Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

2018 restored version

Re this edit: I'm not sure if this is an accurate description of what has happened. The new 2018 70mm version has used only film chemical techniques, and has tried to recreate what an original 70mm print of the film would have looked like. There is a good article about it here, and it shows that the October 2007 Blu-ray version tweaked the colours considerably. This makes the film look more modern, but it isn't how the original film print would have looked. Also, I'm not sure from the sourcing that Christopher Nolan's 70mm 2018 version is available on disc yet.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• The film is now scheduled for a release on Ultra HD Blu-ray in fall (autumn) 2018 and the original plans for pre-order in April/May 2018 have been shelved.[2] Since there is some WP:CRYSTAL here, I've removed the part about the 4K version until there is some firm news on the release date.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Re this edit: The LA Times story is interesting but doesn't mention the 4K release. It's also unclear if the 4K release will use Christopher Nolan's 70 mm print. Some people have assumed this, but the sourcing doesn't say this. There is a need to wait until a firm launch date for the 4K video is announced as it has already been delayed once.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Waterhole

In reference to the first paragraph of the “Plot” section: According to Dan Richter (‘Moonwatcher’s Memoir’, p. 114), it is meant to be the same band of man-apes invading the waterhole both times. It is somewhat difficult for the viewer to tell since after contact with the monolith the aggressor apes’ appearance has changed. Perhaps the paragraph could be rewritten to at least make it ambiguous which group wins or loses the waterhole on the earlier scene. —-Cam (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Reference alterations

Mauro Lanari has just altered some of the references in this edit. It involved replacing hardcopy references with URLs to online versions on Google Books. While I certainly don't object to the facilitation of online access the problem with Google Books is that i) it is geo-blocked in some parts of the world and ii) if Google loses the rights to preview these books we have then lost the references completely. If we already have the hardcopy links with page numbers these should be preserved so that the content is always verifiable. I am not asking to remove the online references, but I would appreciate it if he would restore the hardcopy references (with page numbers) so we have permanent referencing. Betty Logan (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a dilemma. I'm not a great fan of using print editions of books as sources, because if you don't own or have access to the books it's impossible to verify what they say. Google Books isn't ideal either due to the potential copyright issues and geoblocking. The best solution would be to give both.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. Online is better for access but the print references are better for permanent verifiability. Betty Logan (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mauro Lanari: Thanks for adding the page numbers back. I appreciate it. Betty Logan (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I've just updated these to be full references, and references to the print edition at that. Per WP:BOOKLINKS, links to Google Books are explicitly allowed—encouraged, even—and in no case does a citation with an accurate ISBN *and* a GB link detract from any reader's ability to locate a print edition of the book in question… If anything, the link enhances the citation by allowing the majority of our readers to instantly locate and read the passage in which the cited sentence appears (and in some cases the whole page). (I'd argue that this guideline should be updated to stipulate that for digitised public-domain books, links to full versions elsewhere [i.e. archive.org or similar] should be preferred over GB, but that's another conversation.) — Hugh (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hl: I was not objecting to the Google book links (I have no problem with them), I was explicitly objecting to—and only objecting to—the removal of the page numbers that was part of the original edit. If the GB link dies (or the link is geo bloked) then removing the page numbers removes an essential part of the citation if all you have is hardcopy access. Mauro restored the page numbers and the GB links stayed in the article so this is pretty much a resolved discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Google Books links are useless if you remove links to pages like you did. Vandalism in good faith (almost an oxymoron). --Mauro Lanari (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Kubrick's 1980 interview about the film's ending

It is interesting to hear Kubrick (albeit at the other end of a telephone) explaining the film's ending.[3] The explanation that he gives is basically the same as the one that Arthur C. Clarke gives in the novel, so it is not quite a revolutionary new theory.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the typos in my edit summary about this interview just now. It should read: ”→‎Interpretation: rv bare reference to interview that has no summary of its actual content. Will move this to ext refs. Also, there seems to be ref to a 1980 interview with SK above in aliens section)” Thanks, Markhh (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, some people have questioned whether this interview is genuine and asked why it has only just turned up. Jun’ichi Yaoi was making a documentary about the production of The Shining at Elstree, and somehow got to speak to Kubrick on the phone. Many people tried to do this over the years and failed. According to this source, the VHS was auctioned on eBay in 2016. There is more 2001 material in the 1 hour 24 minute documentary, with Vivian Kubrick showing Jun’ichi Yaoi some of the 10 by 8 inch transparencies used for the backgrounds in the Dawn of Man sequence.[4] The whole documentary is worth watching and contains material that could be used in other Kubrick articles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

There is another Kubrick interview from 1969 in which he gives a similar explanation, see this source (searching for 'zoo' brings up the relevant part) - note source already used to support meaning of HAL's breakdown.

Proposal rename the subsection "A new heaven" to Ending. Move this paragraph into the newly renamed Ending section (from section Writing > Depiction of alien life):

In an 1980 interview unreleased during Kubrick's lifetime, Kubrick states that the symbolism in one of the closing scenes of the film where Bowman is depicted in old age after his journey through the Star Gate as having been placed, by something equivalent to "god-like entities", into a decorative hotel suite which Kubrick states is more-or-less a menagerie for the purposes of these "god-like entities". As Kubrick states in the interview: "The idea was supposed to be that he is taken in by god-like entities, creatures of pure energy and intelligence with no shape or form. They put him in what I suppose you could describe as a human zoo to study him, and his whole life passes from that point on in that room. And he has no sense of time. It just seems to happen as it does in the film." In the interview, Kubrick states that Bowman is then transformed into the Star Child by the "god-like entities" before they return him as the Star Child to earth as the choice of his destiny by these entities following this traditional myth-like transformation.

Jonpatterns (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo and Diego Moya: The above discussion regarding where to put Kubrick's explanation of the ending scene may be of interest to you. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

There is now added a short adjustment to that section which may be useful. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Music

"The initial MGM soundtrack album release [...] used a different recording of "Also sprach Zarathustra" (performed by the Berlin Philharmonic conducted by Herbert von Karajan) from that heard in the film". According to the Wikipedia page for the soundtrack album, that release used the Deutsche Grammophon recording of the Berlin Philharmonic conducted by Karl Böhm. That page also states that the album was released in 1968. The earliest Berlin Philharmonic recording conducted by Karajan was taped in 1973 and released in 1974. So neither the film nor the LP can have used a recording of Also sprach Zarathustra by the Berlin Philharmonic conducted by Herbert von Karajan. The film is widely reported to use the Decca recording of the Vienna Philharmonic conducted by Karajan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.99.225.54 (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Interesting point. Discogs (which is usually reliable) says "The first releases didn't include the version of "Also Sprach Zarathustra" by Herbert von Karajan with the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra that was featured in film (the Decca company, owner of the recording, didn't want to get related with film and gave permission to use it with the condition of not being credited). Instead of it, the original soundtrack album included a Deutsche Grammophon recording by Karl Böhm with the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra."[5] This means that Karajan's version isn't on the original 1968 soundtrack album, but he did record a version for Decca with the Vienna Philharmonic in 1959.[6] I'm guessing that this is the version that is actually used in the film. Karl Böhm recorded the piece with the Berlin Philharmonic in 1958 and 1962, and Karajan did not record it with the BPO until 1973, as you say. So I think that the article is wrong/wrongly worded here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This is from the 1968 vinyl release from the recording of the soundtrack which reads as:

Richard Strauss - Also Sprach Zarathustra (Thus Spake Zarathustra)

Conductor - Karl Böhm

Featuring - Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra*

György Ligeti - Requiem For Soprano, Mezzo-Soprano, 2 Mixed Choirs And Orchestra

Conductor - Francis Travis

Featuring - Bavarian Radio Orchestra*

György Ligeti - Lux Aeterna

Conductor - Clytus Gottwald

Featuring - Stuttgart Schola Cantorum*

Johann Strauss* - The Blue Danube

Conductor - Herbert von Karajan

Featuring - Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra*

Aram Khatchaturian - Gayne Ballet Suite (Adagio)

Conductor - Gennadi Rozhdestvensky

That should be enough to add some clarification for both here and on the main article for the music of the film. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. On a slightly different note, György Ligeti was initially annoyed to find that his work had been used and modified in 2001 without his permission.[7] 2001 made Ligeti world famous (and subsequently well paid), but he sued Kubrick and settled out of court.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

"Handwritten Cutting Plan by Stanley Kubrick"

This was added today in this edit. It's a bit puzzling due to the scant information given by the uploader on Commons about its original source.[8] Two obvious questions spring to mind here: a) how do we know this is a genuine document in Kubrick's handwriting? b) how do we know if it is Creative Commons licensed? I have asked Joho345 about this on his talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It needs to be deleted from this article and the Commons. It has been uploaded under a Commons licence on the pretext that it is the uploader's own work. Now, if it truly is the uploader's own work then presenting it as Kubrick's work is misrepresentation. If it really is Kubrick's work then it is most likely under copyright of his estate and the Commons licence is invalid. Betty Logan (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Well it is from the exibition 2001 in Frankfurt in the Film Museum Frankfurt 2018. I took the photo There, so it is my own work.Joho345

This would make it a derivative work. I'm not a copyright fusspot, but this image would have dubious status on Commons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• I've removed this because of the copyright status. Also, it isn't discussed in the text of the article, so there is a lack of background detail about what it explains. The exhibition in Frankfurt is mentioned here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

"slightly fag robots"

I gave up on editing Wikipedia years ago, due to the politics and juvenile chatter. However I've noticed that this quote has been in the 2001 article for years.

The citation references nothing and is not searchable. Can someone confirm it?

Granted, Mr. Kubrick was gay and lived in a world of homophobia. However even if it were true, I don't think that retaining this quote, in the article of arguably one of the greatest movies of all time - is appropriate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.209.231 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The phrase "slightly fag robots" comes from Clarke and was used in his The Lost Worlds of 2001 in 1972. Quote "October 17. Stanley has invented the wild idea of slightly fag robots who create a Victorian environment to put our heroes at their ease."[9] Two points here. Firstly, Wikipedia is not censored. It isn't a social sciences course which tries to rewrite the past to fit the standards of the present or avoid giving offence at all costs. Secondly, the idea that Kubrick was gay is unsourced and speculative.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Ian. If some other adjective was being used we wouldn't be having this discussion. The only reason we are discussing it now is because it is offensive by modern conventions. It is not our place to issue judgment on the past, just to document it. Who knows how we will all be judged 50 years from now? Betty Logan (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Does Arthur C. Clarke's opinion on unseen robots' sexuality even add anything to the article, though? Sephiroth1337 (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Clarke isn't really discussing the sexuality of the robots, he is disparaging Kubrick's concept, which on balance is probably relevant. Betty Logan (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think he's disparaging Kubrick's concept, just characterising it. I also that the English Public School meaning of the word fag is likely, as mentioned below. Jonpatterns (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The "public school" explanation is certainly very plausible. It would be great if we could find a source to clarify what he actually meant. Betty Logan (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I’m no expert on British public school culture, but wasn’t a “fag” a student from a lower form who ran errands and polished the shoes of the older students? Maybe a robot that looks after the space crew struck Mr. Clarke as being in that tradition? Since Mr. Clarke hails from that world?Markhh (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

In British English, a fag can be "A junior pupil at a public school who does minor chores for a senior pupil."[10] It's unclear if Clarke meant this, but the Clarke quote is an interesting piece of insight into how the film was made. Initially, Bowman and Poole see HAL as a rather bland and subservient figure, like Jeeves the butler. It is only much later that they realise that HAL has been watching them closely and thinking of ways to kill them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

4K video release

Re this edit: at the time of writing, the release has delayed until November 20, 2018. The review makes clear that the 4K video release is not based on Christopher Nolan's 70mm print, and has been supervised by Ned Price at Warner Bros and Leon Vitali. Some people had assumed that the 4K release would be based on the Nolan print, but it is not. The source says "It’s very important to note here that this is most assuredly not the Christopher Nolan “unrestored” presentation of the film. It has, in fact, been properly restored using state-of-the-art digital tools and properly color-timed as well, a process supervised by Vitali."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

"Space Odyssey helps launch first 8K TV channel"

This is in the news today. 8K resolution video is still experimental in most countries, but Japan is ahead of the game. I wasn't sure if this was notable enough for a mention here, but it might be at 8K resolution.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 14:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

---

• 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) → 2001: A Space Odyssey
• 2001: A Space Odyssey → 2001: A Space Odyssey (story)

– Since people already know firsthand that 2001: A Space Odyssey is a film (or, at least, so Uncle Google tells them), the designation "film" is rather redundant, in my opinion. So I hereby propose the name changes. Thank you for your consideration. Angga (formerly Angga1061) 14:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed rename 2001: A Space Odyssey (story) does not accurately describe the article at 2001: A Space Odyssey, nor has the proposer presented any evidence that 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. While I suspect it probably is I think the status quo of retaining 2001: A Space Odyssey as a broad-concept article is a better approach. All the articles that have claim to the title (see 2001: A Space Odyssey (disambiguation)) relate to the same topic, so on that basis I think the main page name should be kept as a WP:DABCONCEPT. Betty Logan (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: We've only just finished a similar debate at The Shining which led to a WP:SNOW oppose rejecting this argument. This is another poorly thought out move request for the same reasons that were given in that debate. Wiki policy is to use clear disambigs in the article title when it exists in more than one form. Kubrick's film is famous, but 2001: A Space Odyssey (novel) by Arthur C. Clarke is notable in its own right. Wikipedia article titles are not driven by the top hit in a Google search.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support since it seems to meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in both regards -- usage and long-term significance. I opposed a move at the recent The Shining RM discussion because in terms of usage, the film had only a factor of 3 in terms of page views compared to the novel, and having worked on and read coverage about Stephen King's works, I found the book to have some weight in long-term significance (though I don't doubt that the film beats out the book). In the case of 2001, for page views, film vs. novel shows a factor of over 10, and I do not find the novel to have much long-term significance. To show what I mean, Google Scholar shows Clarke's novel being referenced 16 times, where King's novel is referenced 141 + 18 times (seeing two book listings there). Betty Logan, ianmacm, thoughts on this? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  To clarify, I am aware that the current page is a broad-concept article with the novel article already existing. I am essentially saying that the film should be the primary topic here. I do not have strong feelings on sorting out the secondary topics. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  The film and the book were developed in conjunction with each other as a body of work, therefore they do not exist independently of each other and neither does their notability. They were both produced from the collaboration between Kubrick and Clarke. In fact, it is difficult to discuss the development of either work without discussing the other. That is why I regard this as a "broad concept" topic and I think the focus of the article at 2001: A Space Odyssey should be the collaboration. I am willing to take it on good faith that the film is more famous but I find it difficult to envisage sources that discuss the film in depth ignoring the book, and vice versa. I am not categorically saying that the film isn't the primary topic, but no evidence has been forward here. Because the notability of the film and the book is so intertwined I doubt page views and Google hits tell the full story. Betty Logan (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  I agree that they were developed in conjunction, though that does indicate that the novel did not have a pre-film claim to fame. I do agree that coverage discussing the film's making will bring up the book, but going beyond that, in terms of themes and analysis, I'm not so convinced that the book is as prevalent in such commentary. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  As I've said, Google hits and page views aren't the main guide for this sort of situation. Steven Spielberg's film of Jaws is probably more famous than Peter Benchley's novel, but there is still a disambig for both on Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  Why do you say it is not the main guide? I also discussed long-term significance as part of this. Furthermore, I am not sure if Jaws is a good example because jaw is the primary topic here, and the disambiguation page jaws lists all topics that have "jaw" or "jaws". If the Jaws film and novel were titled something unique, then I would probably make the same argument as above with these (unless the novel surprises me with proof of long-term significance on its own). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose moves. I don't see any evidence the film is the primary topic. This is basically a repeat of The Shining RM. ONR (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  Actually, I've just seen The Shining RM, but it's a different case because, as pointed out by Betty (and the article of the novel itself), the novel was developed "concurrently" with the film itself, and was published after the film. I think the best article to use as a precedence is The Godfather—except for the fact that the novel predated the film. —Angga (formerly Angga1061) 17:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose While the book and movie were developed concurrently, they are different, and there were arguments around the differences. Each stands alone, although many of us needed Clarke to help interpret Kubrick. The article 2001: A Space Odyssey ends up being an extended disambiguation page, and imparts a more natural balance than the proposal to grant supremacy to the movie. That Clarke did pull back the curtain might have annoyed Kubrick who liked ambiguity. These days Clarke's 2001 is referenced far less than Kubrick. But a whole lot of folk bought the book and read it more than once to try to grasp Kubrick's story, and many more read borrowed copies, something not reflected in the sales statistics. Ultimately, both men were able to console themselves all the way to the bank. -- GeeBee60 (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  "...These days Clarke's 2001 is referenced far less than Kubrick..." So per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the novel does not have long-term significance like the film does. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 10:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  My observation that the book is referenced less often than the movie is hardly an authoritative statement. Attending 2001 this year at a 50 year anniversary screening, there were maybe a dozen folk in the theater, not exactly an enormous turnout. At its best, the film remains striking. But there are errors that flabbergast me now, and predictions that I absolutely believed in 1968 but that now I must accept as badly dated -- as predictions typically are. There are lots of old movies with big followings. I'm not sure this is one of them, except when acknowledging the impact it has had. -- GeeBee60 (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• 2001: A Space Odyssey is an unexpected page. Is it like a WP:DABCONCEPT? Clarkefreak (talk · contribs) created it as a DAB page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• SmokeyJoe, agree. To make it a little less surprising I added images of the novel cover and the film's poster, with linked captions, and other edits. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose While the movie is more well-known, I think that both the movie and the novel are significant and will be searched for, so the movie is not necessarily the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In any case, I agree with SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) that 2001: A Space Odyssey seems like a descriptive WP:DABCONCEPT about the general narrative and different versions of 2001. The contents of this page do not fit a move to 2001: A Space Odyssey (story) because the article is not entirely about the overarching story, and the disambiguator "story" is unclear as it may seem to refer to the novel. The current setup may be alright considering that as per WP:DABCONCEPT, the article 2001: A Space Odyssey does seem to be a concept that can be described in an article and the Main article links are all related to the concept.ChromeGames923 (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose because I agree with what was said above about this being a WP:DABCONCEPT, although I do find the lead section confusing! — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors📽️🌼🗨️💬 19:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A British film?

Don’t think 2001 counts as a fully British film since (as stated in the article) it was financed by MGM, an American film company. Bob3458 (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The second para in the lede clarifies why it's considered a Brit film: 2001: A Space Odyssey was financed and distributed by American studio Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, but filmed and edited almost entirely in England, where Kubrick lived, using the facilities of MGM-British Studios and Shepperton Studios. Production was subcontracted to Kubrick's production company, and care was taken that the film would be sufficiently "British" to qualify for the Eady Levy, a UK tax on box-office receipts. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, I'm wondering if this article should be subject to an Engvar review - Clarke was British, 2001 was filmed at Shepperton in England, and Kubrick although American-born, moved to England in 1961 where he spent the rest of his life - including the part which involved this film. I propose that as per WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN it's converted to BR-Eng. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Bob3458. Kubrick had MGM outsource the film to MGM British so it would qualify for the Eady Levy, but that is essentially no different to what Disney does with the new Star Wars films to take advantage of the Film Tax Relief fund (and how the British chancellor George Osborne laughably ended up credited as a "producer" on The Force Awakens). These films are basically pseudo-British: yes, they qualify as British under UK tax law and EU co-production treaties—and they are British made—but they remain at their core Hollywood satellite productions bankrolled by major Hollywood studios. It's worth nothing that the British and American Film Institutes along with the European Audiovisual Observatory all regard 2001 as an international co-production between the two countries. The bottom line is that the film simply wouldn't exist in the form it does without the participation of the two film industries and that probably should be reflected in the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree with Betty's comments above; the film is a joint UK/US production. David J Johnson (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Always use secondary sources re: Country: UK | USA[11][12][13][14]. WP:FILMLEAD - "If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section.". It seems pretty clear per policy and guidelines. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

We've had this debate before. MGM financed the film, but had to make sure that a significant part of the film was made in Britain and with British people in order to qualify for the Eady Levy, which says "To qualify as a British film a minimum of 85% of the film had to be shot in the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth, and only three non-British individual salaries could be excluded from the costs of the film, ensuring the employment of British actors, technicians and film crew." Therefore I don't dispute that this is a UK/US produced film. It's also unlikely that the film would have been made in the way that it was without the Eady Levy. Shooting began in December 1965, and MGM studio bosses became increasingly annoyed with Kubrick when the production schedule dragged on through 1967 with no release date in sight. If 2001 had been shot on a Hollywood sound stage, it is quite likely that Kubrick would have been replaced and his wishes for the film overridden, as happened to Orson Welles with The Magnificent Ambersons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Interpretations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Extended content

You're going to have to find refs for these, assuming they exist; they probably don't. I have no faith in 'credible' sources: Some are controversial, but incontrovertibly true; there is no subjective meaning. Art is for the most part objective. Thus Spake Zarathustra's most famous quote is 'God is dead! You have killed him!', which is the primary theme of this film; The death of God, but also the God of death. The monolith is pictured floating off into space in the end, symbolizing mankind's rejection of God, as the concept has become unnecessary, and even an obstacle to further evolution. This is also evidenced in the 'star-child' or ubermensch, when mankind surpasses its current limitations. God was unnecessary for Nietzsche. HAL 9000 is a machine-God (Deus ex Machina); seemingly infallible, and does not tell lies. Ironically, both are false in the film and in reality, as pertaining to deities. HAL's original pre-production name was Athena. The Monolith is God. HAL 9000's lens/camera/'eye' (the 'all-seeing eye', the third eye of Zeus, etc...) is embedded within a monolith, and in one scene reflected in Dave's eye. Gods and eyes are often metaphorically compared to stars. Light is a communications medium (especially in space), and in ancient theories the eyes actually emitted light, which was reflected back. The eye is a receiver, while the sun is a trans/emitter. The Monolith also represents space and the human soul - as black as it is - and the marble from which they are cut; the sculptor and the stone, created in God's image (the God of death). Likewise, HAL's lens appears almost identical to the sun or a star in several scenes, surrounded by the blackness of space. In another, the sun appears above the monolith while looking from below, making it appear like a pyramid; the 'all-seeing eye'. God is a tool. In some sense, for human evolution, in another, used by mankind as justification for wars or propaganda; both thematically relevant. Jupiter is a Roman god. Daisy refers to Aster Amellus/Michaelmas, referenced in Virgil's Aeneid (Roman Odyssey). Genus Aster is 'star'. In terms of flower symbolism it means goodbye/farewell. Michelangelo's painting 'David', in 2 juxtaposed scenes at the foot and side of the bed, symbolizing how space is 'so close yet so far away', which also represents mankind's relation to God. There are statues of Roman/Greek goddesses, and the sky is inverted through the imagery of a lit floor. Dave is also short for David. If you still doubted the monolith is God, here is the monolith in the place of God in Michelangelo's painting. Death is a major theme; the death of God, death of HAL, death of the planet/environment, death of the protagonist. Space is death; cold, dark, empty, bleak, lonely, without form or void, and does not transmit sound. You cannot breathe in space either. Several paintings in the final scenes contain images of death. Lack of communication is a theme; the breakdown of the communications array, lack of speech, lack of a medium to transmit sound. Noise, either static or high-frequency, is what arises when a mob of people cannot discuss a topic using common sense; it often occurs on the internet and is sometimes used to drown out true/valid statements; sometimes a form of propaganda. Blue Danube is a waltz, hence why everything is always spinning. It also symbolizes the 'blue marble' in the scenes of Earth, which appears as one giant ocean with no apparent land mass. Possible environmental catastrophe related to nuclear fallout. The 'star gate' actually contains mostly images with water. 'The burning sun' is an epithet of Zeus and also a metaphor for nuclear weapons, as stars/suns are nuclear fusion reactors. In the final scenes, Dave only wishes to return to earth (Odyssey parallels), while his death flashes before his eyes. Thus what is described as a 'laboratory' is actually a dream sequence. Kubrick lied to you, and everyone ate it up, like the apes. Mankind is compared to apes when Dave only eats the meat off his plate. The film actually does not glorify space travel, but in fact paints a very dystopian picture of it; see comments above re: 'space is death'. In the final scene, the 'star-child' is focused squarely on planet earth, which is where we should be focused, not out into space (Odyssey parallels). There are multiple references/parallels to the song 'The Sound of Silence' by Simon and Garfunkel: "Hello darkness, my old friend", a HALo, The Neon God (TV/computers), signs flashing warning, "people talking without speaking"/"hearing without listening". Instructions are a common theme: The bible is a set of instructions, the monolith provides instructions, HAL does too. There are toilet instructions (imposed on a black rectangular slab), revival instructions, and TVs/computers/news media provide the masses with 'programming instructions' (propaganda). One might even be inclined to believe the Monolith represents a sort of bible as it is also rectangular in shape and has depth. You can complain all you want about 'OR'; all is verifiable, but the fact most of this information is not compiled in some place in the public domain is rather disturbing. 142.113.114.180 (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC) You really sum it up yourself. This is all Original Research. You say "all is verifiable" - and that's the crux of the matter. If you can find multiple reliable sources to corroborate any of the above you might be able to make a case for inclusion. But I have to say from reading it that it all looks pretty tenuous and more of a college essay than a serious entry. I also don't think you're starting off on the right foot by proudly declaring that you "have no faith in 'credible' sources" - unfortunately, that's what Wikipaedia requires for inclusion. Finally, it's not us who will have to find sources for inclusion, but you. If you want the above added, prove to the community that it's valid. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC) Kubrick never disapproved of people coming up with their own interpretations of his films. The problem on Wikipedia would be original research. Another problem is that Room 237 put forward interpretations of The Shining that were dismissed by Kubrick's assistant Leon Vitali as "total balderdash". Vitali also said "[Kubrick] didn’t tell an audience what to think or how to think and if everyone came out thinking something differently that was fine with him. That said, I’m certain that he wouldn’t have wanted to listen to about 70, or maybe 80 percent [of Room 237]... Because it’s pure gibberish."--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC) You're interrupting me, do you mind? I do... Also, most of what is on the page is also OR by some random critics. No, I'm not going to debate what 'OR' is either. Thanks, you caused me to revert one of my edits... Furthermore, a 'college paper' as you so sarcastically put is still better than some of the obvious 'opinions' cited on this page; but no, it's fully researched. The issue lies in your comprehension of these topics, or rather the pretentious nature of your understanding. 142.113.114.180 (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC) You're making claims, but not supporting them with reliable sources. That's all you need to do. And I wonder if you appreciate the irony in your statement "The issue lies in ... the pretentious nature of your understanding." Also, could you stop appending to your previous comments and updating the timestamp, it's confusing and will make it difficult for people to comment in chronological order. Just create new entries and indent as necessary, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC) I've already stated that doesn't interest me in the slightest. Believe it or not, I am a more reliable source than most 'credible' sources cited on Wiki. And that will be the end of the discussion. The fact that no 'credible' (according to you, because they seem incredible to me) sources exist only highlights a serious lack of reading/viewing comprehension amongst critics; nothing more. Thanks for the 'instructions', not necessary. Anyways, I think I'm done; maybe if you weren't so impatient you wouldn't have that problem. 142.113.114.180 (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC) It's not whether sources are credible to me as an individual, but credible to Wikipedia as an entity. That's the understanding you lack. Assuming that you're now not trolling with your various statements I suggest you read a few topics such as WP:RELIABLE, WP:IDHT and of course WP:OR. I don't think you're going to get any support from other editors with your current attitude. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC) I know what those are, as I already stated they are useless. Have a look at some of my ancient anonymous comments for pages on Plato's Republic, Goethe's Faust, Shakespeare's Hamlet, and others (which I will not mention here). Those pages are completely INcredible. I gave up on fixing them long ago, since no 'credible' sources exist. I simply don't care; many 'professionals' are in fact fools. Anyways, this conversation is without substance; futile endeavor. I should further clarify - for the record - never believe an author; I've found they will often lie to the audience intentionally to conceal the truth, especially concerning controversial topics. Nietzsche once said, if you didn't already understand him before reading his books, then you probably never will. 142.113.114.180 (talk)

Rolling this up based on a severe case of WP:IDHT, or possibly a perversion of WP:IDONTLIKEIT - whatever it is, it's clearly not helpful to improving the encyclopedia.Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

This is just blatant censorship; and a severe case of 'I can't comprehend this, so it must be nonsense'. "Fools said I, you do not know, silence like a cancer grows" - "And the people bowed and prayed to the Neon God they made (Wiki)". 142.113.114.180 (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

It's borderline trolling, as you know that this has zero chance of being added to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

It's obvious religious bias on your part, as for the other individual, 10 years, empty page 27k edits on video games, popular fiction and sex apparel; say a lot. 142.112.129.74 (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

52.210.130.229 Whichever one of you this is, please stop looking for open ports. It traces to Ireland, so It's apparently you. I'm a network engineer/sysadmin. Why AWS though? Not sure... unless you're using a hosted service. Highly suspicious though. 142.112.129.74 (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Surely it's the quality of edits, not where they have been made that's important? After all, it's how yours are being judged? Not sure what you mean by "empty page", but not all of us feel the need to populate userspace with barnstars, badges and userboxes, and instead let their edits speak for themselves - and as you point out 27,000 edits over 10 years and 34,000 over 13 years for Ianmacm say that we probably know what we're talking about in the realms of Wikipedia - regardless of the articles edited.

I'm closing this discussion under WP:DONOTFEED and WP:CLOSE, specifically "When further contributions are unlikely to be helpful" Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dawn of Man sequence

Re this edit: The 1965 screenplay [15] and Clarke's novel both say that this sequence is set in Africa. The backgrounds are photos of the Namib desert. The 1965 screenplay also uses the words "tribe" and "man-apes". While the 1965 screenplay is not the final version, it does contain more detail than Kubrick's somewhat obtuse filming of it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree - all the screenplays I can find start with the text:

TITLE PART I AFRICA 3,000,000 YEARS AGO

VIEWS OF AFRICAN DRYLANDS - DROUGHT

Also, the introductory text for the apes says:

The tribe had always been hungry,

I would support reversion of the edit in question, it's good faith, but no improvement. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The 1965 screenplay is not considered to be the final word, as it differs significantly in places from the finished film. However, I am satisfied that Kubrick and Clarke intended the Dawn of Man sequence to be set in Africa, as this is where humans evolved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I generally agree, but if we are are drawing interpretations from the script then technically that should be sourced, because we are not deriving the summary completely from what we see on screen. Betty Logan (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The novelisation also sets the scene in Africa - "Here on the Equator, in the continent which would one day be known as Africa, the battle for existence had reached a new climax of ferocity", "For the first time - and the last, for three million years - the sound of drumming was heard in Africa" and "A new animal was abroad on the planet, spreading slowly out from the African heartland". I agree that it's not explicitly stated in the film to be Africa, but it's also pretty evident that it's not happening in Bournemouth. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

No dissenting opinion, so I'm being bold and restoring the original content. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Dates

There has been another alteration to the dating used in the film. In the discussion at Talk:2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)/Archive_10#The_Orion-III_spaceplane an editor stated that 1999 was given in the film for the discovery of the monolith on the moon. This is incorrect: I have just checked this myself and Floyd clearly states "18 months ago". There is no date given (as far as I am aware) in this sequence besides HAL's activation date in 1992. However, Floyd does state the monolith is "four million years old".

It is not possible to pin the dates down exactly. We know that the prehistoric events take place 4 million years ago according to the dialogue in the film, and the space age part of the plot must take place after 1990 using HAL's activation date (and another segment of dialogue which states the events on the moon took place 18 months earlier). That said I think it is useful to give the reader a general timeframe reference because "millions of years later" could mean 20th century, 21st century, 23rd century, or even 30th century, and there is obviously the world of difference between the technology of 2001: A Space Odyssey and Star Trek. In view of this I have implemented the following edit: [16].

If editors are not happy with this alteration then please comment here so we can hammer out a solution. Betty Logan (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your post Betty Logan. I think your solution is reasonable but this has always been tricky. There are WP:OR and WP:SYNTH implications. Part of that is due to differences between the book and the film. Even the use of a specific year in title comes into play :-) If it were me I would not mention a date at all but that is just my opinion. MarnetteD|Talk 23:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I do understand where you are coming from, but I think we need to give some sort of timeframe for the plot. If you take away the title and the book we do have one hard date in the film: 1992. Everything else is referenced from onscreen events e.g. 4 millions years old, 18 months ago etc. So we do know that when we talk about "four million years later" we are some time in the future after 1990, and it would be helpful to include that in the plot summary; that is no more OR than any other plot element. I think it is important to convey that this is a futuristic sci-fi film and not some Victorian style steam punk. If you haven't seen the film this isn't immediately clear from the plot summary. It is also important to distinguish that this isn't Star Trek or Buck Rogers in a future we will never live to see. The majority of people who watched this film in theaters in the late 60s will still be alive today. We know from HAL's operation date this film either takes place in the 1990s or very early in the 21st century (after all you wouldn't fit a new spaceship with a 1990s computer now, and it is pretty clear that HAL is still in the experimental stages). This is all information that is given to us directly through dialogue in the film itself. We don't need to say this happens in 1999, and this other bit in 2001, but just pinpointing the timeframe within a decade or two gives the reader a frame of reference for onscreen events. Betty Logan (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I am one of those people who saw it in 1968 and it was a true cinematic event :-) It was also a time when we felt there would be a colony on the moon by 2001 - sadly that future went awry along the way :-( Again, I find your reasoning sound and I'm glad it is here for future readers and editors. MarnetteD|Talk 01:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I bet it was incomparable to any cinematic event you'd get today. It's depressing that the possibilities depicted in the film seem further away now than they did in 1968! Betty Logan (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

+1. We know that the only actual year mentioned in the film's screenplay and dialogue is 1992, when HAL became operational. Exact dates for the excavation of the monolith, the Discovery mission etc are not available. If it weren't for the fact that the film is called 2001, it would be hard to say when these things were happening.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you not think it would be useful to the reader to narrow down the timeframe a bit? "Millions of years" is very vague; it's literally meaningless without a reference point. In fact, only one date is given in the entire film: 1992. Would you object to that date being added to plot summary for HAL's activation? That would at least contextualise the timeframe a bit. Betty Logan (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm worried about the element of WP:OR. All we really know is that the action takes place some time after 1992, and it is hard to pin down exact dates other than that.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not really OR if you just state the computer was activated in 1992. You can leave it to the reader's own common sense that you wouldn't use a 50 year-old computer on a spaceship, but it provides a frame of reference for the era the bulk of the action takes place in. Betty Logan (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

With regard to "narrowing down the timeframe" - I've always thought (OR Ahoy!) that the very vagueness was intentional, in order to highlight the vastness of time involved. Anything other than that would be a bit pedantic - "three million, four hundred thousand and twelve years ago..." The greater the timescale, the less important it is to be specific. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the prehistoric timescale largely doesn't matter, but I think there is a huge difference between 1992, 2100, 3000 etc in terms of the "contemporary" events. They didn't have to include a specific activation date for HAL, either, but they did, so there seems to be a conscious effort to depict 1990s technology and timestamp it. The film emerged at the same time as Star Trek, but the technology is completely different. Betty Logan (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

My personal preference is not to give or imply any dates for the excavation on the Moon or the Discovery sequence. This is partly because of WP:OR, and because the mission to Jupiter takes place over a long period of time. Since Clarke and Kubrick have deliberately left out the dates, I don't think we should fill them in.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:33, 24 August 2019 (U3TC)

I hardly remember a time I've disagreed with Betty but I have to lean towards Ian's view here. Regardless of Hal's activation date I think we can reasonably surmise that Discovery's journey is the odyssey of the title and hence takes place in 2001, making the Moon sequence in 1999, 18 months earlier, but that's still OR. Given the date in the title though, I really don't think we need offer even approximate dates in the synopsis -- we already know that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Following the above comments related to tool use in humans. In reading the 2018 book on the making of this film, there was an extensive discussion of the costume design for the apelike hominins, which had to be for pre-language hominins, and for hominins which were just making the transition to the first use of tools. As the article for tool use on Wikipedia states, "...a 2010 study suggests the hominin species Australopithecus afarensis ate meat by carving animal carcasses with stone implements. This finding pushes back the earliest known use of stone tools among hominins to about 3.4 million years ago." Also, agreement with Ian above that the date "2001" is the central one for Kubrick and Clarke, along with its central importance to the plot. CodexJustin (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Expansion

Box Office and Home media need to be expanded as well I think. I' see what I can find.Timur9008 (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The exhaustive list of home media releases were just trimmed to the essential three. It had previously gone over half a dozen which seemed excessive. Any new box office info is useful if we have reliable sources for updates. CodexJustin (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

There really isn't much detail about box-office available (Box Office Mojo only tracks the US release and The Numbers only has the very early foreign rental figure) but I have managed to streamline the chronology of its box-office. Betty Logan (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

On another note that $12 million budget figure looks anomalous. Pretty much every figure I have ever comes across lists it in the $10–11 million range. There is a bit of variation but not much. I would say that is the likely range. Betty Logan (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The hollywood reporter may&should have something. I'll have to look deeper though.Timur9008(talk) 9:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Preparing for FA nomination

@Ian Rose, Ianmacm, Betty Logan, Ylee, and David J Johnson: Pinging top five active editors concerning thoughts for preparing for FAC. I've just done another read through of 2001 and it looks like its ready for FAC. It would be useful to hear if any of the top active editors might have time available for the FAC edits, etc. Please contact anyone I may be overlooking. Article is looking fairly good and is getting more attention now with the opening of Ad Astra (film). CodexJustin (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Citation cleanup

The citations need major cleanup before it can pass FAC. Plain-text short citations like "Bizony 2001" and "Walker 2000" need to be converted to use {{sfn}}. Many citations are missing page numbers. Many citations are not using citation templates. Some citations list a full name instead of Last, First. Some citation elements are written in ALL CAPS when they should use normal case. Full references that do not use CS1 templates like {{cite web}} need to be converted to do so. I did a little cleanup, but the article's main contributors should do a thorough tidying of the references. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Based on a request on my talk page, I have begun reference cleanup. There is a LOT of cleanup needed to get this to FA quality. I have added many "page needed" templates and many "date needed" templates to citations, along with a few HTML comments where further work is needed. All of these things will need to be sorted by editors with access to sources (many of which are on the web) and a willingness to do some research. I have some more reference tidying to do, but editors are welcome to jump in and start filling in the blanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Attention all WP:CITEVAR enthusiasts: My plan is to convert all {{sfn}} cites to {{harvnb}} cites so that they will be consistent in their punctuation and so that the code is easier to read. Some current harv cites are used in-line, within text, inside <ref>...</ref> tags. Sfn cites are stand-alone and include their own <ref>...</ref> tags, so I think that converting to harvnb cites is the best option overall if we are choosing one for consistency. I am open to other options; your input is welcome; if you want to object on CITEVAR grounds and propose a better alternative, please do so before I put a bunch of work into the article. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe that the citation cleanup is done. Thanks to CodexJustin for doing a bunch of legwork to find dates for sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Epilogue of interest?

FWIW - seems a possibly relevant scene, entitled "2001: A Space Odyssey, The Frank Poole Epilogue" (3:31), has been created that may (or may not) be of interest - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

References

It's interesting to watch, and it looks like it may be a showreel to act as a demo of Begg's work. It doesn't seem to have any official endorsement.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

It might be added to the Popular culture sibling article, it looks a little like an afterthought when compared to the Star Gate sequence in the film. CodexJustin (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Removed nom

@CodexJustin: I've removed the FAC nomination as unprepared. Since your last nomination was closed for the same reason, please carefully review WP:WIAFA before re-nomination. Uncited text isn't allowed at all in Featured articles so that's a big one to address before you try again. I strongly suggest taking advantage of the mentorship program mentioned on WP:FAC and working with an editor who's experienced at bringing film articles through the process. --Laser brain (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Baroque?

The last paragraph of the plot section begins with the sentence "Bowman finds himself in a bedroom appointed in the Baroque style." The room in which Bowman finds himself is done in much more of a Neoclassical style — very lightly colored; almost but not quite white; lots of straight lines; panels of the walls and ceiling are modestly trimmed and contain lots of flat, unadorned, empty space that suggest a certain restraint. The Baroque style would be much more ornate with lots of intricate detail. I would expect to see lots of carved vines, leaves, almonds, etc. — much of it gilded. That would be particularly true of the furniture, which, except for the actual tabletop, would have hardly a single smooth surface anywhere. It would all be much more flashy, even downright gaudy, by comparison. In fact, the word was originally applied pejoratively in the mid-to-late 18th century to what was by then perceived to be the excessive, tasteless, tackiness of the previous century.

If there are no objections, I propose to change the sentence in question to "Bowman finds himself in a brightly illuminated bedroom appointed in a Neoclassical style." Beetfarm Louie (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Whatever, the style of the room needs to be reliably sourced. As mentioned in a previous talk page thread, Kubrick said in a 1969 interview that what has happened in the final scene is that "When the surviving astronaut, Bowman, ultimately reaches Jupiter, this artifact sweeps him into a force field or star gate that hurls him on a journey through inner and outer space and finally transports him to another part of the galaxy, where he's placed in a human zoo approximating a hospital terrestrial environment drawn out of his own dreams and imagination." This source does not say that the room is neoclassical or baroque, so there is a risk of introducing original research regardless of which is chosen. What Clarke says in the novel is "This place looked like a hotel room somewhere in the United States. That did not alter the fact that in reality he must be hundreds of light-years from the Solar System." Again, this doesn't give the exact style of the room. TBH, it would make sense not to say "the room has X architectural style, unless there is a specific cite supporting it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

In Agel's book, a script labels it a "Hotel Bedroom" without any characterization of its style, although Baroque is a good surmise, as it's a very fancy bedroom, especially for some American astronaut to be thinking of as a comfortable home. I once got the impression that the styling was due to the fact that the aliens were at such a distance that insight to Earth humans' tastes in interior decor post-18th-century hadn't reached them yet. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The main reason for this edit is that the exact style of the room is not of key importance, and WP:OR should be avoided. If you asked me to imagine what a hotel room looks like, it probably wouldn't be like the one that Bowman finds himself in at the end of the film. What sort of hotels does Bowman visit if he thinks that hotel rooms look like this? Maybe he once visited a fancy hotel suite in Las Vegas that looked like this, and the monolith found it in his mind. Kubrick can be seen shooting the hotel room scene here. One of the obvious design features of this set is the illuminated floor, which creates an eerie effect in the scene, something that Kubrick and Unsworth undoubtedly planned in advance. But surely there can't be many real life hotel rooms with illuminated floors, even in Las Vegas.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

According to this reliable source [17], the correct description should be 'neoclassical'. Adding into plot summary. CodexJustin (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)