; I always thought HAL to be acting quite <borg>efficient</borg>, not strained. I can't remember one thing though: Why (in its own logic) had it severed the connection? Was it only a ruse to get Bowman and Poole into a vulnerable position?

Yes, perhaps I was interpreting HAL's actions a little too much - I was partly relying on the analysis of HAL's actions given in the novel 2010. If nobody else does it, I'll review this section.

Second, the second sentence doesn't quite follow up. After the 'destruction' of the AO unit, there was no reason to be only suspicious.

--Yooden

---

There was no explanation of HAL's actions in the film. Watching 2001 and not the others and not reading Clarke's fiction, it's not immediately clear why HAL is acting the way he is. --KQ

---

Interestingly, I've heard that HAL is malfunctioning from the beginning: in the chess game, it is not nessacerily mate in three - it's mate, but he could survive for four moves. Is this the beginning of HAL's problems?

And then there's the whole IBM - HAL thing... and the product placement! :D Dave McKee

This point was noted in the book HAL'S LEGACY, however I do not belive the chess game was an error. HAL had probably played many games with Poole prior to the one we saw in the film. This would make him familiar with Poole's move patterns and could predict his move choices. Robeykr 16:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia contains spoilers While it is true that HALs actions are not explained in the movie 2001, HALs actions *are* explained in 2010 a space odyssey (both the book, and the movie). Apparently HAL has the psyche of a young child. HAL is incapable of resolving the conflict in his orders. I somehow remeber a fragment of dialouge in 2001 about ground control explaining to Dave "We have been able to replicate the same problem in our own ground based computer...", and goes on to explain things. If someone could find a reference to this, that would be perfect! -- Kim Bruning

---

Wikipedia contains spoilers I have not read the book of 2001, but I believe that it is also explained there. It is definitely not clear in the movie, but once you hear the explanation given in the book or in the movie 2010, it makes sense. Note that HAL reported the device failure immediately after conversing with Dave and Frank about the nature of the mission, asking them if they thought there was anything funny or odd about certain facets of it. They said no, they didn't think so. Right after that, he said, "Just one moment, just one moment", and reported the failure. Later in the movie, after Hal was dismantled, Dave saw a tape being played that they weren't supposed to see until they reached their destination, and the tape made it clear that Hal knew all along what the purpose of the mission was.

However, this is all a matter of piecing it together after the fact--after you've already heard the explanation of why HAL went crazy, and the explanation would not be clear to anyone watching the movie without that foreknowledge. -- Egern

I couldn't disagree more with the claim that "once you hear the explanation given in the book or in the movie 2010, it makes sense". It makes no sense at all. The "explaination" in 2010 is that HAL is nothing more than a talking robot, and there was a bug is his programming that caused him to fail.

This certainly isn't how 2001 (the movie) feels. The movie goes to length to suggest that HAL is a "real" thinking behinI always felt that HAL was entirely sentient; thinking, feeling, and making decisions. The "killing of HAL" scene is robbed of any emotion otherwise. HAL, for whatever reason, did what he did because he MADE a decision to do it.

2010 was employing a deux ex machina in order to avoid the problem of having him turned back on without having to worry about any lingering details. This theme continued in Clarke's later books, when even the monoliths are reduced to nothing more than robots, robbed entirely of their mystery. -- user:Maury Markowitz

---

I edited the article because it contained a number of mis-statements. It must be remembered that there is nothing in the Kubrick film itself to indicate the presence of beings from another planet - that's simply a hypothesis made by one of the characters.

Not at all. The book and the film were created simulatenously, and the intent all along was that the monolith was planted there by aliens. The characters in the movie and the book both had the identical realization; it had to have been created by aliens. The ambiguity in the movie was not deliberate; they simply didn't have voice-overs for what the characters were thinking. Kubrick and Clarke thought that the audience would be able to undrestand this part easily. RK

Likewise, the "reasons" for HAL's behaviour listed in "2010" are not mentioned at all in 2001 (frankly, I find them somewhat insulting to the audience's intelligence). To accept what Clarke says about Kubrick's film is not appropriate. --Alex Kennedy

I fail to understand what you find insulting. This explanation was implicit in the original book; HAL had two contradictory missions that HAL found increasingly impossible to carry out. HAL suffored a psychotic breakdown as a result. And you seem unaware of what the 2001 project was all about if you imagine that this was Kubrick's film. That's incorrect. Both the book and the movie were collaborative efforts all the way, and both Kubrick and Clarke were open about this. What you refer to is not to be Clarke's personal after-the-fact rationalization, but in fact was the actual intent. RK

---

This article says that HAL sabotaged the antenna system. I don't remember anything about that in the movie. Can someone refresh my memory? All I recall is that HAL incorrectly reported a failure, but that everything was actually working correctly.

HAL falsely reported a failure of the 'AE35 unit', which was part of the antenna assembly.

When Bowman and Poole look at it with a manual circuit tester, they can't find a fault.

Exactly! So where was this sabotage that the article talks about? -- Egern

After this event, HAL then deliberately burnt out the replacement part. RK

I watched the movie (for the 20th time or so) this weekend. Nothing is wrong with the AE35, before, after, or at any point. -- User:Maury Markowitz

But all the evidence points to the AE35 not being out of commission at all (although that is not established definitively, it appears that Hal was mistaken that there was anything wrong with it, and Hal decided to kill the astronauts after they had determined a plan to shut Hal down if the unit was not out of commision).

HAL's incorrect presumption that there was something wrong with the AE35 can be interpretted as sabotage. The sister 9000 didn't find a fault, so the on board 9000 must have lied to the crew about the fault, in my opinion to precipitate a crew mutiny which he could then quash with Poole space walking. --Commander Keane 09:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

On another note--the monolith on the moon was "deliberately buried". If it was not aliens who were behind the monolith, what was behind it? I advocate restoring mention of the monolith as being alien unless someone can convince me of otherwise. -- Egern

The monolith was deliberately buried by aliens. The idea of the monolith as an alien being itself was tossed around by Clarke and Kubrick, but the idea was eventually abandoned. The monolith was buried by aliens, and you can read the name of the alien who did it! Arthur Clarke wrote several scenes about how the aliens came to Earth; he also wrote scenes in which astronaut David Bowman, after going through the Monolith's Stargate, actually meets the aliens themselves. He and Kurbick decided to eliminate these scenes as they took away from the mystery and grandeur of the film. But these sections can still be found in the wonderful paperback "The Lost Worlds of 2001", which include many alternate scenes, earlier versions, and deleted material from the development of the book and movie. I can't reccomend it enough for fans of the film. RK

---

It might be worth mentioning that the opening caption of the film "The dawn of man" is usually taken to refer to the opening act set in prehistory. However, an interesting idea is that "The dawn of man" actually refers to the entire film, right up to the point of Bowman's transformation. -- Tarquin, Saturday, July 6, 2002

---

Technical Note on the Technical Note:

In the original version of the Technical Note I said that that there was a theorem showing that strictly less than 1/3 of the nodes in a voting system could fail without compromising the system. I cannot find the relevant theorem, but I believe that that claim was slightly off and the actual logic is as follows. Assume you are one of n modules and you want to perform a sanity check on the state of the entire system by seeing how the other nodes vote. You do not count your own vote, because if you were confident that it was correct you would not be doing the sanity check to begin with. Thus the sanity check requires that your state be in agreement with a majority vote of the remaining n-1 modules. There will be a correct majority iff strictly less than (n-1)/2 modules have failed; otherwise there can be a tie or an incorrect majority. But when n=3, (n-2)/1=1, so strictly less than one node can fail without compromising the system. Thuse the three module system described for HAL does not protect against the failure of even a single node. (Someone please verify my logic!) -- B.Bryant

---

From the article:

In the movie HAL features a design with triple redundancy

Really? Where does it say this?

why hal went crazy

in 2001 the book it says (i dont no where) that hal went crazy because he had to keep the secret of the mission and could not stand being the only one that knew. in the book HAL first reports the error, poole goes eva and replaces it, they check on it and find nothing wrong with alpha echo unit, HAL reports another error with the new one, a few moments later AE has malfuncioned. He took out the AE unit because he knew that after he had reported the fake error people on earth were monitoring him, HAL wanted to escape the constant burnden of being watched by earth. Then HAL tried to kill the astronauts because he didnt want to be judged by them.

Copyright??

Is that image that someone just uploaded violating copyright? It was copyrighted in 1968. Greenmountainboy 23:34, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's copyright, it may be trademark. I'm still unclear on whether using a still image, poster or other promotional material, or "behind the scene" image, etc, from a film constitutes a "fair use." Even if it did, I'm sure if the copyright owner objected to the images, they would have to be removed, since fair use is only an affirmative defense and it really isn't worth it. I am personally not willing to upload "fair use" items because I'm not sure it's such a great idea; my opinion of what is a fair use may not be someone else's. RudolfRadna 15:58, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Triple voting

Removed from the article:

In the movie HAL features a design with triple redundancy, so that if one of the three modules fails the other two can outvote it. However, the formal study of fault-tolerant computing shows that such a vote-based sanity check will not actually protect against the failure of a single node in a three-node system like HAL. Thus the failure of only a single one of HAL's redundant modules would be sufficient to compromise the system, as apparently happened in the movie. It is not known whether Kubrick and Clarke were aware of this fact when they wrote the story.

1. Where is this mentioned in the film?
2. This assumes that there the voting mechanism includes the failed node: usually fault-tolerant systems make sure that the voting mechanism is very simple and separate from the operating mechanism, and is itself designed to avoid Byzantine failure.

-- The Anome 08:38, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was present in the book, if not the movie. However, I don't know where my copy is at the moment. Lefty 10:46, 2004 Apr 27 (UTC)

It is not mentioned in the film. Bungopolis

Yes, it is mentioned in the book (not only the programing hardware, but the power systems as weel!) -- in the chapter where Dave disconects the computer Robeykr 00:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I skimmed through the book just now, and I see no reference to it, but I may have missed it. It is, however, stated several times that there are 3 separate HAL-9000 units: one on Discovery, and 2 HAL units at Mission Control. (Is that what the above is referring to?) They don't use the units at Mission Control to do voting, though; they only start checking results against the other two once the AE-35 failure is predicted by Hal on Discovery. --anon

Seperate articles for book and film DONE!

It seems to me that the film and book need to have separate articles, or at a bare minimum separate sections in the same article. The fact that they were developed together is interesting, and references to the book ought to be contained in the article on the film, and vice versa. But the film should and does stand on its own; people can and do see the movie without reading the book, and vice versa. Any movie must stand on its own, and must be evaluated on its own terms; and the article on the movie should only discuss the content that is in the film, without resorting to explanations that are contained in the book. Any film critic who reviews or discusses the film only refers (or at least ought to only refer) to just the film. soulpatch

I strongly agree with soulpatch's suggestion, that Kubrick's film and Clarke's novel should each have their own article. Not only would this make the information in this article much easier to read, it would provide a much needed distinction between the two pieces. I am often frustrated as to the way in which Clarke's novel is used by many to "explain" the ambiguities Kubrick's film. As soulpatch says, the film most certainly stands on its own: in my view it is easily one of the greatest achievements in film history. Clarke's novel was written after the release of the film. To a great extent, therefore, I consider Clarke's novel an 'interpretation' of the original story, which was developed by both Kubrick and Clarke. Does anybody else have any ideas on this?

Bungopolis 00:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, both the book and the movie script were being written simultaneously. If Clark had written it as an interpretation of the movie, it would feature Jupiter like the movie, and not Saturn as the early script for the movie (it was changed because the special effects people couldn't make good enough Saturn). Ausir 08:14, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

That's why I didn't say it was an interpretation of the movie. I said it was an interpetation of the original story, which was developed by both Kubrick and Clarke. My point is that they should be seen as two branches from the same origin, rather than parallel media equivilents, as having the two in the same article suggests. It is a very common misconception that Kubrick's 2001 is a film of the book. They are entirely independent works with the same basic story and the same title, but you cant substitute one for the other. I also think there is sufficient content related to the film, as far as film-making technique goes, to have it's own article.

-- Bungopolis 17:29, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Has anyone given any more thought to this idea? I still think it is entirely appropriate to seperate the film from the book.

-- Bungopolis 12 October 2004

I entirely agree that the film and the novel should be separated. There are plenty of "adaptations" which highly differ from the original book, Blade Runner being one example - and thus, no one should be using books as unique source to explain a movie. In the case of 2001, the novel was written "in parallel", but these are nonetheless distinct branches. Kubrick may actually have decided on purpose not to include some of the elements that are in the book.

As for sequels: these may be used as explanation, but if and only if are directed/produced by exactly the same crew, which is not the case for 2010 (neither novel or film). These (novels included) should be mentioned for additional, background information, but clearly stating they are not "THE" explanation for Kubrick's film.

--193.56.40.253 11:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

• The psychedelic "stargate sequence" that concludes the film, subtitled "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite," has been cited as being more than coincidentally a match for the Pink Floyd song, "Echoes," similar to the match up of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon with the movie The Wizard of Oz. [1]

Is it just me or does the above read like complete bollox??? What does it mean????? I'm baffled, if you can shed any light please explain, if not, edit mercilessly... quercus robur 23:47, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It does make sense (although it's not very well written). Apparently if you watch 'The Wizard of Oz' with the sound turned down while playing Pink Floyd's 'Dark Side of the Moon' album, the music seems to match the action perfectly, so the album almost seems like it was designed as a soundtrack for the film (especially, I understand, if you smoke a lot of pot beforehand). So the paragraph is saying that the same happens if you play 'Echoes' while watching the Stargate sequence. The paragraph does makes sense, except for the 'more than coincidentally' bit, which is, I think, bollox. I think I'll go and remove it... The Singing Badger 00:46, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The forgetting of a helmet

HAL do clearly play a lethal game similar to chess with the two astronauts, every step predicted by the machine. The only thing he could not predict, is Bowman forgetting is helmet in the rush to enter space. I am sure the forgetting is an important point, I just cannot pinpoint exactly what is says. This is very similar to Dr.Strangelove in that the system (HAL / The Pentagon) is chess mated because man acts in unpredictable ways.

Actually, I think he does predict that Bowman would forget the helmet (e.g. by having studied him psychologically). It is essential to HAL's plot, if not, Dave would have easily been able to re-enter the spaceship (HAL: "Without your space helmet, Dave, you're going to find that rather difficult"). HAL's mistake is that humans are actually able to survive a few seconds in space vacuum (common belief that someone would instantly freeze or explode is scientifically wrong), and, more importantly, that Dave would have had the creativity and the courage to act that way.

In fact, HAL is a chess player that relies a lot more on deception, than raw computational power.

Cult film

Is this really a Cult Film? A cult film is normally not as mainstream as this was, and I cannot think of many cult movies that had 10 million dollar budgets. I do not think that 2001 has a following as great as Forbidden Planet or the films or Solaris

I'd say it was a mainstream hit in 1968, but NOW it's a cult film. Most people can't sit through it these days. The Singing Badger 13:46, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I do not think it wasn't really a "mainstream" film (although certainly not "B movie"), even at the time. Critics were far from unanimous, and part of the audience saw it for the psychedelic sequences. 2001: A Space Odyssey was the first film of its genre (other sci-fi films did exist already, like Forbidden Planet, but without the same emphasis on special effects nor the silent-musical aspects).

Anyway, "mainstream" needs a clear and common definition. Wikipedia's article says: "something that is not out of the ordinary or unusual" AND "something that is familiar to the masses" (+ other "AND" criteria). Even in 1968, 2001 could not be said to be "familiar to the masses" and wasn't "usual" for sure...

--193.56.40.253 12:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Novelization

from which Kubrick created the movie and Clarke wrote the novelisation.

• I object to the language here. Clarke wrote the novel, with Kubrick's input, as the basis for the film. A novelization is generally an ex post facto treatment (e.g., there exists a novelization of Jurassic Park, which follows the movie, not the book). Clark himself remarked in The Lost Worlds of 2001 that: "Other movies are based on screenplays specifically written for them, and no novel version (or even–ugh!–"novelization") ever exists." I'm going to re-word the intro ever so slightly to remove "novelization". Mackensen (talk) 20:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Theories

There should be either a large section added to this article, or a seperate article, detailing the many different theories and interpretations of 2001.

That's a great idea, I added some theories about HAL, but had nowhere to put them so I stuck them into the synopsis, which was the best place for them available, but maybe not the right place. I don't know how to add sections yet because I'm new, I'll try to figure it out if nobody else does it before I do. RudolfRadna 15:41, Jul 22, 2005 (UTC)

I figured out how to add sections and put one in about interpretations, and another about HAL. I think there should be a section on the monolith also, but I'd have to watch 2001 again to write anything that makes sense. I think I appreciate the film even more from working on the article and reading what others have added. RudolfRadna 16:41, Jul 28, 2005 (UTC)

Scientific accuracy: Weightlessness

Don't be too harsh on the film, it is actually quite realistic. The main critics which I removed were not really valid:

• There is velcro everywhere in the spaceships -- that's why people walk so slowly
• In a constraint space, you might want to walk vertically by using you hands, like the woman in Orion. Similarly, it's difficult to ay wether Dave in the pod is not only too constraint by the small room to float around
• The pods are obviously fixed to their plateforms, who would want a space pod to float round ? Discovery has to undertake manoeuvers, you dont want a who-knows-how-many-ton craft to wander freely in the garage ! :p
• If Floyd has fallen alseep with his head on hid shoulder (very possible, he might jut be accustomed to sleep so), it won't move
• Floyd's arm is moving very slowly; could be only the movement of air displaced by the woman; or him moving in his sleep; or just his triceps being slightly more relaxed than his biceps.

So I wouldn't say we have obvious inaccuracies here -- there might be others, but those ones are very disputable. Cheers and happy editing ! Rama 18:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

--- These are all minor details and I'm being picky BUT I do think that the pod bay scenes do not appear weightless at all beyond a suggestion of sticky-velcro-feet:

• During the AE35 diagnosis in the pod bay, the two astronauts are clearly leaning on the benchtop for support.
• When he carries the AE35 unit in to the pod, his arm is hanging down, not in any way floating about as it would do in free-fall.
• The lip-reading scene shows the two of them sitting comfortably inside the pod, having crawled in.
• The enter the pod bay via a ladder, not floating freely, and they certainly look like they have weight as they come down.
• If you notice the bottom of their boots (as Dave crawls into the HAL brainroom you get a clear view) - there's nothing remotely like velcro on the bottom - they look exactly like the soles of rubber boots. OK, it might be special 2001: Velcro... --Bignoter 6 Apr 2005

---

Separate articles for separate topics DONE!

In the next couple of days, I will create two new articles to solve some problems caused by two Stanley Kubrick ”film” pages.

Both A Clockwork Orange and 2001: A Space Odyssey try to deal with both the book and the film when what’s really needed are individual pages for these two separate topics.

Though neither of these pages are anywhere near as confused or biased as the Dune page, for example, I cannot see how serious future contributions can be made without muddling things up even further.

As for the names of the new articles, ACO is straightforward enough: the book came first, and the film was adapted later. The case of 2001 is perhaps more controversial, since Kubrick and Clarke worked on the screenplay/novel(ization) simultaneously. In this instance, I’m going to favor Kubrick: 1) The film was released first and 2) The film is undoubtedly the more better known of the pair (and thus the more likely target of a search).

The new articles will be named:

• 2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(novel)
• A_Clockwork_Orange_(film)

I’m sorry that this necessary editing job will result in some tedious manual labor thanks to the (hopefully few) link changes that need to be made. (Of course, there’s really no rush, since all the pages will still link to each other.)

See Talk:A_Clockwork_Orange for more discussion. 62.148.218.27 21:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Use of AND

What do Americans call "2001: A Space Odyssey"? I've never heard anyone call it anthing other than "Two thousand and one: A Space Odyssey". I've never heard it called "Twenty oh one: a Space Odyssey". , but apparently Americans don't put and in number descriptions. What about One Hundred and One Dalmatians? Jooler 10:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Generaly, we call it "Two thousand one: A Space Odyssey." Robeykr 06:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

In conversation I usually just call it "2001" and let the context make people realize I'm talking about the film, not the year. RudolfRadna 15:35, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Magnusson Park references

My kind thanks to whomever replaced my half-vast third hand memory of the New Year's 2001 incident with *actual* references. I felt it was important, but I was a little uncomfortable with the self-referentiality of it. --Baylink 23:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Theatrical Format

I was lucky enough for 2001 to be broadcast on television recently, on SBS, and the presention began with the following:

"At Stanley Kubrick's request, 2001: A Space Odyssey will be telecast in its orginal theatrical format which includes Overture, Entr'acte (Intermission) and Exit music.

During these section of music the screen will be black"

There was 5 mins of black at the beginning, in the middle (just after HAL read the crew's lips), and at the end. All with music. In keeping with this particular TV network, no ads were shown during the film.

Has anyone come across this phenomenon before? I assume this was how it was shown at the cinema, was this common in 1968? I would appreciate any comments. --Commander Keane 09:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Yes, Commander Keane, this was how it was shown in its 1968 release. The theater that I saw it in kept the curtains closed and the lights dimmed while this music played. The only thing to add is that just after the intermission title came up there was a 15 minute break before the Entr'acte music began to play. As the years went on these three segments were usually dropped and the intermission would show up and disappear depending on the print of the film shown.

As to whether it was common or not, that is a debatable point. Many movies, from this era, of 90-120 minutes in length did not do this. But a large number of movies did include them. They were fairly prominant in the late '50's and early 60's, Ben-Hur, Spartacus and Lawrence of Arabia spring to mind as containing these music features. They seemed to phase out by the early 70's, the last one that I can remember having them was Paint Your Wagon, although I feel sure that there were a few others after this one, maybe other wiki readers will remember them and add them here. My experience of the films that did have these features, and later readings about them, have lead me to understand that, in order to compete with television, there was a move to make films a larger than life experience. In some ways including this extra music was a return to the roots of live musical theater (which many older film houses of this time had actually been built for originally). Of course, there were other factors involved, too.

Your SBS and, in the U.S., Turner Classic Movies, as well as DVD releases of these films are restoring these features and, I for one appreciate it. It brings back such fond memories.

Two other small points of interest. First, this film was one of the first in the latter half of the 1900's (yes, I know Citizen Kane did it earlier) to move all the credits to the end of the film. It is so common today that its hard to remember that films used to have the bulk of the credits at the beginning. Second, on a far more personal level, I'll just say that when I was young films had an intermission. Now that I'm older I know why (as I explained to the row of people that I excused myself to get by, in both directions, a few minutes before LOTR: The Two Towers was about to start). MarnetteD | Talk 08:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

• Yes, I have encountered it. On that Saturday following Kubrick's passing, a local PBS station aired 2001, complete and uncut, in widescreen without pledge break interuption. Robeykr 06:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

---

• I saw it in the theater on a re-release around 1970 or so. The black screen at the beginning was underscored with a portion of the music from the "trip" segment. I think The Sound of Music also played music during its intermission segment. Wahkeenah 23:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

---

• If I'm not wrong, the intermission was partly due to the 70mm format - making the (physical) film support longer than for 35mm prints. Anyway, most Cinerama releases did have such features (intro, intermission and outro music).

--193.56.40.253 12:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Transcendental mysticism

What is transcendental mysticism? Isn't it the same as saying a huge giant or a smart genius? --Eleassar777 21:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Or redundant redundancy? Wahkeenah 21:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. --Eleassar777 22:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

• Uh -- what, exactly, do you think should be removed? Robeykr 06:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed transcendental and left only mysticism. However, I asked before removing and there was no reply yet. Can you explain why it is not redundant? Thanks. Eleassar777 16:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a Transcendental Mysticism Anomoly. Wahkeenah 23:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Eye pic

Isn't there a better opening picture we can find, other than the ugly eye pic? It's not really representative of the movie's atmosphere (the psychedelic sequence is kind of an aberration compared to the whole movie) or appearance as a whole. Revolver 22:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. The original poster was used in the earlier version of this article and reflects more the general feel of the film. (see image:2001 movie poster.jpg ) Where and when does the Eye picture come from? Is it a general rule that we should use images from the original release rather than re-releases or DVD covres? If nothing else, original artwork helps to place a film in context with the time of its creation.

I believe the eye pic is from the beginning of the "psychedelic" sequence at the end of the film. Revolver 01:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No -- it's from the second and third parts of the ULTIMATE TRIP sequence. Diring the light-tunnel sequence, brief cut of Bowman reacting in terror are used. These shots did not use any colour-fitration effects. -- Jason Palpatine 29 June 2005 07:23 (UTC)

Production History

Can we consolidate a lot of the trivia as a proper Production History section. According to James Howard Kubrick had the "How the Solar System Was Won" idea while working on Strangelove and decided that first contact was the most interesting plot element. Clarke was recommended later and aside from Kubrick identifying "The Sentinel" as a good episode the two made little connection during production.

Advertising

In the spoof section, recently I added the lego-based "One: A Space Odyssey," and it was deleted by another user for "advertising," possibly because I linked to the page that had O:ASO. I restored the entry, without the internet link, as it certainly is a spoof of 2001. I was just curious is it acceptable without the link, or is there still an issue? Personally, I don't believe it can be considered advertising without the link, any more than the other media "2001" has been referenced and spoofed in are. I am going to try to find the 'advertising' policy on wikipedia to better understand this issue. RudolfRadna 16:05, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Another thought just occurred to me. I just went to the "Lego" wikipedia page, and there was a link at the bottom of the page to the official Lego website. Isn't that advertising also? I'm really confused on this now. RudolfRadna 16:10, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Here's another one I noticed awhile ago. On the book of kells entry, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_kells), there's a link to a company that sells the book of kells on cd-rom. I'd never heard of that before, and found out about it solely because of Wikipedia. Isn't that advertising also? I'm just unclear on what the policy is, because it seems like this stuff is all over the place. RudolfRadna 16:25, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think I found the policy (WP-NOT) or something like that:

"Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Further all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs."

Seems like an odd way to draw the line for external links. Is it a content concern? RudolfRadna 00:47, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

RudolfRadna 16 September 2005 19:50 (UTC)

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

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

RudolfRadna 8 October 2005 17:40 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think there is too much interpretation in the plot summary itself (Discovery looks like a skeleton, etc.) and too much reliance on Clarke's novel particularly the "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite" sequence, which should be described in visual terms rather than simply stating things like "star nursery." --24.33.28.52 21:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Jack Kembert

Last Scene Paintings

Can anyone tell me what the paintings that appear in the final few scenes of the movies are from or who they are by? They seem to depict the garden of eden and the tree of knowledge, if I'm not mistaken. There are four of them in the room with the bed. This information probably wouldn't be relevant to the main page, I'm just asking out of curiousity.--209.43.9.250 06:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've often wondered about the artwork in the hotel room my self. It is often refered to as Louis XVI style. There has never been any mention of whether or they are reproductions or originals created for the film. You may want to look at the tables under them: There appear to be Royal Doulton figurines on them. And what about the big statues? -- Jason Palpatine 22:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Anecdotes

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

Sierra Mist Commercial

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

My POV

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

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

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

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

Sexual Symbolism

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

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

LEONARD F. WHEAT does make mention of this in his book ‘’"Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory.’’ (page 10) -- Jason Palpatine 22:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC) ^{speak your mind}

Merchandising

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

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

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

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

Synopsis should stick to the film

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly how do you define stick to the film? There are basic elements in both the book and film that are the same. Hence the 4 qoutations from the book that are in there. They don't detract from the synopsis, but rather compliment it. How does this drift AWAY from the story? -- Jason Palpatine 01:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC) speak your mind

Spoofs section

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

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

I have moved the references material to List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the trivia section to List of 2001: A Space Odyssey trivia --Bungopolis 18:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate Items

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

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

Making the Move

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

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

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

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

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

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

What was the monolith prop made of

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

predictions

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

The film did not mention the USSR at any time. But it was made during the time the USSR existed and the Soviet Union is mentioned in the sequel 2010. This would appear to imply that to be the case. But I agree, it was not mentioned to exist, so it is a moot issue. -- Jason Palpatine 23:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, I'm not certain about that. When you view the movie on the big screen, you can make out the livery on the various orbiting weapons immediately after the bone-throw. Somebody needs to check if one of those included "CCCP" on it; I can't make anything out via TV & DVD.--Sailorlula 07:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE! I just rewatched the film again closely, and during the Russian conversation scene on the space station, you can just make out a hammer-and sickle incorporated into the center of the winged logo on one of the Aeroflot flight bags (the one on the extreme left). I've also confirmed its presence in a photo of this scene on page 369 of The Stanley Kubrick Archives, where the hammer-and-sickle is plainly visible. Pretty concrete evidence that the Soviet Union lives on in 2001!

--Sailorlula 22:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Jump cut?

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

Anyone else think the movie was slow

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

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

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

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

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

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

The slow pace is a result of a neo-realist strategy (ala Andre Bazin) in which scenes unfold in "real time" rather than compressed through fast cutting and montage. The final sequence (in the "hotel" room) cuts through traditional neo-realism, not by compressing time, but by reversing time or at least the relation between observer and observed. Apparent point of view shots predominate but they are from locations no longer occupied by David Bowman who has become the object of his own erased gaze. Jason Palpatine 12:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

2061,3001

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

WB purchased the option rights for 3001 when the novel was first published. However, no agreement has been reached on an acceptablecript. The project is currently in limbo. -- Jason Palpatine 00:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 69.143.172.3

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

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

Russian speech

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

I have read that Elena's line is "We live in hard times." If correct, this brings new relevance to some of the content of the following scene, which is rather luxurious (particularly compared to starving to death or getting eaten by a leopard). Note in particular that the monitor watched by the stewardess is displaying a sportsmanlike judo fight; a genteel version of the unarmed combat which the primates at the "Dawn of Man" found too terrifying to engage in.24.33.28.52Jack Kembert

Removing POV paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

Cleanup tag

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

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

Something is wrong

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

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

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

Recent edits

There have recently been a whole series of edits to the plot section - most by Robekyr - which are adding info from the book and not the movie (Floyd's having an hour layover for example). I do not wish to start an edit war because I know that he or she is working hard and that these probably mean a lot to him or her. Perhaps if any wikiadministrators encounter this they can start the process to reach a consensus about what to do about this. I feel that they are detracting from this article but that is just me and others may feel differently.User:MarnetteD | Talk 00:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong

Dialouge in the movie. Miller tells Floyd that his flight "leaves in about an hour" and "as a matter of fact I've reserved a table for you in the Earthlight Room." The entrance to the Earthlight Room with the adjoining picturephone booths are clearly visible in the scene in the film. The Earthlight Room sign shows it is a Howard Johnson's restaurant. I AM NOT REFERENCING CLARKE'S NOVELIZATION.

The quotes from the book pertain to the 2 main climaxes of the movie the acension of Moon-Watcher and Bowman in the end. I felt that these 2 quotes -- both intentionally alike -- wold be appropriate.

BTW: I am a guy. ;-)

-- User:Robeykr 01:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Talk

Too many fair use pictures

This article includes too many fair use pictures. These should be removed. If no one familiar with the article does it soon, I will take care of it myself. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 22:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you define too many? -- Jason Palpatine speak your mind

When looking at the article, there is an image accompanying plot text every few sentences. Fair use policy states that "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents". Using an image every few sentences certainly breaks both letter and spirit of this law. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Opinion Poll Request

I for one belive in the spirit over the letter. However, as I am the one responsible for this situation; and I want to avoid an edit war like the one I went through a year ago (re: Palpatine) may I suggest that we put this up to a vote? I belived that correlating an image with each paragraph hightened the article. However, I am only, as Carl Sagan would put it, "one voice in the cosmic fuge." So, may we delay any action on this matter for a period of a week so that other opinions may be heard?

People -- I ask for a vote. Should we do as per the demand of Scm83x? Edit it or keep it?

Please let me/us know. Based on the replies here, I/we will act on this matter come May 8. Thank you. -- Jason Palpatine speak your mind

• I don't believe a poll is necessary. I think that it is rather clear that placing an image every few sentences limits the ability of the owner of the copyright to market their product. Why go see the film if almost every scene is outlined and photographed for anyone to see? Please take a look at featured articles about film for good examples, including Casablanca (film), Sunset Blvd. (1950 film), and November (film). Also, consider reading fair use policy for a better understanding of the reasoning behind limited usage of screenshots in articles. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 00:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Wikipedia is not a picture storybook. Please: no more than one carefully chosen picture per top-level (h2) section (and please note, I'm not suggesting creating more sections to allow for more images). -- The Anome 00:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Too many too too many too too too many.

• No poll is necessary. As it is, the page uses far too many images for any claim of fair use to stand. The article can have one DVD cover or movie poster for decoration. Any other images can only be included if they are necessary for understanding the text (for example, if a visually complex scene is being described, an image can be used to illustrate it). Using the images in any other way is a copyright violation, which can lead to their being deleted. Angr (t • c) 12:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Old news my friend. You're behind the times. -- Jason Palpatine speak your mind

I only just discovered the message about it at WP:CP. Just because no one has discussed it for over a week doesn't mean the problem has gone away. When images are uploaded under a claim of fair use, it is required that a detailed explanation of why the image is necessary for the article be included. There's even a new speedy criterion, I6, whereby images uploaded after 2006-05-04 can be speedied if they don't have a fair-use rationale. Images uploaded before that date, like these, have a grace period in which the uploader can provide a rationale before they get deleted. Angr (t • c) 13:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

ALL RIGHT I GET THE MESSAGE!

All right, I ve done as you've demanded. Are you satisfied? -- Jason Palpatine speak your mind

There are still way too many. I would suggest, as The Anome (talk • contribs) did, that there only be one picture per h2 level heading. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 01:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "[The article 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) ] includes too many fair use pictures. These should be removed. If no one familiar with the article does it soon, I will take care of it myself. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 22:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you define too many? And who are you to make this decision. If you were noticing, I am the one who inserted the pictures you are refering to. I don't think this is TOO MUCH. -- User:Robeykr

I have responded at the talk page where the discussion originated. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What the @#! do you think you are doing!?

Today you did "removing excess of fair use pictures, {{cleanupdate}} and {{split}}: this article needs help"

I removed the excess yesterday! What is your problem now? You want to start an edit war? I am reverting the article to restore the remaining images from my edit yesterday. There is such a thing as moderation. What I left was/is reasonable. SO KNOK IT OFF!

You call this ([[2]]) excess?

-- User:Robeykr speak your mind

you said: rv to non-fair use violation version, please consider reading fair use criteria, discussing before reverting, and being civil.

I don't think that you are grasping the concepts of discussion and fair use policy. The discussion is not over when one party says it is over. Wikipedia is run through consensus. Please respond to my comments on the talk page here before reverting yet again. Also, again, I ask you to check out Wikipedia fair use criteria, especially point #3. You are fighting a losing battle, as it has been previously decided that continuing fair use violations are grounds for punitive action. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please also consider WP:3RR before making any more changes to the article. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It was discussed. Try taking your own one party advice: "The discussion is not over when one party says it is over." And I did as you asked, and it was not enough! Who the @#! do you think you are hipocrite? We DID discuss it. reverting. -- Jason Palpatine 23:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In reply/discussion

So, you are an administrator on this site. As a descendant of mine would put it -- fascinating. I find it difficult to belive that I am having this discussion with someone who wasn't even around whe I first saw the movie in the ceinerama theater back in 1968.

OK -- so, you consider the article in its current form still excessive. Why? -- and don't even think of throwing that policy lingo at me. The spirit of the rules and the letter are not the same thing. 2001 is one of the most complicated films in the history of cinema. Photo correlaton -- given the fact that the film is mostly a visual experirence -- is a must in any article about it. Most articles about 2001 at the time of its release contained more than a dozen or more images from every act in the film -- The apes and the monolith, the journey to the moon, TMA-1, the Discvery Mission, Boman's confrontation with HAL, the moons of Jupiter, even the hotel room sequence!

I felt/feel that there should be more than the simple one-shot desert of images as the article originally was and you are trying to enforce.

You talk about discussion, yet you demanded an immediate reduction; and when I deliver, you further sterillize the article. It is said that too much of anything, even a good thing, is not a good thing. I may have, in the original final edit befor you started this, over done it, but it can also be said that too little of anything, even a good thing, is not a good thing. I belive the version you are postulating is too little.

An all text article -- or predominantly text -- does not do justice to this film. In addition, you removed an number of correlated images from elswhere in the article. Why did you delete the image from People Are Alike All Over? It corrleated with the theme of the film in the trivia section. The Mars is Heaven correlation was even reported in the original Newsweek review of the movie.

I've printed out both of our recent versions of the article. The difference is only 3 pages. The images that remain in mine do NOT overwhelm the article. Yours, on the other hand, seems a little banal.

You want to have people discuss this before any action is taken? I belive I originally asked for such a discussion and the reply from you and one other was swift. You are unliaterally forcing deletions here without anyone else's feedback. I did NOT have to do those edits yesterday, but I did. I even got a than-you on my talk page.

So lets hear from the others before this goes any further. Or can't you wait a week, like I asked? -- User:Robeykr speak your mind

In regards to insulting my age and insinuating a lack of experience, please see this essay regarding the concept and be more civil in the future. Policy is what keeps things running around here. Our policy, which we all agree to by contributing, states that fair use pictures are to be used in limited quantity and should not impede the copyright holder's ability to market their product. By practically turning the 2001 article into a storybook, both the letter and the spirit of the law are violated. We are inhibiting the copyright holder's ability to market their product by making a large portion of their work available for free. Also, each fair use article must be critically essential to the article. Is it possible to justify the inclusion of everyone of the 33 fair use images in this article? Once again, as before, I do ask you do look at WP:FUC and other featured articles about movies at WP:FA. There you will see both the policy and implemetation of that policy across the Wiki. In case you do not care to check that page, I will paste the pertinent information here:

3. The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.

8. The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.

10. The image or media description page must contain:

• Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different) where possible.
• An appropriate fair use tag indicating which Wikipedia policy provision permitting the use is claimed. A list of image tags can be found on the Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Fair_use page.
• For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the article and a "fair use rationale" as explained in Wikipedia:Image description page. The rationale must be presented in a manner that can be clearly understood and which is relevant to the article in question.

Please state your beliefs in terms of policy. Others are far more likely to agree with you if you use policy to back up your statements. You will gain few friends calling for edit wars and insulting other contributors. Thank you. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 04:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I was/am not insulting your age or experience -- merely making an obsevation. -- Jason Palpatine 04:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

Arthur C. Clarke's theory, expanded by Kubrick into a spoofy narrative, that man and machine will one day merge into a symbiotic entity, a sort of humanoid machine.

Having read most of his books (yeah, I know, booor-ing) I have to wonder what this person is talking about. Clarke wrote about the transendence of humans, not man-machine symbiosis. In particular, Childhood's End' appears to be the most obvious example of the themes in 2001; an alien race that helps man evolve into a higher form of existance. Maury 12:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree. On seeing 2001 the first time, I was reminded of the themes in Childhood's End. Slowmover 15:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In his diary, Clake makes mention of the fact that Kubrick did consider including the book's gargoyles theme in 2001. -- Jason Palpatine 22:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed verbiage

Early today I removed some truly odious wording from the article. However, the user in question, User:Jason Palpatine, was apparently offended and has since re-added it again. I am deleting it again, but for the record I will place the removed text here, with comments on why I am removing it.

As it dances among the moons of the giant planet, the monolith watches the new visitor plunge into the Jupiter system to put itself in orbit. For some time the two observe each other; then a pod departs Discovery One to move directly toward it.

All of this is speculation. There is certainly no eyeballs on the monolith in question, so it's not obvious how Rob knows that it was watching the Discovery. Nor is there any point in the movie where one could suggest that "For some time the two observe each other".

Whether it is machine or being,

Well, who cares? This statement just confuses things.

He was not totally unprepared for this...

Again, there is nothing to suggest this in the movie.

• my source in the case of this remark was "2001 Filming the Future" by Piers Bizony .

fantastic sights which could be either natural or artificial

Ditto.

I still say the description is way too long. Is the wiki really a supposed to be a scene-for-scene description of the movie?

Maury 22:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"Away odious wasp, you smell of decayed syllables." -- The Humbug

Early today I removed some truly ‘’odious’’ wording from the article. However, the user in question, User:Robeykr, was apparently offended and has since re-added it again. I am deleting it again, but for the record I will place the removed text here, with comments on why I am removing it.

Odious – adj, inspiring hatred, contempt, or disgust

That’s strong language. My edit has been on line for 2 weeks now, and YOU are thus far the only one to object to my prose. Why, exactly is my writing “inspiring hatred, contempt, or disgust” in you?

As it dances among the moons of the giant planet, the monolith watches the new visitor plunge into the Jupiter system to put itself in orbit. For some time the two observe each other; then a pod departs Discovery One to move directly toward it.

And your edit comment on this is particularly amusing: Jovian monolith was in a dynamically active constantly changing orbit.

Well not only is that also outside of the movie, and therefore speculation, but your original text does not refer to the monolith dancing, but the Discovery.

No, this is definitely NOT outside the movie and is definite fact. The monolith was shown to be in constant motion about Jupiter. Just watch the segment again.

In addition, in chapters 37 and 38 of the novel:

ch. 37 --

It is shown that for three million years, this monolith had been on Japetus, waiting to be discovered. It was left behind as part of an experiment conducted by this extra- terrestrial civilization. The originators of the experiment had traveled the universe, trying to encourage the development of life wherever they found it. As they had an entire Universe to explore and cultivate, they could not stay around Earth and watch to see what developed. Earth was only one of many worlds on which they had attempted to push along the evolutionary process. These beings had, themselves, long evolved. First, they had outgrown their bodies of flesh and, having learned to store their brains in machines of metal and plastic. Ultimately, they learned to store their thoughts in light and freed themselves from all matter and time.

"Now the long wait was ending. On yet Another world, intelligence had been born and was escaping from its planetary cradle. An ancient experiment was about to reach its climax.”

Ch 38 --

“For weeks as it stared forever Sunward with its strange senses, the [monolith] had watched the approaching ship. Its makers had prepared it for many things and this was one of them. It recognized what was climbing up toward it from the warm heart of the Solar System.

“It observed, and noted, and took no action, as the visitor checked its speed with jets of incandescent gas. Presently it felt the gentle touch of radiations, trying to probe its secrets. And still it did nothing.

“There was a long pause, then, before it observed that something was falling down toward it from the orbiting ship. It searched its memories, and the logic circuits made their decisions, according to the orders given them long ago.”

Also, it is ALWAYS referred to as THE monolith, not A monolith.

Do you suggest that all four of the monoliths that appear in the film are actually all one and the same? If not, how should one refer to them?

a: the indefinite article, used before a singular countable noun to refer to one person or thing not previously known or specified, in contrast with ‘’“the,” referring to somebody or something known to the listener’’ indef art

the: an adjective, the definite article, used before somebody or something that has already been mentioned or identified, or something that is understood by both the speaker and hearer, as distinct from “a” or “an”

Although there clearly must be more than one of these, their significance would clearly indicate that the use of "the indefinite article," in referring to any one of them would be incorrect. For example: When someone refers to any one of the pyramids a Gaza, it is not a pyramid, it is the pyramid; same rational applies here. The monoliths are not indefinite objects, but distinct and significant.

All of this is speculation. There is certainly no eyeballs on the monolith in question, so it's not obvious how Rob knows that it was watching the Discovery. Nor is there any point in the movie where one could suggest that "For some time the two observe each other".

The Moons of Jupiter sequence is without a doubt depicting the monolith's POV. That "there is certainly no eyeballs on the monolith" is irrelevant -- it is a functioning device and does not need eyes to observe its surroundings. The sequence clearly depicts it to be in a dynamic, constantly changing orbit about Jupiter -- unlike the static unmoving (in relation to IO) one depicted in the film and novel versions of 2010. At one point it is moving along Jupiter's equator, then later a polar orbit (the shot shown in the article).

The monolith is the center of the segment. With each shot, the angles bring Discovery into view at 3 different times:

1. when Discovery plunges into the Jupiter system to put itself in orbit.
2. when Discovery is on the night side of Jupiter and has successfully entered orbit (given the different distances in proximity to Jupiter of these 2 shots, they MUST be days apart).
3. when the monolith passes BY Discovery and the pod bay doors open to release Bowman in the pod (with the rest of the crew dead, who else would be piloting the thing?). The first 2 passes of them by each other were at considerable distance, but this last pass is close -- a rendezvous maneuver would have required time, days even, to carry out.

Since the HAL breakdown event occurred approximately 3 week after launching, it stands to reason that Discovery's arrival at Jupiter would be months later. Simple observation of the sequence and logic show that a considerable amount of time was being shown in the short amount of time in the film; such maneuvers about the system do not take minutes or even hours. If you don’t believe me, check out the web site history for NASA’s ‘’Project Galileo,’’ the probe took days, even weeks, to navigate the system the way the monolith and Discovery did.

These shots would clearly indicate that the monolith IS, as I put it, “watching the Discovery.” And since Discovery rendezvoused with it, the reverse must also be true.

You say, “All of this is speculation.” Were you paying attention to what the monolith was doing? It definitely wasn’t at a standstill. Perhaps you would describe its actions differently? Why don’t you? Please explain your remark about “odious”?

‘’’Whether it is machine or being,’’’

Well, who cares? This statement just confuses things.

Well, who cares who cares one way or the other? The amount of debate concerning exactly WHAT the monolith is has been going on for decades. In 2010 it was compared to a Swiss army knife. It has been called many things from “that damned two-by-four” to ‘’God.’’ You ask, “Well, who cares?” I think a number of people out there may. Is it just a machine or is it alive? Just one of many questions the audience asks. So we might ask ‘’ In that event, who cares that you don’t care?’’

He was not totally unprepared for this...

Again, there is nothing to suggest this in the movie.

Again, simple logic comes in to play. It is now months after HAL killed the rest of the crew. What, exactly was Bowman doing this whole time? He was clearly still alive and running the ship as the maneuvers made to bring Discovery into orbit indicates. As a responsible astronaut, after regaining control of the ship, he would have/did contact Earth. Since “But because they are dead, he must complete the mission alone.” It stands to reason that he would have been briefed in the months before he arrived at Jupiter. Get real. It is also clearly spelled out in 2010 -- he was communicating his observations as he left the ship for the last time: “Oh my God! -- It’s full of stars!” So I think it IS definetly suggested. Even the fact that he rendezvoused with the monolith and went EVA to make a closer inspection of it would validate this.

‘‘Fantastic sights which could be either natural or artificial

Ditto.

dit•to interj

used instead of repeating something that has just been said to indicate that the same thing applies to you (informal)

adv

indicating that whatever has just been said about one person or thing applies equally to somebody or something else

Take a good look at the image the caption is referring to. The effect was designed by Kubrick and was called “The Mind Bender.” Is what is there natural? Are those diamonds we are looking at ships or some other forms of artifacts like the monolith? Explain your answer. The FACT that they may be one or the other seems to me to be a matter worth pointing out. In fact, in some reviews I read at the time of the film’s release, I remember that it WAS pointed out in the review I read in the ‘’Philadelphia Bulletin’’!

I still say the description is way too long. Is the wiki really a supposed to be a scene-for-scene description of the movie? Maury 22:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So? We don't think so.

The Odious Wasp 02:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is "we"? I agree with Maury Markowitz (talk · contribs) on all points. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 02:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As you said "who is we?" Let's see, this article has been in the enlarged format even prior to my edits during the past month. Others created the article in its extended form before I came along. So who's we? I don't see much in the way of any majority speaking out here. One voice against another. I can count the number of "opposing opinions" here in one breath. I see no vast majority speaking here.

And you have not offered a rebuttal to any of the points I have listed here.

The Odious Wasp 03:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Obejecting to

A lot of what Maury is objecting to (and I agree with) is what is called original research. Put very simply, Wikipedia policy on original research is that:

"Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position."

In the context of this article, statements such as "He was not totally unprepared for this..." and "the monolith watches the new visitor plunge into the Jupiter system to put itself in orbit. For some time the two observe each other" cannot simply come from the head of the user writing it. They must first be written in a reputable verifiable source, such as a film review or critique. Wikipedia is not the place to write lengthy stylistic plot analyses for films. Those things are more suited for personal webpages. Wikipedia is simply not a publisher of original thought. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 04:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the material did NOT come out of my head -- but your copyright policies do demand that I use my own words! There are plenty of materials out there already published that cover and make mention of the various facts I have laid out here. My opinion was what I believed you wanted and I gave it. For sources:

1. Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat
2. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker
3. The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction)
4. Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke)
5. 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony
6. The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film)
7. the souvener progam to the movie
8. the jewel of my collection, the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child!
9. and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010

Queen to Bishop 3

Your move.

--The Odious Wasp speak your mind

reply Wednesday, May 03, 2006

I think I have outlined my objections with more than enough clarity. Your insertions talk about events and thoughts that outside the movie. That they might be supported elsewhere is of little relevance. This is an article about the movie, not the books. The portions you are so upset about do not appear in the movie, and are therefore confusing at best. If you wish to separate them out and clearly state that the additional material comes from a second source, feel free, but again, I think that ruins the readability of the article.

None of your objections above seem to address this at all. For instance, consider "The amount of debate concerning exactly WHAT the monolith is has been going on for decades." Well be that as it may, it doesn't excuse inserting this discussion in the introduction of a sentence on what is going on in the movie. And then you do it again, "The effect was designed by Kubrick and was called “The Mind Bender.” Is what is there natural?". You're talking about the name of a special effect and trying to use that as a debating point for action happening in the movie? Should we thus insert comments in the Star Wars article about "the turbo-laser blasts, which might be natural or rotoscoping, ...".

Is this not clear to you? How, how about this, "the automobile, first invented some time in the late 1800s, turned the corner quickly and slid on the wet macadam." It doesn't make a difference, to the sentence, when the car was invented. Likewise, it doesn't make a difference, to the sentence in question, whether or not the monolith IS anything in particular. If you want to have a discussion about the nature of the monolith, have that discussion (too late, there already is such a section), just don't have it in the middle of an unrelated sentence.

And then consider this statement, "The Moons of Jupiter sequence is without a doubt depicting the monolith's POV." Well that certainly doesn't excuse the original statement in the article. If I shoot a picture of you from behind a rock, it's one thing to say "this picture is from the point of view of the rock", its another entirely to say "the rock is observing you". Come on.

"Again, simple logic comes in to play." *sigh*. I don't care about what you think simple logic implies. None of what you stated was shown in the movie. Period. If you wish to speculate as to the "real meaning" of the film, do it in a section that clearly indicates the nature of the text within -- speculation. Better yet, do it on your own page.

And what did I find "odious?" Well for one, the stilted wording that sounded like it was being written a child, and in particular, the use of exclamation points. I'm sorry if you're offended by my choice of adjective. Your comments here show the same problem. Debating my points by introducing the definition of "ditto"? What do you think the wiki is, the Fidonet? I'm here to write an article about a movie, not assuage the ego of a writer who appears not to "get it". I have no interest in a debate. I believe I have defended my edits successfully, and, contrary to your claims, it appears that the "we" out there agree.

Maury 12:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"I'm here to write an article about a movie, not assuage the ego of a writer who appears not to 'get it'."

as•suage (-swj) KEY

TRANSITIVE VERB:

as•suaged , as•suag•ing , as•suag•es

1. To make (something burdensome or painful) less intense or severe: assuage her grief. See Synonyms at relieve.
2. To satisfy or appease (hunger or thirst, for example).
3. To pacify or calm: assuage their chronic insecurity.

I think you should try saying that to a mirror, because your not very good at it.

I was told to produce sources and I did. Then you say it’s irrelevant. The use of copyrighted materials is forbidden but then you ridicule me for using my own words. You say I appear "not to 'get it,'" yet here you are lambasting me instead of presenting actual points of relevance to the disputation that is going on here.

I often use the definition of words in arguments -- the meaning of the word is as important as the word itself. If this bruises your ego, you shouldn't use the words to begin with.

" Better yet, do it on your own page."

1. Same back at you!
2. I don't have a page, just as I don't have a website!

I was called upon to substantiate my entries, I was called upon to show that the entries were not just in my own words as required but also not original research. I produced my sources. Here they are yet again:

1. Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat
2. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker
3. The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction)
4. Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke)
5. 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony
6. The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film)
7. the souvener progam to the movie
8. the jewel of my collection, the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child!
9. and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010

I am not about to quote every page of all of these books -- I shouldn't have to. Watch the film again and think about what is happening. Be observant. I was called upon to justify my edits and point for point I did. I did not assail your ego or gripe about the attacks you have made on me. Show the same courtesy!

I asked for your thoughts and in reply you say speculation (my wording doesn't make the points less valid as I cited references). You ask for sources and I provide them whereupon you say it is irrelevant. I say what you say is irrelevant IS irrelevant. Add to that hypocrisy. You call for sources and then turn around and call it irrelevant. You say I must use my own words and then turn around and condemn me for it.

You say you have already made your arguments clear. I believe I have countered you on every point. I say it’s your move and all you do is say irrelevant.

"The effect was designed by Kubrick and was called “The Mind Bender.” Is what is there natural?". You're talking about the name of a special effect and trying to use that as a debating point for action happening in the movie? Should we thus insert comments in the Star Wars article about "the turbo-laser blasts, which might be natural or rotoscoping, ..."

There was no cosmic journey in SW comparable to what Bowman experienced. And I do believe there are such comments in the article you are referring to, though I don't recall the question of "natural or artificial" to applicable in that case.

I must therefore say everything you have laid out here is totally without merit.

GET A LIFE!

-- The Odious Wasp 16:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

PS

You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophy and allegorical meaning of the film – and such speculation is indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level – but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point.

– Stanley Kubrick, 1968, interview for Playboy Magazine

-- The Odious Wasp 06:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Consider

Please cite these sources in the article. Additionally, keep in mind that this article is about the movie and not the book, so quoting the novel is inaccurate. Finally, I still agree with Maury that most of this content is more suited to be somewhere other than Wikipedia. Consider [3] or [4]. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 05:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What exactly would YAHOO! have to do with this? I consider quoting the book valid as it constitutes a reflection of the film. The Odious Wasp 05:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo blogs and personal pages may be a better place to put personal interpretations of the film. Quoting the book is not valid because the film does not impart the same knowledge to the media consumer as the novel. They are separate works for the purposes of the plot summary. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 06:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

They are separate works for the purposes of the plot summary only when you delve into the detail level. These works are reflections of each other and on a general level, compliment each other.

Yes there are many diffreneces in scene depiction, dialouge, and exposition. The biggest difference of course is the destination of Discovery One. However there are MANY base points in the two stories that are the same:

1. In the background to the story, an ancient and unseen alien race uses a mechanism with the appearance of a large black monolith to investigate worlds all across the galaxy and, if possible, to encourage the development of intelligent life (the monoliths are perhaps Von Neumann probes, although the segment explaining this was cut from the film). One such monolith appears in ancient Africa and teaches a group of the hominid ancestors of human beings how to use tools and eat meat.
2. We then leaps millennia to the year 1999, detailing Dr. Heywood Floyd's journey to Clavius base on the Moon.
3. The Americans have found a magnetic disturbance in Tycho, one of the Moon's craters. An excavation of the area has revealed a large black slab, they have designated Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-One (TMA-1). It was burried millions of years in the past.
4. They arrive just as sunlight hits upon it for the first time since it was burried. It then sends a piercing radio transmission to the far reaches of the solar system.
5. We then leaps forward t to the Discovery One mission. David Bowman and Frank Poole are the conscious human beings aboard the ship. Three of their colleagues are in a state of suspended animation, to be woken when they approach their destination. Additionally, the HAL 9000, an artificially intelligent computer, maintains the ship and is an active part of life aboard.
6. HALpredicts that the AE-35 unit of the ship will malfunction. The unit is swaped out. Bowman conducts tests on the AE-35 unit that has been replaced and determines that there was never anything wrong with it.
7. HAL murders Frank Poole by teleoperating his space-pod during the second EVA to the antena complex.
8. HAL attempts to murder David Bowman.
9. HAL causes the deaths of the hibernating crew.
10. Bowman enters HAL's computer vault and disconects him to regain control of the ship.
11. Bowmwn discovers a second, larger monolith.
12. Bowman goes EVA in a pod to make a closer inspection of the second monolith.
13. The monolith swallows Bowman's pod and sends him on a journey out of our Solar System -- possibly even our dimension.
14. Eventually, he is brought to what appears to be a nice hotel suite,
15. Bowman is " is reborn, an enhanced being, a star child, an angel, a superman, if you like, and returns to earth prepared for the next leap forward of man's evolutionary destiny." (Kubrick quote)
16. Also, the introduction to the novel is also used in the film's souvener program. I.e. it is the introduction to both versions of the story.

--  Jason Palpatine 01:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC) speak your mind

Yahoo blogs and personal pages????? -- The Odious Wasp 07:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Maury 12:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Not doable. -- The Odious Wasp 04:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Arguing for your POV is a poor way to establish your NPOV. -- 24.33.28.52

Friends (please, let me use that word):

There is a difference between an article page and a talk page. The talk pages are for purposes of discussion. Discussion, by its very nature id POV. The NPOV policy applies to the articles, not talk.

Example: If I were to say "Heywood Floyd was a lying hypocrite who wouldn't take responsibility for the consequences of his actions" in the article, it would be a violation of the NPOV policy and the admins would be justified in deleting it under said policy. However, if I were to say it here or on my own talk page, it would NOT violate the NPOV rule because it is discussion.

My edits to the article came under ATTACK, and I defended my position.

1. I presented clear, concise arguments -- and was accused of original research.
2. I responded to this false accusation by citing my sources of information.
3. My seponse has been labeled "irrelevant"!
4. That is called hypocrisy.

What more substantiation of my contributions do I need? And why am I being called upon to do so? My edits were labeled "odious"!

The Odious Wasp 07:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ownership issues

I think that there are serious ownership issues concerning this article. Although one user may have written the entirety of an article, they do not own it and other editors have the right to "edit it mercilessly". It says so right below the edit box, and it is something we believe in as Wikipedians. This article needs external review, which is what Maury and I were attempting. But when forces from within the article resist change, the article will never become any better than it is. This article has potential; don't waste it. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 19:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"Ownership issues" is an understatement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.33.28.52 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 9 May 2006.

Korean version title

A late friend of mine, Jim Kim, who immigrated to the US at the close of the US-Vietnam conflict watched this movie with me one time when he visited me. He had seen it in theaters during its original release in his home country. The version he saw was not in English, but dubbed in Korean. When I had told him that my favorite movie was 2001: A Space Odyssey he initially believed he had never seen it on account of the fact that he'd never heard of the title. When he saw the beginning of the movie, he told me he recognized it and had seen it in Seoul under a Korean title. The title translated into English was “Planet of the Monkeys.”

Remembering this, I have posted it in the Trivia section. But given that I only have the recollection of a conversation I had with a friend of mine – i.e. hearsay – and a deceased friend moreover, I felt I should also post a note about it here to see if anyone might think it (like so much I posted before) should not be in the article.

Views, opinions, and Admin action requested. -- -- The Odious Wasp speak your mind

• I can't find anything to back that up. Evem if your friend's account was accurate, that could have been only one translation, used at a single theater in Seoul. I'm afraid it runs a little too close to original research. All you'd need would be a site, a poster, or maybe a Korean film review book to back it up. Deltabeignet 22:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate/needed the input.

One thing, I noted you did a search on GOOGLE in english. He had told me it was the translation of the Korean title the film was shown under. So it possible that a korean language search is necessary. Also, its a pretty bad translation and in all this time with the films now classic status -- it's likly that the mistake was rectified so long ago that no record of it would survive to the internet era.

Again, thank-you. I really DID need a third opinion.

Still, I wonder.... -- Jason Palpatine 00:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't your friend have been confusing 2001 with Planet of the Apes? Somone who renamed 2001 "Planet of the Monkeys" could only have watched the first 10 minutes or so... Angr (t • c) 07:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that unlikly -- because I belive he had also seen the PotA movies. If you remember, when the final movie was released, the drive-ins (how I miss them) were doing a feature called GO APE!' It was a marathon run of all 5 movies in one showing. That was around the time he came over. And he had the first film on video when I first met him. No, he was definetly talking to me about 2001. Though your right about the begining. Maybe whoever was responsible for the translation over there thought it was related to PotA. Oh well. Thanks for the thought! -- Jason Palpatine 08:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Split

For what it's worth, I agree with Scm83x that 111 KB is excessive in length. This doesn't mean that there can't be 111 KB of material on 2001; it just means that summary style should be used to split off some things to subarticles. It is rare to see a good or featured article longer than 50 KB. Taking a look at a the Media section of Wikipedia:Featured articles, I see that Halloween (film) is 40 KB, Red vs Blue is 39 KB, Thunderball is 41 KB, Triumph of the Will is 44 KB, etc.

As an example of a section that could be moved into its own article, the "Spoofs and references" section could become List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey or something like that. This alone would makethe article more manageable. It also looks as if the "Interpretations of the Film" section is more or less redundant with the article Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey, so perhaps that latter article could merely be briefly summarized here.

As for the plot, I also agree that it could be shortened. In some places, it seems pretty much blow-by-blow (I don't know nearly enough about the film to say exactly where, but I do know that I've seen six hours of plot summarized in less space). As well, it seems to incorporate some analysis by Kubrick, which might be better fall under production or interpretation, rather than a "synposis". This may just be my opinion, but I personally find it jarring when prose repeatedly switches between an in-fiction perspective (describing the film as its plot unfolds) and an out-of-fiction one (describing how it was made), so I would save Kubrick's tidbits for another section.

Just my thoughts.… — TKD::Talk 03:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)