Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Help reverting vandalism

Hi could someone more familiar with article revert the "fag" robot vandalism? (search "fag"). The original edit seems to have been a long time ago, so I couldn't find the diff for reverting.

Cheers. 125.236.176.146 (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears to have been added 24 Aug 2007 by Ian Rose, but not to be vandalism, rather a quote from Lost Worlds. Wwheaton (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the article's footnote is backing up the last 3 or for sentences, and just cites pages 31-38 of Clarke's Lost Worlds, let us be specific and note that Clarke's assertion about 'fag robots' is specifically on p.34 of that book!! As Clarke was gay himself, let us allow him the use of the word. Maybe an additional footnote would help here.

--WickerGuy (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As Arthur C Clarke was British, he could have used "fag" in its British meanings: a slang word for cigarette, or a younger pupil who does chores for older pupils at a British private school (UK meaning of "school" is for under-18s). So "fag" in this context could mean "servant-like". 213.122.2.189 (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Timing of "Dawn of Man"

In the plot section, an IP editor just changed "millions of years in the future" to "tens of thousands". I just reverted it. There are actually two reasons. If the opening "Dawn of Man" section refers to generic "homo" rather than specifically "homo sapiens", then millions is correct. The latter emerged only 200,000 years ago, but was preceded by "homo erectus" the first hominids to walk upright and to leave Africa. But the hominoid apes who encounter the monolith crouch and are obviously not even "homo erectus" which emerged 2 million(!!) years ago. Generic "Homo" (as opposed to other apes) is supposed to be 2.5 million years ago.
Clarke's novel explicitly states the encounter with the monolith was 4 million years ago, and the film's dialogue states that the moon monolith was deliberately buried at that same time. So our plot synopsis should read "millions" not "tens of thousands". Happy New Year, all!! --WickerGuy (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Playboy Interview with Kubrick

Since people are always asking about interpretations Kubrick's own are at Google Books, Kubrick Interviews , maybe should be referenced and linked in the article:

http://books.google.com/books?id=iOU9bIlnPHIC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=kubrick+2001+playboy+interview&source=web&ots=WTrU8fWDXo&sig=KA1O8Lek1w-SXLNchIGIm-bD-jk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

--aajacksoniv (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

End title music

In the film version I saw (at a college showing circa 1981), the end titles stop after a few minutes but the music (Strauss's The Blue Danube) continues to play for several minutes against a completely black screen. Perhaps this should be mentioned. (As a side note, this technique has been used in a few other films: Monty Python and the Holy Grail, The Song Remains the Same). | Loadmaster (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hal should be HAL

Just like IBM is right and Ibm is wrong. Would anyone care to fix this? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. HAL refers to the computer series, as in HAL 9000, while Hal refers to the name of the artificial intelligence program embodied in the system. The article appears pretty consistent in this regard. | Loadmaster (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I always wondered why Clarke's novel always had all caps with "HAL 9000", but referred to the onboard computer as "Hal" in lower case. A very good anthology of essays called "HAL's Legacy" with a forward by Arthur Clarke always uses "HAL" in all instances, so Clarke wasn't strict about it. Also, the official soundtrack album has a final track called "HAL 9000 dialogue montage" while the liner notes refer to the computer as "Hal" in keeping with the conventions of Clarke's novel. While I don't see direct evidence (I'm open to it) that "Hal" is the software, it does seem that the novel and soundtrack liner notes always have "HAL 9000" and "Hal" regardless of the book "HAL's Legacy". So we should probably follow the same convention. --WickerGuy (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to see HAL in all instances. I suspect Clarke used all caps in "HAL 9000" and "Hal" in other instances to draw a distinction between the series of computers and the particular entity aboard Discovery 1 (personalising 'him') - but for the average reader I think using HAL consistently probably makes more sense. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Influence / In popular culture

I believe such a section may be added to the article. I have only one example I can remember right now, but I think this film was referenced in many other films.
The example - a scene from Zoolander - see under "Parodic scenes": "The scene in which Derek and Hansel try to find Mugatu's files parodies the "dawn of man" scene from Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, even featuring the famous Also sprach Zarathustra theme."
I don't think this single case deserves a special section, I do think there might be many others. What do you think? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have seen a wide range of these from genuinely interesting ones to ones that just become bloated all out of control. IMO, there should be quite a few references that are NOT films- it should cover a wide variety of media- and there should be some sort of organizing principle of the discussion, so that parodies, tributes, and artistic influences are clearly separated, and each sub-category kept small. A list of this kind in the article on Kubrick's The Shining was kept manageable by being re-organized into paragraph and discussion format and using only fairly prominent examples, but a similar list in the article on K's A Clockwork Orange was eventually eliminated.

There is a lot of divergent opinion among WP editors over the worth of lists of this kind. I think if they are kept focused, short, and sweet then they are fine, but they often tend to go in the direction of the character "Fat Bastard" in the Austin Powers films.

--WickerGuy (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the last half of the section "Sequels, Offshoots, and Adaptations" already has a bunch of this stuff--WickerGuy (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

In Space, Aerodynamics Do Not Matter

The reason I removed the comment was because it didn't really take into account reality - it did not address how such an object would be expected to end up _in_ space - unless it were built there. The phrasing, as it is now, sounds very pseudosciency, not thought out, and frankly a little misleading... Luminifer (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The caption refers to both the big Jupiter mission ship and the little tiny pod emerging from it. Obviously the latter was carried into space inside the larger ship. The notion of launching a non-aerodynamic craft with booster rockets that are in fact aerodynamic is a feasible alternative to having such a craft built in space. These are routinely used to launch space shuttles, which although aerodynamic do not have enough power to lift off all by their lonesome selves. Alternatively, space stations such as Mir are constructed in orbit, starting with the central part. The real space station Mir took ten years to build in space from 1986 to 1996. There's no reason it couldn't be done with a ship, especially with a pre-existing space station to work from as a starting dock. The main thing about 2001 that is slightly implausible is that the Jupiter Mission craft was built in only 18 months!!

The phrase in the article is indeed unclear, leaves some questions unanswered, and probably should have had a citation (which I have now provided) but there is nothing pseudo-scientific about it. (I worked for NASA for two non-consecutive years, though as a software engineer not an aerospace engineer. On my second time I worked around the corner from the room where they tested the Moon-Mars lander probe.)--WickerGuy (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, each module of Mir was contructed on earth, but then launched into orbit, and then attached in space to what of Mir already was up there.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My God, it's full of stars

"My God, it's full of stars"... This line is in the book but not in the film. But "some people" e.g. [1] claim that it was in the original Cinerama cut of the movie, which was 19 minutes longer than the cut that most people saw [2]. I have no idea how to figure it out since the cuts seem to be lost [3] but does anyone else remember actually hearing that line in the film? Sbwoodside (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.226.149 (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The extra 19 minutes you mention is not in all Cinerama cuts, but only in the cut that was in theatres for the very first week of release only. For at least a year after that the film was only available in Cinerama but in the shorter version. The film was released in New York City, Los Angeles, and Washington DC prior to its nation-wide release. I saw it on opening day in Dallas, Texas in 1968 but if the longer version was only in those cities I saw the shorter version.

The non-Cinerama version cuts the overture music, intermission music, and post-credits exit music, but this is the only difference there.

At any rate, this sounds like a combination of urban legend and false memories to me. One of the users on the page you cite says the Brit version of 2001 is different from the American version, with the former having the "full of stars" line. I think he's full of something else also beginning with the letter 's'. I've been reading much about 2001 since it came out in '68 and this is the first I've heard of it. That same poster who claims to have heard the line when he saw the movie claims the lines "My God it's full of stars" were cut from the US version due to pressure from the religious right. Booleschitt! There was no politically active religious right in 1968 (it's an '80s thing), and how that line could have offended them is even beyond the combined imagination of Stanley Kubrick, Salvador Dali, and Will Hays to conceive. If the Brit version and American version of Space Odyssey were different, this would be publicly disseminated knowledge. The foreign and American versions of Eyes Wide Shut and The Shining are indeed different and much copy has been written about the differences. This is the first I've ever heard of Space Odyssey differing from one country to another.

--WickerGuy (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who was wondering about this. I distinctly recall seeing 2001 on VHS in about 1993 or 1994 and I am absolutely positive that Dave Bowman said "My God, It's Full of Stars!" just before the EVA Pod enters the Monolith/Wormhole. I've never read the Arthur C. Clarke novel and I did not see 2010: The Year We Make Contact until many years after I saw 2001, and the line I recall from 2001 was spoken at normal speed with an element of amazement and astonishment; not the slowed down distorted recording heard in 2010; so I know I'm not mis-remembering something. I just watched the Digitally Remastered DVD of 2001 and went away wondering "Where was the "My God..." line???". Commander Zulu (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The version I saw in Cinerama in Dallas on opening day in April 1968 certainly did not have this line. Nor did the version I saw in Cinerama in Philadelphia six months later. Nor did any of the 70 mm prints I saw several times over the next several years all in the USA. It is remotely possible that the earlier Cinerama print that premiered in New York, L.A. and Washington had the additional 19 minutes and included this line. And remotely possible that a Brit or rogue edit of the film contains this line, but I am respectfully skeptical.

--WickerGuy (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note

The line is spoken by Dave Bowman at the beginning of the sequel 2010!!! Is it possible folks are conflating memories of that film with 2001???

--WickerGuy (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Also note

I myself have a vivid memory of a scene from seeing Dr. Strangelove at age 14, a scene which is not actually in the picture. It involves the angle at which Slim Pickens is seen when he falls out of the cockpit with the bomb. I'm fairly convinced at this point that I have in fact a false memory.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

poor plot description

I was hoping to find out what was going on in the movie under the 'plot' heading but instead all i find is a description of what i can see on the video. Thats a very poor description of the plot obviously written by someone who doesn't understand the film.

No, it's written by someone who understands that the film is intended to be open-ended, multi-layered, and ambiguous- capable of several interpretations. Broadly speaking the monolith has some influence over human evolution.--75.36.136.178 (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC) This comment was made by--WickerGuy (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Nietzsche's Zarathustra

We can read this on the article: This piece was originally inspired by the philosopher Nietzsche’s book of the same name which talks of the transition from ape to man and from man to Superman. That's not true at all! Nietzsche, on his book, talks about the transition from camel to lion, and then from lion to child. It's a metaphor of the moral evolution of the human spirit, not the biological evolution of our species. Nietzsche NEVER talked about ape ancestors or biological evolution in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. In Nietzsche's book the last step of transformation (the child) means, of course, the Superman, but this is not literally told in the book, it must be understood in terms of exegesis by the reader (or not). By the same way, the apes in the 2001: A Space Odyssey film are first camels before they discover the tool. With the discovery of the tool they become lions and when David Bowman becomes the Star-Child then they become children. To know why Nietzsche refers to camels and lions just read the chapter in the book, it only takes a couple of minutes, but in any case which talks of the transition from ape to man and from man to Superman must be kept int the article, since it's completely false about Nietzsche's book (even if it can be considered true about the movie). The sentence must be removed from the article, or rewritten again. Kintaro-san (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Nietzche's book includes the passage: "What is ape to man? A laughing-stock a thing of shame. What is man to Overman? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame." We should correct the article to say it alludes to this by Book 1, Chapter 1 which you cite isn't the whole book either.

--WickerGuy (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The full passage is

"All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape.

from the Prologue Part 3, prior to the section you cited about the transition from camel to lion to child.

Not to be rude, but saying something is not in a book can only be verified by reading the entire book, or at least doing a computer word-search on the text.

--WickerGuy (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course I have to admit my error. Ironically you should know that I read twice the book... but more than 15 years ago... I apologies. Kintaro-san (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Parodies and Homages

Shouldn't Metal Gear Solid be mentioned too? Snake's real name is Dave, and Otacon's real name is Hal. At the end, when Snake mentions his real name, they joke about hopefully not going on a long voyage together.

No, it shouldn't. The rule is that the reference has to be both significant (more than just a mention) and notable. What you mention is neither. This is not a list of trivia. And before you but "but such and such is on the list and it's trivial", that's not an argument for including another piece of trivia, it's an argument for removing one. Yworo (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey now. I'm kind of offended by that. I wasn't planning on arguing at all. I just asked because I wasn't sure if there was a reason that wasn't there or if it was just that nobody thought of adding it. So don't go assuming that I'm going to argue about that without knowing me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.24.44 (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There is anoter Reference to The Space-Baby in one of the Simpsons, where Homer is seen in the bubble and a Fox-Satellite is crushing on his head, wehre he goes "D'oh". 85.127.80.160 (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Imagining the future

The section "Imagining the future" seems a bit confused about whether it's comparing the film's predictions with the state of affairs in 2001, or with the state of affairs "now" (i.e. whenever someone happened to come along and edit it). 86.138.104.57 (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Allmovie

• 2001: A Space Odyssey at AllMovie ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards

Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Bedroom

The bedroom at the end of the movie is very similar to the room, which can be seen in the clip of I Don't Know What You Want But I Can't Give It Any More by the Pet Shop Boys. Is there any correlation? -- 87.144.126.133 (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Problematic section

The "scientific accuracy" section as it stands looks like a big piece of original research with many of 2001 "inaccuracies" being sourced of primary sources like the NASA and such, or even off personal websites. While it's probably an interesting exercise to spot the rare mistakes in 2001, I think Wikipedia is not the place to do so. So for now I'm going to tag the statements and sources that I think are problematic and, if they are not properly sourced after some time, I will remove them. Laurent (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

One small fix. By simply reversing the order of two sentences that now reads "On the DVD edition of the film released in 2007, Arthur C. Clarke states in an interview that had he been on the set the day they filmed this, he would have caught this error. Before exposure to a vacuum, one must exhale, because holding in the breath would rupture the lungs." I think one can safely remove the OR tag. Cite Clarke first, then NASA.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, an earlier version of this section was heavily uncited. However, since many of the citations subsequently found are not from sources specifically discussing this film, their use does somewhat become OR. For example, it is well-known to virtually everyone in the aerospace industry or astronomy community that stars don't twinkle in outer space, but to find that in a source specifically discussing Space Odyssey is awfully hard.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientific Accuracy

In the article it is stated: "Similarly, the behavior of Dave and Frank in the pod bay is not fully consistent with zero-Gs, as it should be since the pod bay is not in a centrifuge. The astronauts could be wearing magnetic boots, but their leaning on the table when they try to diagnose the AE-35 unit is especially peculiar. Finally, in an environment with a radius as small as the main quarters, the simulated gravity would vary enormously from the center of the crew quarters to the 'floor', even varying between feet, waist, and head. Nor is the RPM of the crew quarters fast enough to generate anything close to earth gravity."

It is true that the POD bay is in zero g, but the floor of the POD is clearly visible and covered with the same Velcro material as in other zero g situations in the film, it is also clear that Frank and Dave are 'grip' walking, its is a little more abbreviated that the ship attendant in the Orion III scene, but astronauts such as Dave and Frank would be more adept. "The astronauts could be wearing magnetic boots," This 'magnetic boots' gaff has not been corrected, the author seems be thinking he is watching Destination Moon, those are 'grip shoes' not 'magnetic boots'. --aajacksoniv 10:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC) The comments about the centrifuge for the crew quarters should have a note that Fred Ordway documents these effects in reference 47. Ordway and Lange computed the correct size of the Discovery's crew quarters centrifuge, but there was no soundstage big enough to accommodate such a set, even if could have been built. --aajacksoniv 10:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference 52 in the main article: the link to Gaffes & Glitches in 2001 by Geoffrey Alexander & Thomas E. Brown is not a totally validated site, in that no references are given and most of the comments are personal interpertations. --aajacksoniv 10:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs) --aajacksoniv 19:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This statement need a reference: "Finally, being in outer space environment without a proper suit would have exposed him to −270.15 °C temperature which he would have been unlikely to survive."

A full discussion of survivability has been studied, see here:

http://www.geoffreylandis.com/vacuum.html

especially the two NASA reports in the references. --aajacksoniv 00:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs)

Why the heck is that 'magnetic boots' statement still there?! This is the film 2001, not Pal's Destination Moon!--aajacksoniv 11:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The article claims that "Even rudimentary voice-controlled computing now exists, although it is still not as sophisticated as depicted in the film." I believe that Google Voice prints voice mails to text quite effortlessly. Perhaps "rudimentary" is not the best way to describe it. Any ideas from someone who better understands the state of voice-controlled computing? Connor Towle 01:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Convicious (talk • contribs)

This article section seems more like a microscope on a movie made in 1960. There are the most minor detales pointed out, and it sounds like my 8th grade teacher critisising my science paper. Is there a way to clean or organise some stuff so that the section dosen't seem like nit picking? 173.49.255.105 (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In some ways this is a legitimate point, but as the intro points out, 2001 tends to invite this nitpicking precisely because overall it is the most scientifically accurate sci-fi film ever made (as opposed to Star Wars which is very fast and loose with science or even moreso Superman which has no credible science at all). Kubrick went to enormous painstaking (or 'nitpicking') detail himself to achieve that accuracy- as such it becomes quite interesting to see exactly what he missed, because the misses are small fissures in an intricately woven fabric of total scientific plausibility. Actually, an expansion of the early part about what he got right might be a good idea.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

parodies

There's another Monty Python's Flying Circus episode that parodies the opening titles of 2001 -- a piece of animation with the "setting" planets. Earth immediately on its appearance is kicked like a soccer ball, hit by the heads of several soccer players, then falls into a globe stand, where it becomes part of the opening titles of "World Forum," the game show with Che Guevara, Mao and Lenin. Banjochris (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

you need to add the parody "2001: a space travesty" starring leslie nielsen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.17.152 (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Only the title is borrowed. Beyond that "Space Travesty" does not parody "Space Odyssey".--WickerGuy (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Correction. 4 scenes from Odyssey are in Travesty, although the broad plot is not at all alike. Added to section.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Plot redux

I realize that the size and contents of this article's Plot section have been often controversial. That said, I have boldly rewritten the section. It is still too long by Wikipedia standards, but I agree that the film's complexity justifies (within limits) an unusually long Plot summary. I have done my best to tighten text wherever possible. I'd like to replace the direct quote of Floyd's prerecorded statement to Bowman, but any summary might very well be almost as long as the transcript itself. YLee (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to tighten it a couple of years ago, but there was a consensus I had used very stiff stilted prose. Then it got rewritten a bit, and then got longer again.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism or just Bad English?

This article states: "the rotary motion of the satellites" At first, thought this was just vandalism, but perhaps it is just an attempt by someone with limited understanding of English (or maybe its fine in UK English which predominates on Wiki). Think what is meant is something more like "the orbital motion of satellites." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just bad English. It should be "the rotational motion of the satellites", or better, in a non-technical context "the spinning motion". Orbital motion is not relevant here when comparing with dancers. I made the correction. Good catch. DVdm (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Daisy Bell

I just checked my recording of 2001. Hal recites the entire chorus (not the first verse) of "Daisy Bell"; Floyd's recording plays immediately after "a bicycle built for two." YLee (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What's truly awesome is subsequent research shows that neural networks, when stressed or disabled, actually regress to their earliest operations like that. Cite not forthcoming; it was just a BoingBoing hit.

And I _didn't_ say the recital _ended_ on "I'm half crazy", but it's just such a great line to add to the writeup! --Phlip —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.44.180 (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

To those of us who saw it on first-run, the potentially double-meaning line "I'm half crazy" was not lost on us. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's around that line that HAL starts to noticably slow down. But the recent edit said specifically that is where HAL "faded out", so it had to be deleted/undone because that ain't true. And "Daisy Bell" really is the very first song sung by an electronic computer with a voice, so like the initials HAL being one short of IBM it's an unintentional (though fascinating) coincidence.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Knowing Kubrick and Clarke, I wouldn't count on it being unintentional. And you're right, it doesn't fade out, it just gets slower and slower (like playing an old 78 record at 45 and then 33) until it's nearly unintelligble when he finally hits "... for two". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for Kubrick, but Clarke adresses the HAL/IBM issue in the introduction to one of the editions of the novel. He claims that it was a coincidence.209.244.42.177 (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Parodies and homages section

I highly recommend that this section be trimmed to only extended references. I'd suggest removing the subheadings, requiring both dates and references for each entry, and keeping them chronologically ordered to help editors keep this section from becoming bloated. Yworo (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The section, like so many other such sections, is a rambling, incoherent mess. There is absolutely nothing gained from listing multiple examples of films and TV shows that use Also Sprach Zarathustra at key moments. I strongly recommend picking just a few of the best examples, one per genre, and deleting the rest. Look at how I trimmed a similar mess in the article for Area 51. YLee (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What happened to description of spacecraft?

I even seem to remember there were separate articles (or perhaps one article) about them, linked from this main article. Are they another victim of "not notable" obsession? --bonzi (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Found it and added to "See also". --bonzi (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick Note on Nuclear Weapon vs. Satellite controversy

WP:FILMPLOT says that if a plot is complicated, interpretive material from other sources can go in the main plot section of a film article. However, if on the other hand, the interpretation is controversial then the interpretation from secondary sources belongs in a separate section of the article and not in the main plot section. Now in this case we are dealing with plot ambiguity which I would say is closer to complex then controversial. No outside source has insisted the orbiting entities around earth are not nukes. Rather, at least five outside sources assert that they indeed are nukes, while WP editors assert (correctly) that this is not immediately evident to the naive and uninformed viewer. This seems closer to "complicated" than "controversial". Thus I would argue the assertion that the orbiting entities are nuclear weapons belongs in the "plot" section of the article.

I hasten to add that User:Shirtwaist has made some excellent other editorial changes to the article.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"Complicated" is a good way to put it. That's a movie where you have to read the book to understand what's going on, and at the same time ignore the stuff in the book that didn't make it to the big screen. One example is that in the book 2001, they went to Saturn. In the Making of book, the explanation on that is simply that they couldn't figure out how to do Saturn realistically, so they settled on Jupiter - after the book was set in stone, or at least in type. There is no question whatsoever that those are supposed to be nukes, as the primitive "ultimate weapon" of the bone cuts to the postulated 2001 "ultimate weapons" of "orbiting megatons" as the book calls them. But that is not at all obvious on-screen, apparently unless you take a high-res version and slow it down to frame-by-frame. Another thing in the book is that the Star-Child caused all the orbiting nukes to detonate. But in the Making of book, they said that they decided not to do that because it would seem like they were copying the ending of Kubrick's previous film, Dr. Strangelove. Unfortunately, that left the orbiting nukes unexplained to the viewer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The presence of nuclear weapons in space is indeed controversial, but not complicated. They are either nukes, or they aren't. The "international nuclear symbol" (which I have never seen either in the original release in 1968, or subsequent releases)you claim appears on the satellite could indicate either a nuclear-powered craft, or a nuke. Frankly, the way it's presented in the context of that sequence tends to lead the viewer to believe they are space station parts being ferried to the uncompleted space station, not some sort of weapons. That's what I assumed they were - parts. One could make the case that such a situation as that - linked to the bone as it is - might represent a kind of "swords into plowshares" allegory just as well as "man hasn't changed in three million years" that I've seen touted in reviews. The outside sources you cite are expressing their opinion of what they are, and as such, cannot be used to definitively describe something in the plot summary, especially technical minutiae, which according to WP:FILMPLOT should be avoided. Even if they were intended by Kubrick himself to be nukes in the film, they are never alluded to or impact the plot in any way. Just curious - do you have a quote from Kubrick commenting on this issue? I seem to remember him saying Clark intended them to be nukes, but he disagreed, or something like that.Shirtwaist (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The DVD commentary asserting that they are meant to be nuclear weapons is by actors Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood, the two stars of the film. The book cited in the footnote by Jerome Agel was published the same year as the film's release and contained extensive interviews with Kubrick. The disagreement between Clarke and Kubrick was over the ending of the film- Clarke wanting the Star Child to detonate the bombs, Kubrick being shy of it. But there is no record of Clarke & Kubrick disagreeing over what the entities orbiting the earth were, so you are mistaken there. Unless the space station is an international project, then they are certainly not ferrying parts to the station as four of these entities appear on screen before the Pan-Am jet and each has the flags of different countries on them!!! (Again, this is pretty clear on Blu-Ray or in a theatre, but not obvious on DVD.) It isn't really "technical minutiae". It fundamentally effects how the viewer understands the unspoken tensions in the conversations on the space station. I never really said the question is "complicated", but "ambiguous"; however, in terms of WP policy this is more like "complicated" than "controversial" (WP allows appeal to 2ndary sources in plot summary in first case, not second). It is not publicly controversial!! No Kubrick scholar or reviewer has asserted they are mere satellites. I myself cited sources as close to primary as I could get, actors in the film (in the DVD commentary), co-screenwriter Clarke, and two books that are "Making of..." books (one published the same year as the film) rather than critical interpretations. Each of these carries I think more weight than a critical interpreter trying to explain the "meaning" of the film. Nonetheless, no published critical interpreter has asserted they are not nukes while many authors of books on Kubrick such as Nelson and Rasmussen assert that they are, so in the realm of public discourse it is certainly not controversial!!! (As a counter-example, the meaning of the closing shot of Kubrick's "The Shining" IS publicly controversial- different reviewers have attributed different meanings to it!!)--WickerGuy (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no controversy over what they are, which is orbiting nuclear weapons. Kubrick's decision to not have them exploded (because it would be too much like the way his previous film ended) is what raises the ambiguity. It can be argued, therefore, whether what they are is a significant plot element or not. It can't be argued what they actually are. All the sources say they are nukes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I just rewatched that scene. The three craft are on the screen for only a few seconds each, and the markings on them are so small and indistinct, and the craft are also moving through frame so fast, that to say anyone watching the movie(even in HD)can discern them as being nuclear weapons, or even have certain flags on them, is ludicrous. I seriously doubt it was Kubrick's intention to hide the fact that they were in fact weapons to the degree that the average theater viewer had a very hard time seeing proof of it. If that WAS his intent, don't you think he would've been much more obvious about it? As it is, I would say Kubrick was keeping it vague - allowing the audience to decide if they were weapons or not. As he said in the Playboy interview - he preferred to leave it up to the audience to interpret most of the movie, rather than block all interpretation by stating what things in his film "actually meant". As far as the dvd commentary, the actors are not speaking about their movie, but someone else's movie they appeared in. They weren't in Kubrick's mind, and can't say what his intentions were at any given time. It would be great to have Kubrick talking about it, but unless someone has an audio interview that could serve that purpose, no such luck. I don't have access to the books you're using as refs, and I'd like to see what Kubrick actually said about this issue. Saying "no published critical interpreter has asserted they are not nukes" overlooks the possibility that many published critics may have assumed they were satellites, so there was no need to assert they were not nukes. Roger Ebert, for example, calls it a "space shuttle" in his review. Or they didn't say anything at all about them because they considered them relatively unimportant to the film's overall meaning. And I think the (intended by Kubrick to be a nuclear weapon) bit should go out until such proof is provided.Shirtwaist (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt they are nuclear weapons. None. That doesn't mean everyone who watched the movie understood that. In fact, most of us didn't. They were just things orbiting. And overall, the typical reaction when the film was over was, "Wow! But what was that all about?" So we got Clarke's novel and got some clues about what was going on. You can debate whether the nukes are important to the plot description. You can't debate whether they're actually nukes or not. There's no dispute about that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's what the book Stanley Kubrick directs, by Alexander Walker, 1971, p.247, has to say: "An early draft of the film script intended to make the point, via the narrator, that a nuclear stalemate had been reached between the USA and the USSR, each of whom has a nuclear bomb orbiting the globe which can be triggered by remote control. This idea has been totally eliminated from the finished film, though from the national markings still visible in the first and second space vehicles we see, we can surmise these are the Russian and American bombs. Kubrick dropped this aspect because, on reflection, it seemed to him to have no place at all in the film's thematic development. It was an orbiting red herring. It was made clear later, in the edgy encounter between Russian and American scientists, that both countries were still living in a state of tense friendliness; and since some politically conscious filmgoers in the 1960s would know that agreement had already been reached between the powers not to put the H-bomb into space, it would merely have raised irrelevant queries to suggest this as a reality of the twenty-first century." It's worth pointing out that Kubrick dropped the idea of a narrator, also. It goes on, on page 263, to discuss the discarded idea, from the novel, to explode the nukes at the end of the film, as it seemed inappropriate and would seem to much like the ending of Dr. Strangelove. So they were indeed nukes, but that fact had no particular relevance to the plot - although it's worth a sentence or two in this article.←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Jerome Agel's The Making of Kubrick's 2001, from 1970, states on p.162 (at the end of the picture section) that the Star-Child blowing up the nukes went as far as the shooting script, and then was dropped for the reasons I've already stated. As Agel said, "We won't meet again." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Either you guys are Brits or Aussies or you stayed up wayyy past midnight. I slept thru this last exchange. Ebert does indeed in his second "Great Movies" review talk about a jump-cut to a shuttle, and earlier talk of a shuttle (the one carrying Heywood Floyd) docking with the space station. But all space shuttles need some element of aerodynamic design i.e. wings which the first four entities clearly don't have (it's not a coincidence that Floyd's PanAm shuttle is the only spacecraft in the whole film with wing-like structures- shuttles do both space and air flight), so I think we can establish the Ebert is mistaken. I agree with ShirtWaist they cannot be easily discerned as nukes (actually "armed satellites" according to actor Gary Lockwood- maybe we need to revise the wording), but do not at all agree with the flags. (These are NOT actually flags flying on poles, they are flag insignias painted like decals on the surface- sorry if this was unclear or sloppily noted on my part.) There is a German flag insignia on the first (the only bit of the surface with any color) a Chinese air force insignia on the second (on the back underbelly), while the third is hard to make out.

The actors in Kubrick's film may not have been mind-readers, but they certainly had conversations with Kubrick about the movie. This my 4th round on WP of citing what I would regard on a reliable source with someone else challenging it's reliabilty.

It could be argued that what we have is a "residue" from a plot-line that was dropped, much like the dropped Oz plotline of a romantic attraction between the Scarecrow and Dorothy of which a few stray indicators remain in the final version, but I am not convinced of this.

Finally, you Shirtwaist have made some very good contributions here, but I'm afraid I am also reverting your drop of designating the scientists are Soviets. They both have Russian names (such as Andrei) and Russian accents. The film was released at the height of Cold War tension. They are clearly Soviets.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Addendum to last paragraph. Rossiter's character is introduced to Floyd as Andrei Smyslov. In addition to the Russian accents, when Floyd first approaches them, they are speaking among themselves in the Russian language!! If that's not an indication they are Soviet scientists, I honestly don't know what is.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

DISCUSSION CONTINUED IN "Are Satellites also Weapons? Redux" THREADShirtwaist (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting Shirtwaist's changes

I'm going to revert Shirtwaist's two most recent changes:

• The scientists are clearly Soviet. Even if we didn't know this from both Clarke's novel and reliable sources such as the ones the Talk page currently quotes, the film leaves no ambiguity:
  • They speak Russian.
  • They have Russian/Eastern European names (Grigor, Elena, Kalinan, Stretyneva, Andrei Smyslov).
  • They spent three months at a moon base with a Russian name (Tchalenko).
  • They are clearly not of Heywood's nationality; thus the whole discussion about what is happening at Clavius, and the treaty violation of not permitting "our" rocket bus to land at the American base.
• Before anyone asks: It's not reasonable to assume that Kubrick foresaw the breakup of the Soviet Union.
• Floyd does not act vague to the others in the meeting he conducts at Clavius. Everyone knows what he is talking about and why he has made the special flight from Earth; thus the discussion about the cover story, and the security oaths. Any vagueness is strictly to maintain viewers' suspense until the scene at the monolith itself, but also works within the film itself because there is no need for exposition for the others' benefit.
• It is simpler, more straightforward, and closer to the dialogue to say "detected by its magnetic field" than "because of its magnetic properties".
• The sunlight triggering the monolith's radio signal is another example of something that both reliable sources state and which is apparent from the film itself.
  • The lunar day and night are each two weeks long.
  • TMA-1 was only recently discovered; Smyslov mentions that Clavius' phone system has been shut down for ten days.
  • As Heywood's group walks into the pit, the approaching sunlight is visible behind them.
  • It is still night, though, so many large spotlights are needed.
  • Right after the tone begins, Heywood looks up at the monolith and sees the sun passing over it. YLee (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the added info on indicators they are Russian. I had entirely forgotten item 3, the Russian name of their own moon base. I also hadn't noted that ShirtWaist removed the sunrise cause of the magnetic signal, though he said it in his edit summary. It's still 8:00 in the morning here.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Shirtwaist, if it makes you feel any better, 3 years ago I rewrote the entire plot sum of this article from top to bottom and had half my stuff reverted, but it was for reasons of style, not content.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

After reading this, it is now clear to me that WickerGuy has claimed ownership if this article, and will not tolerate any changes to his view of what he thinks should be in the plot summary. I have no intention of wasting my time with such people.Shirtwaist (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

CORRECTION-I meant to say YLee instead of WickerGuy. My apologies to Wickerguy.Shirtwaist (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I knew you meant me, not WickerGuy, although I figured I'd wait until you realized your error. In any case, show where I'm mistaken. Attack my work, not me, or not; don't pick up your ball and go home declaring yourself the victor, though. YLee (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"Brief" vs. "Debrief"/Sunlight

If Heywood Floyd were merely conveying info, it would be a "briefing". However, "debriefing" conveys two (2) meanings, one is to interrogate (no, Floyd isn't doing that), and the other is
"to subject to prohibitions against revealing or discussing classified information, as upon separation from a position of military or political sensitivity." (Random House Dictionary)
and of course the whole point of the session is the prohibition of revealing info about the existence of the monolith, so it would seem this is indeed a "debriefing"

Finally, at the concluding shot of the moon/monolith sequence, we do indeed see the sun rising right over the top of the monolith in a shot reminiscent of the earlier shot of the sun over the top of the monolith in the African desert, although it is arguable this is a fairly serious continuity error since Shirtwaist is entirely correct in noting that in earlier shots the sun is certainly too low to have gotten there so quickly.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no continuity error. The sun is never actually shown until the last shot with it over the monolith; all we see before that is the sunlight behind the astronauts as they enter in one scene, and the light horizon there is pretty darn close. The horizon on the moon is less than 1.5 miles away and the light horizon is meaningfully closer than that. YLee (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, as the moonbus nears TMA-1, there is one long shot that shows the site from high up; the bulk of the landscape behind the site is lit, with a distinct terminator. Kubrick made it absolutely clear that the lunar day is about to break. YLee (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point. Are you saying that because the moon is smaller than the earth, the position of the edge of shadows will shift more quickly than on the earth? I believe you, but I'm not sure I completely understand.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. The solar terminator at the moon's equator moves at about 15km/hr, compared to 1600 km/hr on Earth.

But at the distances we're talking about it doesn't matter. Since the moon is much smaller than the earth the horizon is 2.4 km (1.5 mi) away; since Clavius isn't at the equator the terminator moves faster than 15km/hr; and, as already noted, the terminator is some distance between the horizon and the TMA-1 site when Floyd's group arrives and walks into the pit. To have daylight break just as the group is getting its photo taken is quite reasonable.

Given the extraordinary amount of scientific accuracy Kubrick arranged for 2001, I'd have been surprised for the film to get this point wrong especially since it affects the plot, and indeed it does not get it wrong. YLee (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ylee, is the apparent shift of which side upon which the Earth is lighted (to the right in some shots and left in other shots) on the shuttle trip from the moonbase to TMA-1 explainable by the high latitude (i.e. close proximity to the moon's South pole) in combo with a shift in the shuttle's direction or is that a real continuity error? Any thoughts.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that's a continuity error. The earth's phases as seen from the moon are always opposite of the moon's phases from Earth. If the moonbus trip lasted (say) ten days, Floyd could indeed see Earth transit from a waxing crescent to a waning crescent, but obviously that isn't the case. YLee (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just making an informed guess, but I suspect the dual meanings of the word "debrief" originate as follows. "Brief" as a verb means to impart information (in a professional context). Now the opposite of this (hence the 'de-' prefix) could be either: a) to extract information (what Shirtwaist had in mind) or b) to request that people withhold information. Not a precise antonym, but close enough for the English language to develop that way. At any rate, as I noted, "debrief" is used in both the first & second sense, so Floyd's interaction is indeed a "debriefing".--WickerGuy (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wickerguy - Your sectioning of the thread was inappropriate. If you want to create another topic, change the heading of the first topic to reflect that. Do not confuse readers by leaving the first thread with a dual purpose.Shirtwaist (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The sectioning was because the new thread was a "meta-discussion" i.e. a comment on a comment and the use of "redux" in the title made it clear it was connected to an earlier discussion. The first thread had a dual purpose already with or without my section, done because it pertained so a single revert edit. This has the earmarks of retaliation for my sectioning your stuff. Don't be sour.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ylee is absolutely wrong when he says there is no continuity error in that scene. When the men are standing next to the monolith, the sun is at or near the lunar horizon. In order for the sun to reach a position directly above the monolith, one week would have to pass. Does Ylee think Floyd was standing around in the pit for one week? Second - looking at the scene closely, it is clear there is no sunlight on the monolith when the noise begins...not even close! Third - the entire pit area is shown to be in shadow. The monolith is 40 feet below the moon's surface - inside the pit. With the terminator moving at 9 mph, it is impossible for the sun to move high enough in the sky in the few minutes the men are down in the pit for even the very top of the monolith to be hit by sunlight. The filmmakers also got the position of the earth as seen from Tycho wrong. If you were standing in Tycho, you would have to face slightly northeast with your head tilted up at about 45 degrees to look at the earth. Nowhere near the lunar horizon. This would also mean that you would be seeing earth upside down. The upside down earth in the scene is in a waxing gibbous phase - this means the right side up earth is actually in a waning gibbous phase. In order for earth to appear to you as a waning gibbous from Tycho, the sun would have to be behind the moon - and Tycho would be in complete darkness.Shirtwaist (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wickerguy-brief·ing–noun 1.Military . a short, factual oral summary of the details of a current or projected military operation given to the participants or observers.

2.any set of concise instructions or a summary of events. Watch the scene again - one of the other men actually calls it "the briefing".Shirtwaist (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, the sun never appears in the crater scene except in the very last shot, when it appears over the monolith, so you are wrong to claim otherwise. Perhaps it'd be more accurate to to say that the sun being at its zenith when the monolith is unburied is the trigger, not sunlight per se, but I think that's both pointlessly overdetailed and verging on OR since we don't know for sure whether this is the case; "sunlight" is sufficient. I've already discussed the fact that the Earth is depicted wrong in the film; that's something secondary sources noticed a long time ago. YLee (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ylee - Use indents in talk as WP:indentation requires. If, as you say, the sun never appears in the crater scene except in the very last shot when it appears over the monolith, how can we logically assume that the radio emission was triggered by sunlight when we can clearly see there is no sunlight anywhere near the monolith at the time the noise starts? Answer- we cannot. We CAN assume, however, that the act of touching the monolith DOES possibly trigger the noise, which follows soon after. Putting a shot with the sun directly over the monolith right after a scene showing the sun at the horizon was an error in continuity - meaning the previous scene is so far removed in time from the scene following it(7 days), the viewer must assume they are unrelated in time - and the second shot is not meant to be seen as a continuation of the first. What you suggest is indeed pointless and overdetailed, that's why we should stick to what is seen onscreen when writing the plot summary. Again - what we see onscreen is the men and the monolith in a 40 foot deep pit in deep shadow examining the monolith. Then a noise coming from the monolith stuns them. Period. Sunlight has absolutely nothing to do with it. Nothing. If you care to produce a ref that states otherwise, cite it. Otherwise, stop changing the article to assert otherwise.Shirtwaist (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You are willfully confusing "sun" with "sunlight". Again, the sun itself never appears in the Moonbus and TMA-1 scenes except in the last shot over the monolith before "18 Months Later", and saying otherwise is flat-out lying. Sunlight, as distinct from the sun, is visible in several shots during the scenes, in two with distinct terminators that show that daylight is about to hit TMA-1. If sunlight isn't the trigger, why would Kubrick—the man who obsessed over every detail in every film—show the sun in the final shot at all?

That said, I agree that the cause of the signal is not as important as the fact that it occurs. As there is no attempt to claim that touching the monolith triggered the signal, the text as it stands is satisfactory YLee (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The text as it stands is fine, but it must be pointed out that in the film after the men hear the piercing signal, one of them then looks up and right then sees that the sun is directly over the monolith (which I'm not sure is even possible that far South on the moon at any time). On the one hand, Ylee is right that there are many shots of sunlight on some parts of the moon in approaching TMA-1 (with a clearly discernible day-light border and our moon travelers still on the dark side). However, I think that while the sun could, in short time, travel so that some sunlight (from a rising sun) hits the monolith, I am unconvinced that in such a short time, the sun could become directly overhead, and here Shirtwaist seems to have a point.

Unless there's a time-delay, I don't see how touching the monolith could trigger the signal. The touch is at 53:36- then they pose for photoes, then the signal is at 54:21, 45 seconds later!! Is the monolith running on vacuum tubes? The fact that the piercing signal causes one fellow to look up in the sky wherein he sees the sun has just risen over the edge of the top of the monolith (54:30- 9 seconds after the signal began) makes the sunlight the much more probable trigger explanation than the touch, albeit it seems logical the sun should only be rising on the horizon in light of previous shots. I think Shirtwaist has a point there although I agree with Ylee that Shirtwaist is confusing sunlight with the sun. SW is wrong when he says "we can clearly see there is no sunlight anywhere near the monolith at the time the noise starts" but correct when he says there was a scene "a scene showing the sun at the horizon". But since the shot of the sun over the monolith is right after a shot of an astronaut in earpain looking up in the sky(!!!!) this clearly shows ShWa is quite wrong indeed when saying "the viewer must assume they are unrelated in time - and the second shot is not meant to be seen as a continuation of the first". That's just basic 'language of film' stuff. Any film editor can tell you that.--WickerGuy (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC) BTW, ShirtWaist is entirely correct that Floyd's conference is directly referred to in the dialogue as a "briefing". Now back to the nuke question.--WickerGuy (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Right. To say that there is no connection between the signal and the shot of the sun over the monolith is, well, bizarre.

I don't know whether Tycho is too far south for the sun to be overhead the way the shot shows. Whether this is the case or not, though, is immaterial; it happened in the film. Mistake or not, it is both real within the film itself and relevant to the plot, and should be evaluated accordingly. (The phases of the earth also "happened" within the film, but since that is irrelevant to the plot we can safely dismiss it.) YLee (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The text as it stands now is also acceptable to me.Shirtwaist (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Tycho is 43°18′ south of the moon's equator. A zenith angle (angle from overhead) of zero degrees for the sun is only possible for low latitudes. An area on the surface where that is possible is known as a "subsolar point" which on earth is anywhere in the tropics. The highest point possible for the sun to reach is known formally as "Solar noon zenith angle" and is directly a function of latitude. While SW is correct that at many locations on the moon the time interval between sunrise and solar noon would be about 6 to 7 days (make it 6 for Tycho's elevation above lunar surface- the sun is already up 12 degrees during a Tycho sunrise), I am more concerned that at 43 degrees south, such a zero degree zenith is mostly like not possible at all!!

However, basic film editing 101 says that when you first have a shot of a character turning to look in a given direction (usually offscreen) and you then show an object (in this case the sun directly over the monolith) from that direction, you are giving the audience a "POV shot" (that acronym is widely used in film as well as in Wikipedia-taboo language). As some class notes from the Digital Film Archive in Ireland put it "The Point of View shot begins with a character looking off screen [the astronaut glancing up in the sky] we then cut to the object the character is looking at [sun over monolith]". Regardless of SW's legit gripe about a 6-day interval between sunrise and solar noon, and my own gripe about Tycho not being in the subsolar area (rending this basically never happening there), a basic knowledge of film language tells us the astronauts being photographed are seeing the sun rise over the monolith. There is two similar shots of the sun re the monolith during the ape sequence. The ape's first see the monolith and get excited by it as the sun is rising. Then after the apes calm down and start touching the monolith with their hands at 14:32 there is a near-identical shot of the sun directly over the monolith (same angle & camera setup as moon shot) and then the scene ends. (Interestingly, the scene seems to be rising on the horizon just before this "zenith" shot creating the same problems for this scene as SW noted in the Tycho scene. I hasten to add since no ape looks up in the sky just before this we have no indication here it is POV shot.) Later at 15:16, just before the ape picks up the bone for the first time, the ape has a memory flashback to the same "zenith shot" of the sun directly above the monolith. This suggests a generic link between the sun rising over the monolith and monolith activity, imparting intelligence in this scene and signaling Jupiter in the Tycho scene. But in both cases the sun gets to the zenith sky more than a tad too quickly.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The most likely explanation is that Kubrick intended for the "sun over monolith" shot to be a metaphor, not an actual moment in reality connected to anyone's POV.Shirtwaist (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as with the planets and the monolith aligning like a "cross". See my comment farther down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Problem with refs to "original screenplay drafts"

All this referring to the "original" and "earlier" script drafts we've been doing, and it occurred to me that I'm not clear on whether or not any of the "scripts" we're talking about have even been proven to be the authentic article yet. I see Wickerguy has been doing a great job updating the "stages of script development" section, and such. But if we're going to keep referring to "earlier script drafts" in the article, shouldn't we make sure they're real first? I see archived talk posts have touched on the subject, but no resolution was found on the issue that I can see. Does anyone have refs that can verify the authenticity of any particular early scripts? Didn't Kubrick have all scripts burned along with those(gasp!)deleted scenes and outtakes? If there are no reliable sources that can verify a script, referring to what's floating around out there now smacks of OR to me.Shirtwaist (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There are very much indeed early scripts online which have proved to be out and out hoaxes!! I have no intention of citing actual drafts as references. The only major reliable sources re early versions are what's in Arthur Clarke's book Lost Worlds of 2001 and in the two books on the production of 2001, the one by Jerome Agel and the other by Susanne(??) Schwam, and finally Walker's study of Kubrick. There may be other reliable sources in published Kubrick studies, but I suspect they will simply be repeating what's in these. I'm reasonably certain everything I've asserted can be verified from one of those four sources- definitely the prologue of scientist interviews (Agel), voice over narration (Walker), and different scenario of HAL's breakdown (Clarke). Clarke's stuff is mostly early drafts of his novel, but he states they were ideas that were getting into early drafts of the script, as he says of many ideas in his final novel not in the final film (notably Saturn).

Eons ago there were some magazine interviews with special effects guy Doug Trumbull, but I have no idea how to trace these.

I may have strayed slightly into OR (at least in the sense of "synthesis") in the subsection on HAL re "remnants"--WickerGuy (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum. Kubrick's science advisor Frederick Ordway has also written directly about what was in earlier drafts of the screenplay. Unlike the stuff I mentioned above by Douglas Trumbull, this is easily accessible. Ordway confirms Clarke's account of the earlier version of HAL's breakdown.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum to the addendum. Ordway actually cites some direct lines of dialogue from early scripts which presumably he kept in his possession. Should any direct quotes surface here, they will be from Ordway not any online alleged early drafts.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Third addendum. There IS an early draft screenplay on the highly reliable well-researched "Kubrick Site". I don't know if this is the one subsequently exposed as a hoax. At any rate, I simply haven't consulted it for any of the posted material. Since the narrative sections match verbatim the quotes from same in science consultant Fred Ordway's discussion of what is in early drafts, I am further inclined (in addition to its presence on the KS) to believe it is an authentic early script. Nonetheless, I have not consulted it in developing this material.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

K-Site script redux. So also the Frank Poole/HAL conversations match verbatim what Ordway says is in his copy. Ordway wrote a note to Kubrick gently reprimanding him for removing this dialogue from the film, and it is in that note which Ordway has shared that the dialogue is reproduced. It is possible that a fraud worked in part from Ordway's notes, but I understand the fraudulent script was mostly based on a comic-book adaptation which used a real early script. Still, I have not consulted this alleged early script.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The early draft screenplay on "The Kubrick Site" is identical to the one on "dailyscript.com" that on 28 July 2006 Wikipedia User "Jason Palpatine" asserted (without saying how he knows so other than resemblance to an older Odyssey comic book) is a hoax similar to the fake script (called "Fall of the Republic") widely sold at science-fiction conventions (in the 1980s no less) for forthcoming Star Wars Episode III. It is also identical to the script that appears on the Internet Movie Script Database- http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/2001-A-Space-Odyssey.html and "Screenplays for you"- http://sfy.ru/?script=2001 as well as "Sci-Fi scripts" http://www.scifiscripts.com/scripts/2001.txt. This last is linked to on the Space Odyssey section of WikiQuotes. (A very expensive binding of the alleged early script can be purchased from AbeBooks for $2001 [sic- yes, you read that right] which of course I don't have access to.)

In sum, all script-draft copies on the web are the same one. It is known that the author of the 1976 comic book of "Space Odyssey" had access to this and employed it, although as I noted WP User Jason Palpatine says the one in circulation is a hoax based in turn on the comic book. JP does not say how he knows this, other than noting resemblance to the comic and asserting that all script copies were destroyed. (This is evidently false as both tech advisor Frank Ordway and the comic book author in 1976 definitely had authentic copies.)

I am somewhat inclined to think that given the reputable character of the Kubrick Site and the imsdb, the script is likely to be authentic and the noted similarities between the web-published script draft and the comic are due to the comic using the script rather than a hoaxer using the comic, and someone simply noted the similarities between script and comic and leapt to the false conclusion (not knowing the comic used the script as a source.)

If so, I can add one more note to the new "weapons?" section of the article as the script overtly refers to the now-notorious (to WP editors) flag-insignias on the weapon satellites.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Put differently, given the presence of the draft script on two highly reputable sites, the benefit of the doubt should be that the script is authentic, unless fairly definite evidence is put forward otherwise. As I said, the evidence of its resemblance to the 1976 comic book seems to be a confusion of cause-and-effect.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because there are identical copies of the script on different sites doesn't necessarily mean they are all authentic, but I'll concede that for now. However, referring directly to "an early draft", or "early drafts" - plural - when not used in conjunction with a source speaking about "early drafts" or "an early draft" will have to be changed unless you know of another version that differs from the one on TKS, IMSDB, and anywhere else. If they're all identical, they are all the same draft and should be referred to as being the same draft with the same wording - "original draft" for example - to avoid reader confusion. If the script you're citing is an "earlier draft" or "an early draft", the reader won't be able to tell which one you're talking about - earlier than what?. Keeping the reference to "the original script" consistent throughout the article is important, unless Ordway or others refer to "an earlier draft", as we only have the source's actual statement to go by. Also, using sources such as Ordway who refer to a script is perfectly fine, but we must include citations for all such references as you well know. However, when citing "the script" in general terms, we will have to cite a source, whether it's IMSDB or whatever. I would prefer TKS be used, but whichever it is, it should also be consistent. Citing both TKS and IMSDB simultaneously would also be a good idea. BTW, just so we're clear, have you found online scripts that differ from TKS and IMSDB? If you have, they could be used as "alternate scripts"(we would have no idea which script preceded or followed which), but only if their sources are verifiable and reliable, of course.Shirtwaist (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No definitely can only find that one script, but since my source for all but one of my statements (in which I overtly refer to a web copy of the script in the main body of the text) is not the script itself but what Jerome Agel, Alexander Walker and Arthur C. Clarke say about early drafts, it seems the plural "draft(s)" can be acceptable at that point. I of course need to add the script citation in the one place where I refer to it directly--WickerGuy (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Note

All the extant web-copies of the script end with Bowman just about to enter the StarGate and then stop. Were the final pages missing?? Was it stolen/pirated or did the owner just mislay some pages?? Is this further evidence of authenticity??--WickerGuy (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sunlight continuity Redux- Continuation of Sunlight section of #"Brief" vs. "Debrief"/Sunlight

Whoa, Nelly. Not only is the sun way too high at the end of the moon monolith encounter, so is the funky crescent earth, obviously meant to be a parallel with the moon and sun being over the monolith in the dawn of man sequence.

http://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/2001_space_odyssey_fg2b.jpg

http://www.2001aspaceodyssey.org/articles/article_images/Monolith-Earth-Moon.jpg

The first photo is from Dawn of Man, the second from the moon-monolith encounter, both looking straight up along the side of the monolith. In both cases you can see a little crescent entity just "above" the sun which is presumably the moon in the first shot (taking place on Earth) and the Earth in the second shot (taking place on the moon). Much has been overtly made in various discussions that Earth is always low on the horizon seen from Clavius as is accurately shown in many shots in the approach to Clavius. I have previously complained about the impossibility of the sun EVER being that high, and didn't even think about the Earth being that high!!

Oddly lends weight to Shirtwaist's contention that this shot is symbolic/allegorical in some fashion, though I wonder if it is seen in the "mind's eye" of the astronaut who looks up in the sky immediately before the second shot.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The crescent moon in the first photo is a LOT more obvious if you click on the thumbnail to see the large version. Poor color contrast scheme makes the monolith not really visible against the dark background in the second shot.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the previously discussed problems with the final monolith/moon shot of

1) How did the sun get up so high so fast (and can it do so at Clavius)?
and
2) How did the earth get up so high so fast (and can it do so at Clavius)?

there is ALSO
3) How did the Earth's phase get from gibbous to crescent so fast???
and
4) How did the Earth get to such close proximity to the Sun in the lunar sky so fast??

Yes, on four counts, the shot makes no sense at all.

As I noted in the main article, the two parallel shots concluding the ape-monolith encounter and the moon-monolith encounter remind the viewer of the sun-earth-moon alignment at the beginning of the movie.

It is arguable that the shot makes no sense astronomically, but makes a lot of sense astrologically as Sun-Moon conjunctions are associated in astrology with the rise of powerful figures, and since Stanley Kubrick was a student of Jungian psychology, he certainly knew this. Carl Jung (who BTW had the same birthday as Stanley Kubrick) held (writing in Answer to Job) that the endtime ruler in the Book of Revelation was not the return of Jesus (as traditionally understood) but an entirely new being born of a "sun-moon conjunction". This of course cannot go in the main article unless sourced to someone else.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your missing the main problem with that shot of the earth appearing directly above the monolith on the moon-the earth as seen from any place on the moon never moves in the sky. It's impossible for the earth to appear near the horizon in one shot and directly overhead in another from Tycho crater or anywhere else on the moon! The phases change, but not the position of the earth.Mytvc15 (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Making of Kubrick's 2001 points out that the "magical alignment" of the planets and the monolith (in a cross-shape), in the moments just before Bowman takes off on his journey "beyond the infinite", is also not actually possible astronomically. So don't rule out that Kubrick was just being "artsy". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Mytic, Ahh, yes, Since the same face of the moon is always facing the Earth (we always see the same side of the moon), the Earth in the lunar sky won't move AT ALL. Thanks, much.
(Not to mention there also seems to be quite a size change)--WickerGuy (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC) BB, Good point. As pointed out in the Scientific Accuracy section of this article that is impossible because of the perfect LaPlace resonance of the orbits of Jupiter's moons.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Unconsidered Source for any discussion of Kubrick's intentions (it still won't be considered re $$$)

For a three-digit figure you can buy Alison Castle's "The Stanley Kubrick Archives" which reproduces meticulously pics of all kinds of stuff found in SK's possession after his death. The blurb says this about Part 2 (italic emphasis added by me)

Part 2 - The Creative Process - Divided into chapters chronologically by film, Part 2 brings to life the process of Kubrick s filmmaking by presenting a remarkable collection of material from his archives, including photographs, props, posters, artwork, set designs, sketches, correspondence, documents, screenplays, drafts, notes, and shooting schedules. Accompanying the visual material are essays by noted Kubrick scholars, articles written by and about Kubrick, and a selection of Kubrick s interviews.

Few libraries carry this. Borders currently will sell it for $70, amazon for various prices ranging from $185 to $999. It may or may not say anything about the vexed nukes question. Relatively few copies were printed.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy of TSKA, but I'm keeping it sealed(very rare). I'll let you know when I buy an opened one, preferably one with the cd interview and filmstrip(even rarer).Shirtwaist (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit jealous. I just got out of 7 years of grad school and have a superb thesis on William Blake to show for it (my school wants to post it on their web site), but not much in the way of $buckoes.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Tense encounter"

I don't see Floyd's meeting with the Soviets as "tense". He's clearly on good terms with the one he knows personally, with their families having met. They ask about the strange events at Clavius but are clearly embarrassed to be doing so (Smyslov even says this, more or less); it's more of a professional duty than anything else. Floyd later describes the epidemic cover story as "personally embarrassing", which strikes me as a good description of the scene. YLee (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right. It's a poor choice of words, possibly based on memories of Clarke's novel. I will try to come up with a better one, if someone else hasn't beat me to it.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's more "touchy" than "tense", as Floyd appears to put the shields up when he gets pushed on the point about the epidemic. Although, as we know, that was at least partly an "act", because there was no epidemic - the U.S. was actively deceiving the Russians with that ruse, and Floyd's refusal to deny the story likely served the purpose - to further convince the Russians that the cover story was for real. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Friendly but strained" did improve on "tense". I deleted the paragraph entirely, though, because if one can't describe the scene in question as "tense" or something like it, there's no point in discussing Cold War tensions because the film does not go into said tensions in any way. The scene is the only time the Soviets are mentioned or appear, and as mentioned the meeting is rather friendly with only the Clavius oddities causing any awkwardness. The US is clearly keeping the monolith a secret from the USSR but it's possible, even likely, that even close allies like the British and Canadians don't know about it. It's 2010 that really uses US-Soviet tension as a plot point, not this film.YLee (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I've seen 2001. Are the words "Russia" or "Soviet Union" actually used anywhere in the film? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither term is used in the film. The scientists are clearly Soviet as discussed elsewhere in Talk and in the article's edit history, and it's unreasonable to assume that Clarke forecast the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but the omission of either term in the film is another reason for the article to avoid going into detail on perceived discrepancies between the fictional and real year 2001. As mentioned, 2010 (both the film and the novel) do use US tensions with what is specifically said to be the Soviet Union as a major plot point. YLee (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just one of a number of problems with 2010, the biggest being that it was mostly "literal" rather than artsy the way Kubrick did it. And if neither "Russian" nor "Soviet" is used in the film, we can't very well use it in this article, either, unless we can find citations that declare them to be "Soviets" (or "Russians" as Americans would say - though they could just as easily be Ukranian.) And what they later decided to do in 2010 has no bearing on a discussionof 2001. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I like 2010 as a film; just because it is a very different type of film from 2001 does not make Peter Hyams' vision any less valid. Just different.

I agree that 2010 should have no bearing on what we write about 2001, but we say "Soviet" because that's clearly the nationality of the scientists Floyd meets. Again, the Talk page covers this issue. Any other explanation for their nationality is nonsensical. YLee (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 was a good film, just different from 2001 in tone, and I saw it once, whereas I saw 2001 many times. Anyway, yes, it's obvious they're "intended to be" Soviets, but calling them that in the article is risky, because it raises the question that Kubrick didn't know the USSR was going to dissolve - which is a red herring because he never calls them Soviets! If they're speaking Russian, then they're probably Russian, and it's safer to call them that. One thing that Kubrick did correctly "predict" is that we would be on speaking terms with the Russians/USSR in the year 2001, which I assure you seemed like a pure fantasy in 1968. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I don't think the article should come out and blanketly claim they are Soviets, rather than Russians. It's like with the orbiting nukes: They may have been intended to be nukes, but nowhere in the film itself does it say they are nukes. Likewise, nowhere in the film does it say these Russian-speaking folks are "Soviets", as opposed to "just" Russians. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think BB's final comment ("nowhere in the film does it say these Russian-speaking folks are "Soviets", as opposed to "just" Russians") gets to the heart of the matter. However, I also agree with Ylee's contention that "the meeting is rather friendly with only the Clavius oddities causing any awkwardness. The US is clearly keeping the monolith a secret from the USSR but it's possible, even likely, that even close allies like the British and Canadians don't know about it." Here is a good case for removing the paragraph, but it would then seem no point in mentioning the USSR at all, and removing the phrase "and countries" from the title of the section. BTW, although we agree Clarke's novel is not a reference point for interpretation here, I will mention here that Clarke's novel overtly describes the scientists as Soviets.

On the unrelated subject of comparing the two movies, I don't think the distinction is between 'literal' and 'artsy' so much as between 'structured narrative' and dreamlike/surreal.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

What are we to call the scientists then, if not Soviet? "Foreign scientists who happen to speak Russian, have Russian names, spent three months at a Russian-named moon base?" In 1968 there was only one possible answer to that question. (The answer being "Soviet" and not "Russian" precisely *because* they could've all indeed been Ukrainian; being more general is an advantage here.) YLee (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Basically, if you can't say the satellites are nukes, you can't say the Russian-speakers are Soviets. But you can maybe say they are intended to be nukes and Soviets. Or you can say they are called Soviets in the book but are not specifically identified that way in the movie - as with the orbitting nukes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that the published early script called them Russians, that should be fine for us as well. I don't know enough about the history to evaluate Ylee's remark they could have been Ukrainian.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There is reason for uncertainty on the identity of the satellites. Unless we want to imagine that Kubrick and Clarke a) foresaw the breakup of the Soviet Union, or b) the emergence before the year 2001 of a spacefaring Russian-speaking nation that is not the Soviet Union but has the capability of building a moon base of its own, Occam's razor holds and there is no possible ambiguity on the identity of the scientists Floyd meets: They are Soviet, or "Russian" in the common but less-precise conflation of the two. (I used "Ukrainian" as an example of why "Soviet" is preferable to "Russian", not because there is any evidence of such in the film.) For that matter, I don't think "United States" or "American" is ever spoken in the film, but there is no doubt as to the nationality of Floyd, Discovery, and Clavius Base. YLee (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, when Floyd goes through voice print identification, he is required to give name, nationality and destination. He gives "American" as his nationality. Furthermore, there is an American flag present when he gives his briefing at Clavius base. Yworo (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ylee, You surely mean "scientists", not "satellites"!!! Well, they are certainly Russian, and your case re William of Ockham that they are Soviet is quite good as well. It's really a question of whether or not you want to be simpler and more-precise and say they are "Soviet" or go merely with the superficially-obvious and call them Russian. It seems it boils down to the relative weight of divergent imperatives.

On the one hand, quite a few film critics call them "Soviet scientists". See the book Stanley Kubrick's 2001: a space odyssey: new essays by Robert Phillip Kolker and this review "http://www.thecityreview.com/2001.html" and this "http://thisdistractedglobe.com/2007/01/21/2001-a-space-odyssey-1968/"

On the other hand, the book "The Making of 2001" by Stephanie Schwam says "Russian scientists", as does "Kubrick's hope: discovering optimism from 2001 to Eyes wide shut" by Julian Rice and Randy Rasmussen's book "Kubrick: Seven Films Analyzed" and "On Kubrick" by James Naremore. Finally, so does the published early script draft. It seems "Russian" is just slightly more in common use in discussing the film, and makes us less likely to run afoul of WP policies. Ergo, I would humbly suggest "Russian"--WickerGuy (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think "Russian scientists" or "Scientists speaking Russian" is the best choice for the article, as anyone watching the film knows reasonably well what the Russian language sounds like. But Ukraine does sound very similar, I'm told. In any event, the script calls them "Russians", and I see no reason to go against that particular intent.Shirtwaist (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If all of us are in agreement on that, then go for it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's the current article status.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Provenance of Walker Book

In addition to the back cover of the book stating it is the only book on SK written with his co-operation, the title page has a dedication to "Stanley Kubrick, whose permission and help in crating this book made it possible". Later on same page is thanks to Kubrick's staff including his producer Jan Harlan and finally "the late Stanley Kubrick who authorized this work and made available some illustrations, in color and monochrome, from his personal archives" (American spelling of 'color'). It is also the back cover which states that Kubrick gave AW direct access to film frames from his own prints to illustrate the book, as I have noted in the footnote in the main article text.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to the dust jacket blurb author, whoever that might be, I think we can agree that such a source is unacceptable. If it's inside the book, ok. If it's not inside the book, let's leave it to a less-encyclopedic website to use it to prove a point. I don't object to referring to the author's statement - "Stanley Kubrick, whose permission and help in (creating) this book made it possible", or words to that effect. But if you want to prove it's "the only full-length study of Kubrick's work written with Kubrick's co-operation", you'll need a proper source. Sorry, but how do you know Bizony's or Ciment's books were written without Kubrick's cooperation? Shirtwaist (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it would be probably more correct to say the others are without the same level of co-operation. Ciment's book does contain three direct interviews with Kubrick. However, Walker had known Kubrick personally going all the way back to 1957 with the release of Paths of Glory (there is a published Walker-Kubrick interview from that date), and I'm awfully darn sure that only Walker's book contains film frames supplied to him directly by Stanley Kubrick directly from his own prints of the films. Walker was also the only film critic Kubrick allowed on the set of The Shining during filming and the only one to whom he showed an advance rough cut of Eyes Wide Shut. (See LeBrutto's biography of SK) Given Kubrick's tendency to avoid media interrogation, this is indeed remarkable. Walker's last chapter is a set of personal reminiscences of Kubrick based on their friendship since the mid-50s. I was (I hope) explicit about this being the (more or less) only general study of Kubrick's overall work. Bizony's book is just on 2001- he may have had help from Kubrick- I know he had plenty of help from Doug Trumbull and Arthur C. Clarke- but I think we are talking about studies of Kubrick's whole body of work, not studies of specific films.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As The Guardian obituary for Walker puts it "The notoriously secretive Stanley Kubrick even allowed him sufficient access for two hugely informative books, Stanley Kubrick Directs (1971) and Stanley Kubrick, Director (1999: substantially expanding its predecessor)." Similarly, The Independent obit for Walker says "Mr Walker's association with the stars he wrote about was renowned, and he was said to be one of the few who could call the reclusive film director Stanley Kubrick a friend."

However, a caveat may be in order. The blurb on the 2000 edition may be a holdover from the 1971 edition published before the work of Ciment.

I think the statement needs to be rephrased and nuanced, but not entirely dropped.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure Walker and Kubrick were tight. But that doesn't mean we can put a note in the article saying he was the only one who Kubrick cooperated with because some PR copy writer says so on a dust jacket. This clearly is not the case in Ciment's book, for example, which, if not for Kubrick's cooperation, there would be no interviews of him at all! I don't even think it's proper to try to convince readers that Walker's books should be seen as somehow more valid or important than other sources just because he had access to more of his stuff. That's not what WP is about, as WP:NPOV makes clear. I don't know how a note like the one I removed can be nuanced into being acceptable or appropriate, but you can certainly try. But keep in mind that proving different "levels of cooperation" might turn out to be extremely difficult, and not really meaningful if you could anyway. And you'll still need to find citations for everything, your note as it stands now reads like pure OR.Shirtwaist (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

By 'note', are you talking about my parenthetical note about Walker or the whole paragraph??--WickerGuy (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's now clearer to me you are talking about the note. It has been modified since I read this. Still perhaps a bit too effusive, but certainly more specific.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about the parenthetical note. Your citation refers to your OR, and should be removed along with the note, or replaced with a valid one. Also, what's with the added Agel and Lange stuff? Walker's quotes should be sufficient to make the point that they were originally intended to be bombs. We get it, they were supposed to be bombs. Why go on and on about it?Shirtwaist (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I may not need both Agel AND Lange, but I thought the business about matchup of final design with production sketches is worthy material worth including. The design didn't later change! (I am considering restructuring the whole section- keeping virtually everything that's there, but changing the sequence of presentation.). If I change "the sole book that...." to "a book that....", are we out of OR territory? It is easily verifiable from the prefatory page and the text that the book that was written with Kubrick's authorization, access to his archives, and assistance. As far as I can see, you are only objecting to the publisher's promotional assertion of "only book" with the rather sweeping general and unspecific term "co-operation".--WickerGuy (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph is meant to establish why some people think they are meant to be weapons. In WP we cite both points of view, right? However, this intent is very unclear from the current structure, which is why all this needs to be re-arranged. Your qualification of Lockwood is still overly wordy, and I have an intermediate compromise which will appear in the re-arranged version.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've now restructured the whole thing. While I realize that you want to establish how "bald" Gary Lockwood's statement is, he seems to both qualify as WP's definition of "primary source", and there are caveats about adding interpretive statements about this. WP policy says

Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved[my emphasis], offering an insider's view [my emphasis] of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.....Do not [Wikipedia's emphasis!!] make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative [my emphasis] claims about material found in a primary source.

At least, let's keep the Lockwood qualifier brief and to the point.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

For the love of God, WG, will you start using indents in talk properly please??? Just saw your changes, and the first paragraph seems fine. But on further thought, adding all that mass of other stuff is going far beyond the scope of "Remnants of early drafts in final film", and into the separate area of "Those who thought the satellites were weapons", which obviously has nothing to do with listing remnants from early drafts. After establishing the fact, in the first paragraph, that A)they were intended to be bombs, B)they had flags on them related to that, and C)the whole "stalemate with orbiting bombs" idea was eventually dropped from the final movie, all that's needed to be said to the reader, in generic terms, is that some thought they were satellites(reviewers), and others thought they were weapons(Walker and a few scientists). I suggest we put this Walker quote -

"It is here that an early draft of the film script intended to make the point, via the narrator, that a nuclear stalemate had been reached between the United States and the Soviet Union, each of whom has a nuclear bomb orbiting the globe which can be triggered by remote control. This idea has been totally eliminated from the finished film, though from national markings still visible on the first and second vehicles we see, we can surmise these are the Russian and American bombs. Kubrick dropped this aspect because, on reflection, it seemed to him to have no place at all in the film's thematic development. It was an orbiting red herring."

- adjacent to the part that talks about the reviewers all saying they were satellites, and leave it at that. BTW, Walker is incorrect when he says "national markings still visible on the first and second vehicles we see". The visible markings are seen only on the second and third vehicles. As for the other points, you can qualify Walker's involvement with Kubrick in any way that can be sourced and cited properly and can stand up to WP's rules - no dust jackets. As for Lockwood - "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Are dvd commentaries "reliably published"? In any case, I was stating a fact about something that is not in the primary source, and was not being analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative about the quote itself. And since we're talking about Kubrick's intent here, not Lockwoods involvement in the film, I doubt Lockwood even qualifies as a primary source for anything but his own opinions anyway!Shirtwaist (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What I've stated mainly and directly is that the Walker book was written with Kubrick's authorization, access to Kubrick's personal film archives, and his help. All this is verifiable from the author's acknowledgments inside the book. I've also stated (now as a secondary aside in passing) that the back cover promotional says so-and-so, and then expressed very mild skepticism that what the publisher says may be a modest overstatement. Effectively, the promotional is now a source on itself which is allowed by WP:SOURCES; it is no longer cited to support anything except that the publisher says so. I was very careful to rephrase all things so that is clear. The reader can think whatever they like. Likewise, Lockwood. WP defines a primary source as someone with an "insiders view". (Lockwood presumably attended some script meetings and script conferences, unless Kubrick works like Lucas allowing actors to only see scenes in which they appear.) In the current format of the argument of this section, Lockwood is listed as one of four people involved with the production who continue to use the weapon-paradigm, generally supporting the topic-sentence of the paragraph that there are people involved with the production who speak in this fashion. As such, Lockwood also currently functions pretty much as a source on himself which (again) is allowed by WP:SOURCES (To be sure, some actors turn out to be very UNreliable guides to understanding the productions they were involved in [IMO, William Shatner & Judy Garland would be prime examples]. But some actors are tremendous insightful into productions they were engaged in, such as Christopher Plummer for example. We don't know how reliable Lockwood is. But the current paragraph/argument structure merely asserts that Lockwood along with three others involved with the production has said so.) I need to sleep a bit on the rest of your comments (It is 10:12 PM on the California coast) and will have more to say either in the morning or during a bout of insomnia.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, doesn't the fact that Alex Walker's book was published by W.W. Norton carry any weight? For all practical purpose, the author of the back cover of the book is the publisher W. W. Norton. WP's list of reliable sources WP:SOURCES explicitly includes "books published by respected publishing houses". Addendum" Though I realize WP might disqualify the statement as "self-serving"--WickerGuy (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Son of a gun!! Kubrick did indeed personally supply previously unpulblished stills from his films for Michel Ciment!!! This lends some credence to my earlier speculation that WW Norton's blurb is a holdover from the 1971 edition!! Also, Ciment thanks Alexander Walker for his help with the book. Less to the point, but an interview with Kubrick's producer (from '75 on) (& brother-in-law) Jan Harlan in the Austin Chronicle states that SK generally preferred to give interviews with only four critics. Two of these are Ciment and Walker. Must modify footnote immediately.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, dvd's would fall under "electronic media" in WP:SOURCES. You can certainly use Lockwood's quote, but there's nothing in WP:PRIMARY that says I can't make clear what he's not saying. If you think what he's saying in this context is important for the reader to know, what he's not saying is also important for them to know too. BTW, who are the other two critics on SK's to-do list?Shirtwaist (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the "including Ciment" to the main text. I was going to do that, but I shouldn't be surprised you beat me to it. The other two critics SK was willing to talk to were Jack Kroll of Newsweek, and Richard Schickel of Time. Source http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:83313 . Incidentally, the two books by Walker and Ciment, and a third book by Thomas Allan Nelson are as far as I know the only three books on Kubrick to go through two editions, the second edition being created to cover movies that were not published when the first one came out. The two editions of Walker: 1971 & 2000. Michel Ciment: 1980 & 2003. Thomas Allen Nelson ("Kubrick: Inside a Film Artist's Maze): 1982 & 2000. Ironically, Nelson is the only one of the three I have read every word of from cover to cover (in the later edition). Yes, WP allows "electronic sources". Their reliability might depend on who is giving the commentary. Significantly, Lots of DVDs have legal disclaimers "The views expressed in the commentary do not necessarily express the views of Paramount/MGM/Columbia, etc." since occasionally the commentators say something too weird. (I'm pretty sure there is no such disclaimer on the 2001 DVD.) The DVD commentaries (plural) on "Citizen Kane" are by Roger Ebert and director Peter Bogdonovich (who personally knew Orson Welles) and as such I would attribute high reliability too. I could be wrong and expressing a bigoted POV, but who knows about the audio commentary by Dennis Hopper on the DVD of Easy Rider? It's only 5 in the morning. More anon.--WickerGuy (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the full Walker quote too long for WP?? Are you suggesting it go in an edit-box on the side?

BTW, we mutually agreed a bit back to remove David Stork's comment from public lectures. I should mention he refers to the satellites as nukes in lectures largely when showing off his personal collection of some of the few remaining props and outtake production stills from the film. He was often photographed in the late '90s with one of HAL's original eyepieces (which he has) in his hand. Oddly enough, when detached from a console, HAL's eyepiece is about the same shape as the monolith (not counting the hole in the middle) (as are HAL's memory modules). When Stork allowed me to handle it, I touched it just like Heywood and the monolith held it up and looked up it vertically. Stork's personal collection of this stuff has nothing to do with his book which is entirely on depiction of computers in sci-fi with a focus on HAL. While on tour promoting that book, he showed off his collection of props and production stills, and it is in this context that he speaks of the satellites as being nuclear bombs. His source is Arthur C. Clarke and the propmaster Lange. He said this in more than one lecture, but I believe there is no written record.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm jealous. I've always wanted one of those HAL eyepiece plates. Did he say how many there were floating around?Shirtwaist (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If he did, I don't recall. Most of the props were destroyed. The one I saw was in dilapidated condition. Scroll down to second photo at http://www.2001exhibit.org/stork/HALTalks.html

Plot summary discussion

(edit conflict) Why is there so much discussion on this talk page about the plot summary? The issues seem awfully granular when the summary is supposed to be concise (per WP:PLOT) and very basically described (per WP:PSTS). Great emphasis should be had for the rest of the article and improving content that is typically less available to readers than the film itself. I'm not trying to insult anyone here, but I keep seeing recent changes for this talk page and finding such overwrought analysis of the summary. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's due to a combination of the ambiguity of the film, and as a recent article in "Bright Light Film Journal" observed- all Wikipedia editors are incredibly anal-retentive.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Erik- You're welcome to add to the article wherever you think needs it. You might want to start new discussions in talk by creating a new section, though, instead of dropping comments in an unrelated talk thread.Shirtwaist (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

More seriously, we are currently discussing a section on the history of the writing of the film, not the plot summary itself.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Caveat on Walker in Main Article/ Caveat on Kubrick

I moved Shirtwaist's caveat about Alex Walker to the main section and rephrased it to describe it as a lack of clarity rather than to say it seems like a contradiction. My point in previously providing alternative scenarios to what Kubrick might have been thinking was not to suggest they are true, let alone belong in the main article (they do not), but to simply illustrate there are scenarios imaginable in which Walker's two statements are not contradictory. (And again keep in mind Walker uses present tense in both articles "are", never "were").
Stated simply, what seems most likely (but I will consult Jerome Agel this weekend at the library) is that Kubrick simply demoted/relegated the nuclear weapons down to a secondary-marginal-background status to his film, rather than giving them a main foreground emphasis, and chose not to explain why. At least this reconciles all of Alex Walker's assertions!!!
Stated more complexly, people who study literature and religion talk about "multivalent symbols" which signify different things depending on context. For example, literary critic Valdine Clemens calls the medieval castle in Gothic tales such a symbol, where it can symbolize patriarchal social order or the sexual body depending on how its employed. I personally think one can see the satellite/bombs in such a way, which helps explain their retention (and again reconcile Walker's statements). They no longer signify nuclear stalemate between superpowers. In the current film, (for viewers who presuppose they are bombs) their meaning is ambiguous- one is free to believe they foreshadow HAL's malfunction by showing a shadow side of technology, or believe that by subsequently showing us Dr. Floyd's floating pen in the shuttle Kubrick is saying "the pen is mightier than the sword/bomb" or any number of other things.

I restored my original edit to say Kubrick left it open to "surmise" rather than "imagine" they are bombs. A surmise is not a conclusion but an informed guess/hypothesis. "Surmise" conveys exactly and precisely what my wrapup of this section means to say.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

PS It's just my own interpretation, but satellites 1 2 and 4 all have structures look exactly and precisely like gun turrets of the type fired by remote control. See File:Iowa 16 inch Gun-EN.svg ow Wikimedia Commons, pic of Russian gunmount at http://media.photobucket.com/image/gun%20turret/tigertank88/Slava-gun-turret_WIP03.jpg and compare with the image for Space Odyssey at the top of the (leadingly titled) "Orbital Weapons" website http://davidszondy.com/future/war/orbitalweapons.htm.

Finally no one has noted that the treaty banning nuclear weapons from space was signed in 1967(!!!) in the final stages of film production after most was filmed. It was partly because military experts had finally concluded this was impractical because as the previous cited website says "neither the Moon nor Earth orbital bases turned out to offer any sort of advantage over surface-based missiles, which could strike targets quickly and accurately from silos or submarines yet were easily protected or hidden.....Low orbiting bombs only passed over their targets occasionally and predictably, and being over target in a satellite is not like being in a bomber. The bomb still had to be got to Earth and that meant either a rocket engine as large as that of a surface-based missile or having your bomb spiral gently in with all the delays and problems that involves." Actually, this could go in the main article.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Jerome Agel kinda Wraps it Up

Page 72 of Jerome Agel's 1970 book "The Making of 2001"- "[Photo-WG] captions on the following pages were prepared with the assistance of Messrs. Kubrick, Clarke, Trumbull, and Pederson."

Photo caption on page 88 (pages in longish photo insert are not numbered) "Sunrise on Earth. Orbiting satellites carrying nuclear weapons make their rounds at end of Twentieth Century."

I think this kind of settles the overlong and contentious (though not tendentious) debate. However, the section in the main article has been much improved by the prolonged discussion resulting in a lot of useful nuance and discussion that would not be there had there been early consensus.

PS Walker in his second essay does indeed talk about Kubrick dropping the whole bomb detonation idea, but discusses all this entirely in terms of plot mechanics, whereas in his earlier book he discusses the issue in terms of thematic development. That is why the earlier one is unclear. However, as I keep pointing out, present tense ("they are bombs") is used in both works.

PPS The University of California Berkeley library has bound Jerome Agel's book with a brown hardcover that says "Arthur Clarke's 2001" on the outside though the call-number is correct. Grrr! Since I'm reporting this, it's likely to be off the shelf for the next few days or weeks while they rebind it!! I repeat, Grrr!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

How do we know what info in which captions were provided by whom? Or did they have a meeting to decide what every single caption should say? Or did Agel take all their advice and decide on his own what the captions should be? To what extent did Kubrick assist? What exactly does "with the assistance of" mean? Sorry, but this settles nothing.Shirtwaist (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

First a somewhat significant side point, it may be worth noting that not only was Agel a personal friend of Kubrick, but Kubrick was highly impressed with Agel's book and bought several copies and distributed it to friends.

To the main point however, while remotely possible that Agel is wrong, even reliable sources make mistakes including The New York Times. Nonetheless, it is WP policy to generally run with reliable sources "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It is NOT WP policy to nitpick in a pedantic manner on a source generally & broadly acknowledged as reliable and ask but how did they know this or know that little detail. Otherwise debates could go on ad infinitum. Agel is a well-known author of over 50 books on science and history. He is not a sensationalist or a muckraker such as say Albert Goldman. And this book has a strong reputation as the "go-to" book on all things related to 2001. Again, it is WP policy to go with sources that are generally reliable.

It is quite clear at this point that even with some room for doubt, the preponderance of evidence (the lowest/least-rigorous of three standards of proof in a court of law) is that the satellites are in fact nuclear weapons. We don't meet the highest standard (proof beyond reasonable doubt), and I am don't understand law well enough to say if I have met the intermediate standard ("clear and convincing evidence"). WP isn't a court of law, but I think it should reflect what in court is called "balance of probabilities" while always being clear what the level of certainty is, which is what my last edit attempted to accomplish.

If you can't see that we have gotten that far, you really are like Monty Python's Black Knight

[Arthur cuts off Black Knight's left arm]

King Arthur: Now, stand aside, worthy adversary!

Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch!

King Arthur: A scratch? Your arm's off!

Black Knight: No, it isn't!

King Arthur: Well, what's that then?

Black Knight: I've had worse.

As for your most recent edit, you have obscured that Alex Walker used present tense ("are" not "were") in both quotes along with the telling phrase "nevertheless" in the first one. You keep imposing an artificial binary of only two possibilities onto what he says thus deriving a contradiction when there is one. In the book, Walker effectively says Kubrick dropped the theme of 'nuclear stalemate' but kept material which allows some viewers to identify them as bombs which now can be understood in an entirely open-ended, ambivalent way that may or may not have anything to do with nuclear stalemate. Read this way, there is no disparity in Walker's statements.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

All this fuss over a section called "Remnants of early drafts in final film"? Why are you so obsessed with proving this point about them being bombs in such a section by pulling out every conceivable source that says so in the process? If anyone is going against the WP grain re:WP:NPOV, it's you my friend. But if you want to discuss, let's discuss. I find it very interesting to see how you flit from one supposedly "best source" for deciding if they were bombs or not to the other. First, the vast majority of critics describing what they see isn't good enough for you. I give you Ciment's opinion, still not good enough until it became clear Ciment was indeed in Kubrick's good graces. You then jump to Walker with his supposed exclusive "in" he has with Kubrick as the ultimate source. When I point out the flaws in his statements, it's now the production people who actually worked with Kubrick on the film who have the final say with you. When that didn't quite work out after I clarified their statements which were accidentally (or intentionally) skewed by you, suddenly it's Agel's captions that are the final arbiter. Which "ultimate source" will you pull out next, I wonder, in this "quest for the truth" of yours? But then, WP isn't about "truth", it's about verifiability through citing sources, isn't it?.

Since you are so concerned with it, let's look at Walker's first statement in detail -- "By one sharp associative cut, the last bone from the pounded skeleton bouncing high in the blue is transformed into a spacecraft (not weapon) of the year A.D. 2001 as it orbits in the blackness around earth. It was here in the early draft of the film script intended to make the point, via narrator, that a nuclear stalemate had been reached between the United States and the Soviet Union, each of whom has a nuclear bomb orbiting the globe which can be triggered by remote control. This idea (Walker makes no distinction of which idea he's talking about-therefore the reader must assume he means both stalemate and bombs) has been totally eliminated from the finished film, though from national markings still visible on the first and second space vehicles we see (how he can tell they're Russian and American Markings is beyond me), we can surmise these are the Russian and American bombs (he is either contradicting himself by now saying Kubrick did intend them to be bombs in the final film--presumably not something he wants to do, OR he's saying "we can surmise these are the Russian and American bombs that are now supposed to be mere satellites as Kubrick intended"). Kubrick dropped this aspect (since this immediately follows a sentence about stalemate AND orbiting bombs, the reader must assume he's saying "Kubrick dropped the idea of stalemate and orbiting bombs") because, on reflection, it seemed to him to have no place at all in the film's thematic development (which is inextricably linked to the narrative). It was an orbiting red herring (something that, if seen as stalemate and bombs, would deflect attention away from Kubrick's true intention). It was made clear later, in the edgy encounter between Russian and American scientists, that both countries were still living in a state of tense friendliness; and since some politically conscious filmgoers in the 1960's would know that agreement had already been reached between the powers not to put H-bombs into space, it would merely have raised irrelevant queries to suggest this as a reality of the twenty-first century." (it made absolutely no sense for him to imply there were orbiting H-bombs in his futuristic movie since he knew it was generally known by that time that nukes in space were already banned)

Walker couldn't be clearer about his belief that Kubrick didn't want stalemate and orbiting nukes in his movie.

Now, let's take a look at Walker's second statement: "A retrospective look at 2001 from the perspective of thirty years later confirms that it has much more importance as a work of art and science, one that changed audience's perceptions of how films could be viewed, than as a prediction of things to come (SK got some things wrong). Some of its guesses, though, were palpable hits. The cold war is over now and, yes, space-age cooperation between the U.S. and a much diminished former Soviet Union has arrived, just as the film proposed in the nuclear stalemate its early scenes imply between East and West (wait--didn't he previously say "stalemate and orbiting bombs" had been totally eliminated from the film?). What's not generally recognized, even by film buffs (if film buffs don't see them as bombs, the average viewer definitely shouldn't), is that two of the spacecraft seen circling Earth in the first grand panorama of the cosmos, each carrying, respectively, U.S. and U.S.S.R. markings, are meant to be nuclear weapons (again, contradicting his earlier statement). An early version of the screenplay proposed having the Star Child detonate these circling megatons[...]Kubrick eventually rejected it (I thought Kubrick told him "bombs and stalemate seemed to him to have no place at all in the film's thematic development", which springs directly from the narrative?), opting for peaceful coexistence in outerspace and avoiding turning the Star Child into an avenging angel taking its ire out on human folly."

It is abundantly clear to any sane person that the second statement is clearly in opposition to the first. Care to refute any of that?Shirtwaist (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Agel's captions -- it's not nitpicking to point out the vagueness of "with the assistance of" as opposed to "at the direction of". "Assistance" can mean many things; Kubrick gave him stills of the satellites, while Clarke told him they were bombs, for example. You are assigning precise definition where none exists. And after all, Agel never worked with Kubrick on the film, so why should his captions hold so much weight?Shirtwaist (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As for the caption itself: "Sunrise on earth. Orbiting satellites carrying nuclear weapons make their rounds at end of twentieth century." You say that's Kubrick talking, I say that's Agel giving his opinion just like many others have. The only Kubrick quote I see on that page has nothing at all to say about the satellites - is THAT the "assistance from Stanley Kubrick" he's talking about, or is it something else?. Michel Ciment wrote his book with Kubrick's assistance and authorization too, and he calls them "spacecraft". Are we to assume Kubrick told one thing to one author, and something completely different to another?Shirtwaist (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)