Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

Use of tapirs in 2001: A Space Odyssey

The pig-like creatures in this screenshot (and the one that Moonwatcher kills in slow motion with the bone) are Tapirs. According to this source, they are not found in Africa, and the ones used in the film came from Twycross Zoo.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

TMA

The last two sentences of section read: "The visitors examine the monolith, and pose for a photo in front of it. While doing so, they hear a very loud high-pitched radio signal emanating from within the monolith." TO my recollection of the scene and explains it much better it is more like: "The visitors examine the monolith, and aware thee first sunrise for the monolith pose for a photo in front of it. As sunrise occurs, it trigger the the monolith to commence transmitting a radio signal. The the visitors this signal is simply a high pitched sound in their spacesuit receivers" [Not directly stated, but implied to be the first sunrise/direct sun exposure to the monolith since buried a long time ago. Wfoj2 (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"See you next Wednesday"

Re this edit. Sure enough, Frank Poole's parents do say "See you next Wednesday" in the film, at around the one hour and five minutes mark (screenshot here). It is more of a worry to use this as the basis of See You Next Wednesday in the films of John Landis, because no reliable source seems to confirm this, despite often being given as the origin of the quote. Since this is a good article, this should have a cite before going into the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Controversy about the Slab cult object of the movie

Extended content

Preeminent elements concerning my position. First it is necessary to precise that I am American born in France in 1931 in third generation (my Great father was Christian orthodox Deacon carrying its pastorate near Russian and Greek community, in Rocks Springs, Wyomming) and that I am a physicist. My researches at the CEA at Grenoble (AEC: French atomic energy commission) were from my only initiative according to my own designs and objectives. The demonstration of the theory that I had developed culminated in a new property of time and its influence in many fields including that of light emanating from solid bodies in various stages of incandescence, their action on the hydro carbonaceous elements. It is appropriate to recall that the human race is hydro carbonaceous and the stars are in effervescence /incandescence thermonuclear variable just as our own star the Sun. Me were provided materials by: AMERICAN STELL Ltd. for metal tubes elongated steel cold introduced in the hydro carbonaceous materials in combustion ; PROCTER & GAMBLE co. Inc. for biological analyses ; Pierre LEDEZ, Head of research at the SEITA (French state-owned tobacco monopoly), for some other hydro carbonaceous items ; Paul PERROUD, Director of special applications of physics CEA-CENG (AEC) put laboratories offices and staff at my disposal for operations of weights and measures. Concerning Kubrick' film cited in this page: My pictorial work is an extrapolation issue from my physics researches.The film is an artistic creation as my picturial work. On a correlative side, it's clear that the fundament of "2001 a space odyssey" is not a technical question in the Influence on film. The fundament of the film 2001concerns the destiny of mankind. The cult element of the film is the Slab monolith, the argument and driving force in the cinematic triumph of Stanley Kubrick ; the slab contains all genetic machinery, all knowledge, all prophecy. the slab inculcates and initiates the technical possibilities, on a 4,000,000 years period from humanoids to modern, to reach this preeminent ultimate goal which is the finality of mankind. The Slabs appear in my work since 1954, intervening as links in communication with mankind. It is clear in the movie, doubtless possible for the film visual plan, plan after plan, all very slow according to the will of Kubrick, have a fear thus to avoid them, that the intervention of the monolith directs its movie. Without having to operate any the philosophic or other deduction, the very slow progress of the events according to this will of the designer, quite specially when the monolith appears, it is well the one to underline that the monolith intervenes and introduces the human race since its origins, at the beginning of the movie, according to precise acts and this in the crucial stages which bring the man to the term of his fate. A lot, to seem interesting, gets involved to tell Kubrick while they know only a summary of the movie, summarized itself stemming from a trailer. Indeed, the characteristic slowness of the progress of the movie, the slowness stressed even more on certain images in particular on those of the monolith, the mesmerizing slowness for some, demoralized it the others tired by this slowness; the dimension of the subject of this exceptional movie and its scale, was not able to find of sufficient place in certain spirits. ______________ I propose a real humble position concerning particularities of my work, defining its philosophic fundament of the human destiny developed during Kubrick' film, in an independent paragraph : Controversy about the slab cult object of the movie. For our Russian friend Pavel Klushantsev its own paragraph has to be : Speculation on fiction technical aspects. The first one is intellectual and the second, material. I propose a real humble position about my work : Controversy about the Slab cult object of the movie The art critics noted similarities between the monolith Kubrick and the similar pattern in the paintings of the artist Georges Yatridès. Arthur Conte Note that the slab monolith of Yatridès " Adolescent and Child", painted in 1963, before the release of the film includes a slab very similar to that used by Kubrick in the film . Yatridès master time, extracts work of Arthur Conte. . In the paintings of George Yatridès, the monolith is a mystical symbol vector absolute knowledge. Sacha Bourmeyster, a semiotics Renowned explains and ' 'Yatridès, anti-Picasso . The similarities between the paintings of Yatridès and Monolith Kubrick were also noted in website architecture CYBERARCHItecte . Other independent sources report the existence in 1957 of monolithic plates on the bottom and form in the work of painter Georges Yatridès plates that could inspire the monolith 2001 the Space Odyssey, and the analysis assumes various works among others: "City of Grenoble" "Who's Who in International Art" , Who's Who in International Art, International biographical art dictionary and summary International Biennials (non exhaustive list). First apparition of Yatrides slabs and then its "Interstellars Icons" (1954- 1965).They are the same slabs that KUBRICK and CLARKE used 5 years later in 1968, since catalogs were published in USA, but 11 years later if we consider the paintings sent in USA since 1956 and exhibited in public galleries, in particular in the USA in various States of the Union, those dependent on Samuel E. Johnson Director of International Galleries Chicago Ill., with whom I was in exclusive contract. It has been underlined that Clarke and Kubrick visited galleries to find new ideas on axis key of the movie. 2001 Editions Cahiers du cinéma 2001. Aurum Press Limited, London WC 183 AT. ISBN 978-2-86642272-1, 368 pages, Préface : "The most important ever realized movie about the conquest of the space" by Piers Bizony: "Register of the cinema 2001" YATRIDES' monoliths icons, are the argument and driving force in the cinematic triumph "2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY". Extract : "The child on the steps turns away from us to watch a thin slab passing through the sky overhead. Elongated and quite simple in form, this slab contains all genetic machinery, all knowledge, all prophecy, the ideal promise of all enlightenment".Through this symbol. great cosmic visions have been attained". Arthur CONTE extracts. . Yatridès never claimed his paternity rights. --Yatrides (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Way too long an addition. The paragraph already in the article seems more than adequate. The additional material seems more appropriate for the Georges Yatridès article. Yworo (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC) A lot of this is discussed here. The "monolith" in Christ Leica and orange by Yatrides is not strikingly similar to the one in the film, and there is no direct evidence that Clarke or Kubrick were inspired by it. This looks like an attempt to make the facts fit the theory rather than the other way round.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC) ____________________________________ January 09, 2013 Discussion: I thank you for your answer. " Christ Leica and orange " show the monolith such as it appears at the beginning of film. Besides, this first picture is not the only one of my works who contains a slab occurring with the men ((http://skildy.blog.lemonde.fr/2007/09/19/kubrick-signification-du-monolithe-de-2001/)). From 1954 eleven of my paintings correspond to the cult object of the movie, and some of them appear to the main sequences of the film. Kubrick did not copy one of my paintings, he was inspired by numerous of them containing the monolith, on content and form, cult object which determines the crucial sequences of the movie : 2001. http://www.yatrides.com/oeuvre/kubrick/kubrick.htm On a plan of the creation, example an object invented by John Dupont, such as a lighter of specific conception : that it is in the front window of a Chicago store, in the pocket of a Chinese or lost in the Sierra Madre, there is an intellectual property of Dupont his creator. But better than the lighter which can be everywhere according to its buyers and remain however the creation of its designer, my monolithic intervenes only and confidentially with the men. It is question of the fate of the humanity and the monolith is an instrumental entity managed by a superior intelligence which introduces and accompanies the man throughout his fate. There is very numerous secondary sources, among which dictionaries. Among those which are directly concerned, these very concrete three: 1- Arthur Conte Minister of Culture and Communication under Charles de Gaulle and Chief Executive Officer of 3 TV channels depending on the French State, is the author of " Yatrides master of time” : http://www.yatrides.com/anglais/index.htm 2- Sacha Bourmeyster author of "Yatrides and his century the anti Picasso", is one of greater semiologists of today. Of Russian origin; he amplified semiotics narrative of Victor Chkovski, Boris Eichenbaum and Algirdas Julien Greimas : http://www.yatrides.com/anglais/life/Bibliography/Bibliography.HTM 3- James Crowley Professor, Doctor in Physics, Carnegie Mellon University, Robotic Institute developed an analysis of my work recognized by several universities : http://www-prima.imag.fr/Prima/Homepages/jlc/Yatrides/slab.html http://www-prima.inrialpes.fr/jlc/jlc.html http://www-prima.imag.fr/Prima/Homepages/jlc/Yatrides/index.html http://www.cmu.edu/ I propose a new independent paragraph concerning particularities of my work corresponding the human destiny, developed through Kubrick' film. For Pavel Klushantsev its own paragraph would be : Speculation on fiction technical aspects since It is not the fundament of the movie and concerns a technical part managed by the knowledge resulting from the monolith which initiates the evolution of men. === Controversy around the Slab cult object of the movie === [ [Art critics]] noted similarities between the monolith of Kubrick and the similar motive in the paintings of the artist Georges Yatridès. Arthur Conte note that the picture of Yatridès '"' the Teenager and the Child " ", painted in 1963, before the release of the movie, contains a Slab very similar to that used by Kubrick in its movie . In the paintings of Georges Yatridès, the monolith represents a vector mystic symbol of an absolute knowledge. Alexandre Bourmeyster|Sacha Bourmeyster, one semiologist renowned, explains that the Slab of Yatridès has the power to transcend the life in a supernatural way, in a comparable way in that of Kubrick in "2001". Alexandre Bourmeyster|Sacha Bourmeyster also underlined this similitude in his work " The Interstellar Icons " . The similarity between the paintings of Yatridès and the monolith of Kubrick was also found in the Web site of architecture CYBERARCHITECT . First apparition of Yatrides slabs and then its "Interstellar Icons" (1954-1965) http://www.yatrides-21st-century.com/c/2012/09/video-on-similarities-between-georges-yatrides-artwork-and-2001-space-odyssey/.They are the same slabs that KUBRICK and CLARKE used 5 years later in 1968, since catalogues were published in USA, but 11 years later if we consider the paintings sent in USA since 1956 and exhibited in public galleries, in particular in the USA in various States of the Union, those dependent on Samuel E. Johnson Director of International Galleries Chicago Ill. with whom I was in exclusive contract. Other works of independent sources state the existence from 1957 of monolithic Slabs, on content and form, in the work of the painter Georges Yatridès, very similar to the monolith of " 2001 the Odyssey of the space ", as well as describe it diverse works of analysis between the others: " City of Grenoble " , " Who's Who in International Art " and summary of International Biennial events ( not exhaustive list). --Yatrides (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC) This is reminiscent of the situation where Jean Ledrut said that the song Telstar was copied from his score for the film Austerlitz. Correlation does not imply causation.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC) __________________________ January 24, 2013 talk I thank you for your comprehensive position. I have never ask, or shall ask for no rights on the movie 2001: a space odyssey. I demand a single thing, that the characteristics of my Monolith, involve its own appropriate , legitimate paragraph because an object of similar form and substance characteristics, is the cult object of the movie 2001. During the film, Kubrick shows the Slab monolith 5 times. But each of these 5 times the Slab monolith appears in every crucial sequence which determines the fate of the man until its resurrection, planned by the Slab monolith. It is the substance of the movie, downright. Pavel Klushantsev brings some interesting detail, but it does not affect the heart of the matter of the movie, which is the fate of the man managed by the monolith. On other numerous details so interesting, we can quote Van Vogt, Isaac Asimov, the steelworks in Xix-teen century, among which the workers close to tanks in service, had soles enough adherent (soles magnetized in the vessel of 2001) to maintain their balance outside the danger zones close to the fusion of metal; not exhaustive list. It changes nothing; the heart of the matter is not concerned that it is the mankind destiny, managed by the monolith. One musical composition, as this of Ledrut, can claim the application of its rights only an other musical composition. In contrast, the pictorial graphic art finds itself in a multitude of other arts; in addition in all which affects the knowledge, because the line is the source of any sciences including mathematics, physics, geometry, the patent drawings etc. Besides, considering other arts, example a book: it has the beginning and the end. In the same way for a musical composition. A sculpture, it is necessary to make the tour to arrest its completeness. In these 3 cases and some others it is necessary to memorize all the signs which follow one another, whoever they are, to be able to, at the end, recompose by average more or less laborious mnemonic, the global composition which we previously assimilated step by step. The Slab monolith appears immediately in its entirety. I have never demanded intellectual rights on the movie, in spite of the proposal to formulate them, advised by the American Embassy in Paris, in 1970 because I am American 3rd generation, and in it, helped by my second Father, Louis Pannier Consul of France. I refused since to accumulate some money is not for my program, even less today in my 82 years. I wanted only that my work is quoted in the credits of the movie. It thus implies no causality or other one quibbling actions about a plagiarism. God only knows if Arthur C. Clarke copied my work. However numerous human analyses would tend to prove it. If he had made it would he it have admitted? Arthur C. Clarke is not Stanley Kubrick. By darkening my work (YatridesArts Canada) the French Establishment allowed number of the other creators of various disciplines to use without constraint of some characteristics of my work. Hidden also sales prices during the years 80/90, about several of my works which were sold between Private Collections 3,080,000 CH Francs (3,325,000 US Dollars, Who's Who in international art 1987/1988 registered them); while I had given these paintings at a moderate price. It represents the "furniture" of preeminent Collectors which cannot nevertheless be underestimated, but especially also the patrimony of modest collectors in possession of some less important works of my hand, however hardly acquired. The authenticity requires recognizing, without ambiguity, that my Slabs monoliths are antecedent to those similar in the movie where they appear, even if Kubrick did not know about their existence. This was proved true in university reports and during public conferences, in dictionaries of secondary source. It was confirmed by the best Russian semiologist of today who has just radicalized the influence of Yatridès in 2001. (See my previous messages) But as I said it, Kubrick is not alone, there is Arthur C. Clark initiator of the scenario. Clarke is not Kubrick. As specified yet in this text I never asked, or shall ask for rights on the movie 2001: a space odyssey. It thus implies no causality or other one associated action. It is so, that I ask you that the monolith has its appropriate paragraph. What is very modest in this context. First appearance of the Slab monolith, the keystone of the movie Art critics noted similarities between the monolith of Kubrick in its art cinematographic work and the same motive in pictorial art, in the paintings of the artist Georges Yatrides. Arthur Conte notes that the picture of Yatrides " the Teenager and the Child ", painted in 1963, before the release of the movie, contains a Slab very similar to that used by Kubrick in its movie . In the paintings of Georges Yatrides, the Slab monolith represents a vector mystic symbol of an absolute knowledge. Alexandre Bourmeyster|Sacha Bourmeyster, one semiologist renowned, shows that the Slab of Yatrides has the power to transcend the life in a supernatural way, in a comparable way in that of Kubrick in "2001". Alexandre Bourmeyster|Sacha Bourmeyster (France) also underlined this similitude in his work " The Interstellar Icons " . The similarity between the paintings of Yatrides and the monolith of Kubrick was also found in the Web site of architecture CYBERARCHITECT . First apparition of Yatrides slabs and then its "Interstellar Icons" (1954-1965). Christophe Odin (Kelkoo creator, idem Kapirisk, etc.) finds in the work of Yatrides gone back to 1951, he first picture which includes a Slab monolith, its presence before and after the death of the man. Alexandre Bourmeyster radicalizes his study on the influence of George Yatrides on Arthur C. Clarke/Stanley Kubrick. 2001 [[1]].They are the same slabs that KUBRICK and CLARKE used 5 years later in 1968, since catalogues were published in USA, but 11 years later considering the paintings sent in USA since 1956 and exhibited in public galleries, in particular in the USA in various States of the Union, those dependent on Samuel E. Johnson Director of International Galleries Chicago Ill. with whom I was in exclusive contract. And 15 years later if considered the first slab of 1951. Diaries Book of Cinema stresses that Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick visited art galleries to find inspiration. It seems that Clarke only did it. Christophe Odin (Yatrides 21st century independent site) finds the first work of Yatrides gone back to 1951 including a Slab monolith. which appears before and after the death of the man. Alexandre Bourmeyster radicalizes his study on the influence of George Yatrides on Arthur C. Clarke/Stanley Kubrick 2001 a space odyssey. Other many works of independent sources state the existence from 1957 of monolithic Slabs, on content and form, in the work of the painter Georges Yatridès, very similar to the monolith of " 2001 the Odyssey of the space ", as well as describe it diverse works of analysis between the others: " City of Grenoble ", " Who's Who in International Art ". and several edited events by International Biennials Canada-France committee (1991-1993) ( not exhaustive list). George Yatrides --Yatrides (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC) The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word “monolith” as: “A single block of stone, esp. a large one shaped (freq. in prehistoric times) into a pillar or monument.” In fact, there are many ancient standing stones in Europe which resemble 2001's monolith. I don't know if Clarke and Kubrick thought of these when they wanted a shape to replace their original idea of a tetrahedron (which they thought cinemagoers might take to be something to do with Egyptian pyramids), but they seem to me to be at least as likely an inspiration as M. Yatridès' works. In the novel's version of the story: “How obvious – how necessary – was that mathematical ratio of its sides, the quadratic sequence 1:4:9 !..” and those are the proportions of the monolith in the film. The paintings that show the “monoliths” that we are told inspired Clarke and Kubrick appear to have no thickness, they vary in their other proportions, and are not of the intense blackness of the artefacts of “2001”. The object in M. Yatridès' “L'adolescent et l'enfant” looks like a strip of pale, flimsy material floating on the breeze, that on which Christ's body hangs in “Christ, Leica et orange” a sheet of dull metal. The “2001” monoliths are always of the same appearance, if not scale. Finally, Clarke wrote in his “The Lost Worlds of 2001” that when he attended a special screening of “2001” in the United Nations Secretariat building, “... I was struck by the astonishing parallel between the shape of the monolith and the UN Headquarters itself; there seemed something quite uncanny about the coincidence. If it is one ...” Whatever resemblance the Art Critics find between M. Yatridès' work and that of Clarke and Kubrick is rather more likely to be coincidence.--Mabzilla (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC) --Mabzilla (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC) ___________________________________________ George Yatrides 16 February 2013 I answer by once again underlining that I do not assert any rights, only the moral right of anteriority, whatever are the speakers. Perhaps is coincidence, why not. All is possible. But my Slabs came first, cult elements of the film, Slabs which, only in this context and for the first time, intervene in the destiny of mankind, from its dawn towards its immortality; Slabs which are argument and driving force in the cinematic triumph of Kubrick. It appears that only Clarke visited the art galleries in the search of an object different from the pyramid, axis of its initial book. The too known pyramid moreover was recognized like world inheritance, but of Egyptian rights. Paintings of Yatrides, not very known in this time, comprising of the Slabs, more than twenty rectangular Slabs among 650 works which Yatrides carried out, were exposed in the windows of the International Galleries of S-E Johnson, in Chicago Ill and in the Galleries of the large cities of the USA which collaborated with him according to its directives. Kubrick had other concerns of which its relations with NASA, to find solutions technical new applied in space and who can be allowed as being plausible. ‘’’We arrive on a plan which requires your attention and I suggest you reading this message attentively’’’. I take note of your observations while being obliged to point out my experiment of more than 55 years (I am 82 years old) in fundamental research and in various other fields, more than 30 patents registered, and all granted generic and secondary claims. In correlation one can note my personal work at ECA (AEC: French Atomic Energy Commission) the result of my theories on new properties of the light, most important element in physics, shown by alternative chemical processes themselves granted in particular to the USA and from which I keep certain physics dangerous keys. Thus I know what an invention represents or an intellectual innovation, underlining again that I don’t assert any rights only moral right of anteriority. _____________________ PREFATORY REMARKS: In the context of 2001, the building of the United Nations is interesting but it cannot fly whereas the rectangular Slab perfect, known as being a monolith, comes from space, goes from the Earth towards the Moon and that it accompanies the spaceship Discovery towards Jupiter where dies Bowman; from there, it accompanies Bowman towards the Earth, resuscitated in the form of foetus in its transparent placental sac. Video YATRIDES/KUBRICK: [2] Several of my works are exactly concerned with the subject. I realized in 1957/1958 a work including Slabs, robots, and a human embryo in his transparent placental sac crossing a Slab. What corresponds with one of the final sequences of film where Bowman in the form of a foetus in a transparent embryonic sac, crosses the monolith (image 1957/58). Perhaps this is still a coincidence there. Coincidence or not, my works came first. [ http://www.yatrides.com/oeuvre/kubrick/kubrick.htm ]. Many speaks about this film 2001 a space odyssey that they did not see and make any kind of erroneous interpretations Answering your comments concretely: a - DEFINITION OF THE WORD MONOLITH You are right; Oxford English dictionary: Monolith Origin: mid 19th century: from French monolith, from Greek monolithos, from monos 'single' + lithos 'stone' : a large single upright block of stone. Example: Stonehenge, stone monoliths. But no dictionary stipulates that a monolith is a perfect rectangle with the precise edges and moreover having the capacity to fly. To allot to such an object the name of monolith is not reasonable, if not selected voluntarily by Clarke to make forget the geometrical rigour of the perfect Slab, rectangle which has the power to fly; Slab which is a sometimes thin and sometimes thick. See subparagraph below. b - RATIO 1.4.9. 1/4 - This ration appears in the text of the book, of which exact title is: Arthur C. Clarke 2001 the odyssey of space, original scenario of Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke Edition Arhtur C. Clarke and Polaris Publications, Inc. 1968. I point out to you that the book was published at the same time as film projection in cinemas, in 1968. But the Slabs in the movie have not dimensions corresponding to 1.4.9. 2/4 - The dimensions of the United Nations building – which cannot fly – do not correspond to ratio 1.4.9. 3/4 - Concerning the monoliths in film, their representation completely of face, shows clearly that they are of different size: their height is not the same one, whatever the scale considered. Thus mathematical ratio 1.4.9 is inapplicable. What is the case of the monoliths present at the foot of the bed of Bowman when it is laid down and when it dies little of time afterwards. 4/4 - Indeed, if ratio 1.4.9 is applied we let us be under the following conditions: - The number 4 represents the base - The number 1 is the ¼ base. What also corresponds to the thickness of the Slab. - The Number 9 is made up of the base 4 x 2 + 1 (1/4 of the base) = 9 which is the height of the Slab monolith In facts, none the sole monoliths perfectly of face in film, present the same height whatever the scale considered. The height of the Slabs monoliths in 2001: space odyssey, is higher than 9. The Slab, completely of face, present at the foot of the bed in which Bowman is lying, corresponds to a ratio of 1.4.10 and the second Slab monolith when Bowman is dying has a ratio of 1.4. 9,5. That which is on the moon, very close of face, has a ratio higher than 1.4.12. near to 1.4.13 (Le Monde-The World- French most important periodical: daily, weekly, monthly publications : [3] Obviously the Slab monolith was designed virtually and added to film. It would be more reasonable to admit that Kubrick wanted that the monoliths are different to each other, in particular because of large quantity of monoliths, as we see it when they accompany Bowman turning over towards the Earth in its transparent placental sac. That would be appropriate for the bottom of film directed by always precise Kubrick and in his search of new elements, non repetitive whimsical, sign creative weakness. c - COLOURS During film, the monoliths in space are sometimes black, blue and elsewhere bright white, dazzled by intersidereal gleams, notably when they move in space accompanying the embryo of bowman which turns over towards the Earth. Christophe Odin points out that several of Yatrides Slabs are different colours, black, gray dark, and blue, green, white surfaces with black graphics. He notes that slabs have a similarity striking with those of Kubrick film. d - THICKNESS Concerning their thickness, Christophe Odin Initiator in mathematical sciences underlines that the Slabs monoliths of certain work of Yatrides of which one of them gone back to 1951 have a marked thickness. [4]. Excessively modest in such a context New paragraph to include First appearance of the Slab monolith, the keystone of the movie Art critics, men of science (Semiologist, Historians, mathematical science Initiator, Physicist…) noted strongly marked similarities between the monolith of Kubrick in its art cinematographic work and the same motive in pictorial art, in the paintings of the artist Georges Yatrides. Arthur Conte, Minister for Information, Chairman and managing director of the initial TV chanels recommended during the Presidency of Charles De Gaulle.. notes that the picture of Yatrides " the Teenager and the Child ", painted in 1963, before the release of the movie, contains a Slab very similar to that used by Kubrick in its movie . In the paintings of Georges Yatrides, the Slab monolith represents a vector mystic symbol of an absolute knowledge. Alexandre Bourmeyster|Sacha Bourmeyster, renowned Russian semiologist, shows that the Slab of Yatrides has the power to transcend the life in a supernatural way, in a comparable way in that of Kubrick in "2001". Alexandre Bourmeyster|Sacha Bourmeyster (France) also underlined this similitude in his work " The Interstellar Icons " . The similarity between the paintings of Yatrides and the monolith of Kubrick was also found in the Web site of architecture CYBERARCHITECT . First apparition of Yatrides slabs and then its "Interstellar Icons" (1954-1965). Christophe Odin Initiator in mathematical Sciences (Yatrides 21st century 21st century independent site independent site- Kelkoo creator idem Kapirisk) points out that Yatrides slabs have a similarity striking with those of Kubrick film. He finds in the work of Yatrides gone back to 1951, its first picture which includes a Slab monolith which has a marked thickness, its presence before and after the death of the man and notes that several of its Slabs are different colours, black, gray dark and blue, green, white surfaces with black graphics. During film, the black monolith in space appears blue and elsewhere bright white, dazzled by intersidereal gleams. Alexander Bourmeyster (Alexandre Bourmeyster Wikipedia.fr) radicalizes his study on the influence of George Yatrides on Arthur C. Clarke/Stanley Kubrick. 2001 [[5]].They are the same slabs that KUBRICK and CLARKE used 5 years later in 1968, since catalogues were published in USA, but 11 years later considering the paintings sent in USA since 1956 and exhibited in public galleries, in particular in the USA in various States of the United States, those dependent on Samuel E. Johnson Director of International Galleries Chicago Ill. with whom he was in exclusive contract. And 15 years later if considered the first slab of 1951. Diaries Book of Cinema stresses that Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick visited art galleries to find inspiration. It appears that Clarke only did it. Other many works of independent sources state the existence from 1951 of monolithic Slabs, on content and form, in the work of the painter George Yatrides, very similar to the monolith of " 2001 the a space odyssey ", as well as describe it diverse works of analysis between the others: " City of Grenoble " , " Who's Who in International Art ". and several edited events by International Biennials Canada-France committee (1991-1993) . James L. Crowley Physicist, specialist in robotic, Mellon University Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, analyses the Yatrides Slabs characteristics, their pronounced similarities with those of Clarke and Kubrick. ( not exhaustive list). References George Yatrides 16 February 2013 --Yatrides (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is too long for the article and also has WP:TOPIC and WP:COI issues if the author is Georges Yatridès. It would be interesting (although now impossible) to ask Kubrick and Clarke if they ever saw the Adolescent and child canvas painted in 1963. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Similarity in works of art does not necessarily imply influence or plagiarism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Ligeti Music

The Ligeti music featured most prominently is parts of Requiem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.52.211 (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Requiem is the one piece heard three times in the film, although the film has only one movement of a four-movement piece. Atmospheres is heard in its entirety- going about 8 minutes, and only a short excerpt from Lux Aeterna is heard.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that the entire Requiem isn't heard, but it is most of the "Requiem II Kyrie eleison" which is used. When I say that it is featured most prominently is because it's the music which plays whenever we see the monolith (except at the very end). Unfortunately many people think that it's Lux Aeterna in the monolith scenes - however, that piece is only heard during the "moon bus" part, and a short part is mixed into the other piece after the star gate sequence. This article reinforces this impression as it mentions Lux Aeterna as if it had a particular prominence, and make no mention of Requiem.

I don't know why, but if you search for Lux Aeterna on the net, you can see many sources which makes that very claim - that the monolith music is Lux Aeterna.

That said, the specific article about the soundtrack has it right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(soundtrack)

Which makes it puzzling that it's described as it is in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.52.211 (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Homage

I am American and I was taught that the 'h' in homage is silent and the indefinite article to be used is "an". "An homage" is not strictly "British" usage, it's also taught in America and should not be continually reverted. Yworo (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I am an American and I was taught that, silent or not, the use of 'an' before a word beginning with 'h' was an anachronism and it was not to be used. Thus, it should not continually be reinstalled. MarnetteD | Talk 04:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the 'h' being silent may also have become an anachronism. The Merriam-Webster [6] shows that the 'h' can be used in pronunciation and it usage example reads "Her book is a homage to her favorite city." Dictionary.com [7] and even the Cambridge Dictionary [8] uses the 'h' in its pronunciation. These are only a few of the numerous examples available out there. MarnetteD | Talk 04:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The Oxford British and World English site [9] shows the 'h' being pronounced and has a usage example that reads "Daniel’s films were a homage to her." The Oxford US English site [10] does indicate that the 'h' can be used or left out so pronunciations without it are not a complete anachronism so my apologies for stating that earlier. MarnetteD | Talk 04:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, and the Google results are interesting: "an homage" - About 2,820,000 results; "a homage" - About 1,670,000 results. "An" is used significantly more often. When I was in school on the east coast of the US, too many years ago to mention, the initial "h" in words such as "homage" and "herb" was not pronounced. That's how the baby boomer generation was taught, and I still do not pronounce the initial H in these words, it is just wrong. Yworo (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

As we all know Google hits are not a WP:RS. They certainly have no weight when compared to dictionary pronunciation and usage examples. I too am of the boomer generation and was taught that the silent 'h' was falling out of usage with some regional exceptions. Looks like that progression has continued. MarnetteD | Talk 05:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"An homage" is not incorrect, so it should not be changed. No "RS" source is needed for this. It's not a fact, it's the grammar of the article. "An homage" is more common English worldwide on the Internet. That's good enough for me. Now, if you were modifying the article Homage, you'd need an RS, but nobody is making any claim here, they are just using one acceptable form of grammar. Please guide your efforts toward something actually productive, like writing new text. Yworo (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Google hits are not "common English Usage worldwide on the Internet." Again, they do not trump dictionary pronunciation and usage examples. We are all volunteers here and are free to edit as we see fit. I make no judgements on your productivity and any that you make on mine shows that you are straying into the area of WP:NPA which accomplishes nothing. MarnetteD | Talk 05:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

How is making a polite suggestion prefaced with please a "personal attack". Now, if I were to say "you are full of it", maybe that would be a personal attack, but I've not said it. Changing back and forth between two acceptable grammatical uses according to the dictionary and even Wikipedia itself is simply not productive, in my opinion. But hey, if you want to be non-productive, that's your business - up to a limit. Yworo (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Purely from my own original research, it is rare for people to write things like "an hotel" nowadays. It is correct usage but somewhat archaic. The Oxford Dictionary looks at the issue and concludes that the "a" version is more logical when the letter h is pronounced at the start of the word.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"Hotel" has never been pronounced with a silent "H". Homage is, as noted in dictionaries. There's a subtle difference here that you missed. Only a small set of H words, homage and herb are the only ones I can think of at the moment, were and still are pronounced with a silent H. Part of the dumbing down of the post-baby boomer generations, who probably can't keep straight which words work which way due to ADD and ritalin. Yworo (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Sunlight and the monolith

Clarke's book is absolutely definite about the sunlight being the trigger. In the film, this is left unexplained. But if you watch the sequence, the sunlight is advancing.

Also the line-up of monolith / crescent moon / sun with the apes is repeated with monolith / crescent Earth/ sun with the space people. Implying we are still vastly remote from what the monolith represents.

Previous discussion seems to relate to a fancy interpretation. I've also seen a claim for a Zoroastrian connection. But I can't confirm any of this. I simply added a description of an observable fact.

--GwydionM (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the film version, not Clarke's novel. There are numerous things in the film that are not clearly explained. A person who watched the Moon monolith scene without reading the novel would have no direct knowledge that it is the Sun that triggers the high pitched radio signal, although this interpretation of the scene is possible.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

As to your edit summary that the situation had had not been discussed before please see Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film)/Archive 7#Sunlight hitting monolith.3F and Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film)/Archive 4#.22Brief.22 vs. .22Debrief.22.2FSunlight and Talk:2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)/Archive_4#Sunlight_continuity_Redux-_Continuation_of_Sunlight_section_of_.23.22Brief.22_vs._.22Debrief.22.2FSunlight. All of these are in the archives which can be accessed above. Wikipedia has been around for quite some time now and there have been many discussions over the years. Older conversations get archived so please do not forget to look for them when an edit summary points you to the talk page. MarnetteD | Talk 16:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Malware Link Removal

• Potentially Malicious Domain: (EXPLOIT, RBN Known Malvertiser IP 22)
• hxxp://www.dailygalaxy.com/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/url/06f7d7c43c549e5e370a1e64d961bbbb9f4be55c29111d41e93ae9bb66489f23/analysis/1374427632/
• JS/Exploit-Blacole.cw
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/5ea1609b649e14ccfd84fec0d7e9d13cb0f885876f0ef5fae0407d23490ecddc/analysis/1374428349/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/192346fedd2cc52353f89fd93fe1da383b6fa8a969c4c27f1fa663d4a40c3ae4/analysis/1374428351/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/2656324fdda8179413cf416bd559e5f6f13864886a6d31907928e6334e64ebfa/analysis/1374428355/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/a9dc933ca440b54c82be1fc9a71df252cf738ca3d908814adc656d9ffcc7c6ed/analysis/1374428365/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/42430671c0fd1332eeb990373a1707da334520e2bae48d1dc9ee6df47b728125/analysis/1374428367/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/8eb65132b441b07193c467814570e2c0959ceff07e35149247f531dde514782f/analysis/1374428377/
• REFERENCE: http://jsunpack.jeek.org/?report=49695ac9748fc84c3953dd8db54a661f52fd8be4
• http://urlquery.net/report.php?id=3902995
• SEE ALSO:
• http://quttera.com/detailed_report/www.dailygalaxy.com
• http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.dailygalaxy.com
• http://www.UnmaskParasites.com/security-report/?page=www.dailygalaxy.com

--Gary Dee 18:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Douglas Trumbull, the special effects for 2001 and who invented slit-scan?

From the credits at the end of the movie:

`Special Photographic Effects Designed and Directed by STANLEY KUBRICK'

`Special Photographic Effects Supervisor WALLY VEEVERS'

`Special Photographic Effects Supervisor DOUGLAS TRUMBULL'

`Special Photographic Effects Supervisor CON PEDERSON'

`Special Photographic Effects Supervisor TOM HOWARD'

This is what Douglas Trumbull has to say:

"Douglas Trumbull, the industry pioneer behind the special effects of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and Blade Runner" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgharmon (talk • contribs) 04:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Slit-scan photography existed before 2001: A Space Odyssey, but was made famous by Douglas Trumbull in the Star Gate sequence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/ (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct release date?

Can we have a citation please for Feb 8, 1968 mentioned in the infobox as the "New York release date"? Later on in the article it refers to "the world premiere on April 2, 1968" -- obviously you can't have a world premiere nearly 2 months after a film has already been released! For what it's worth, IMDB agrees with April 2nd as the world premiere and doesn't mention February 1968 anywhere. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/releaseinfo

Perhaps someone got confused with Planet of the Apes which did indeed have a New York release on Feb 8, 1968 according to IMDB. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063442/releaseinfo Highly unlikely that two landmark 1968 sci-fi movies premiered in the same city on the same day?

Too Orangey For Crows (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the sources are consistent in saying that the film was released in the USA in first week of April 1968, although there is some variation in the date. It is not clear why the infobox gives 8 February 1968 for the New York release. This has been removed, and should be replaced only with a cite.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Good catch by both of you. I know that we can't use it as a resource since it is, in essence, self published, but any editors who set off to research the start date might find this of some use. It wonder how many editors here can remember a time when a film would show for months or even a year or more at a given theater. MarnetteD | Talk 17:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Kerbal Space Program (Video Game) Easter Eggs of the monolith

Can it be noted in the video game refernce section that the PC Video Game "Kerbal Space Program" has the monolith as an easter egg in multiple locations on different planets within the game. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/archive/index.php/t-9822.html

klova zenovka (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.25.178.61 (talk)

Probably not, this has issues with WP:SPS and WP:POPCULTURE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

References

I've done a bunch of cleanup to various references, especially the short references. There are multiple references to a biography of Kubrick by Vincent LoBrutto, but multiple editions of the book are cited; does anyone have easy access to one of these editions, and if so could you confirm the page references, so that we can cite the work just once and then use short references? Omnedon (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

British Film?

Is the only thing that makes this considered a "British" film the fact that it was shot in Britain? Seems rather a trivial reason.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It was shot in Britain by MGM British. Yworo (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

MGM British seems to have been a subsidiary of MGM, not an independent British film studio. Its not really the same thing.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

National laws do not really allow for such a thing. Each company is legally independent and registered according to that country's laws. True subsidiaries must be in the same country as the parent. If they are public, they trade on different stock exchanges, etc. IBM for example is not one company, there is a separate IBM in each country, governed by that country's laws and not their parent country's, employing typically most nationals of the country, etc. Each company and country should be credited. Yworo (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

On top of that Clarke was British, most of the crew were British, and Kubrick lived in England. Yworo (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The nationality of the crew is usually not important. Same as the nationality of the actors and the place it was filmed. What I believe is the most important is the production company. Is MGM British credited as a production company in the film?--JOJ ^Hutton 23:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You know, I'm already rather tired of your insistance on co-opting everything as American despite the clear involvement of other countries (e.g. Cary Grant was not only an American). There was extensive discussion and the article reads the way it does by consensus. It's in the archives, did you read them? Pointless to repeat all the arguments against, they've already been made and were not convincing. Please go do something constructive and don't waste our time any further, or I may change my mind about WP:DATEUNIFY. Yworo (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with trying to get this right. Better to take the time and get the information as correct as possible then to have misinformation. And I never advocated for the Carey Grant article to say he was only American, it was either "British born American", or "British-American", or "English-Amercan", but never "only American. In fact it was you who pushed for only "British". I was just trying to get the information as correct as possible.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Great, this says British-American which is correct and was discussed at length. Please read the archives on the topic before deciding whether it is worthwhile to continue to pursue. Get the film and watch the credits yourself, if you need to. Yworo (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What Yworo said. This is discussed extensively in the talk page archive. 2001 was made at a time when MGM was investing heavily in British film production, and many sources agree that it is a British-American film.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

accessdates

This 2006 edit established the default accessdate format for this article, per MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT & WP:DATERET. I am sorry that my previous edit also made other changes, but I was dealing with an editor who was making HUNDREDS of similar date format changes in less than one day. I will keep the other changes, henceforward.--JimWae (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the presence of {{Use mdy dates}} in this article is a declaration of what the style should be, and invites any inconsistancies to be fixed. The MoS clearly states that accessdate may be changed to be the same as publication dates. It's possible that the editor in question was correctly implementing this explicit call for date consistency, summoned by means of the embedded template. Please do not revert what editors have been requesting for this article by placing and not removing the template. WP:DATERET specifically states "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it". This article predominantly uses mdy format, in the text and in the publication dates on citations. Therefore it is acceptable to change the accessdates to conform. Please point out where it says that if dates are used inconsistantly, that inconsistancy must be maintained. Yworo (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Your sentence 1 is completely irrelevant and your edit summary (to the article) completely false. {use mdy} is just for the body of the article. It's function is for users of scripts to know what format to use for the body of the article. Putting such a template atop the article in no way negates what the MOS says about YMD in refs. As for your other points, I repeat see MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT & WP:DATERET in which YMD for accessdates is fully supported.--JimWae (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This article did not "evolve" to use MDY in refs. It was hijacked by this edit by a date format warrior with ZERO other edits to the article enforcing his personal prejudice preference against YMD, with no concern on his part for WP:DATERET. That editor has been cautioned several times to refrain from changing accessdate formats--JimWae (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

From the section WP:DATEUNIFY: It is acceptable to change other date formats in the same article to provide consistency, so long as those changes would otherwise be acceptable.

In this article MDY is acceptable and it is perfectly acceptable to change YMD to DMY or MDY in the citations, as long as it conforms to the article as a whole and can be considered acceptable under WP:STRONGNAT.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You're Wiki-lawyering, JimWae, and are not a regular editor of this article. I have no complaints, and apparently neither do any of the other regular editors. If we have a problem with this date unification, we will sort it out. Go do something useful like contribute content. This is a pointless thing to edit war over. According to WP:BRD, you weren't supposed to revert a second time, but you did. That's enough, thank you, we don't need your help here. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

1>You are misinterpreting what you have quoted. That sentence is specifically within the context of what to do about dates in quoted text that do not match the format in the rest of the article. It is saying it would be OK to change the date format in the body to match that in the quote, if acceptable. It does NOT say what counts as acceptable. 2> Re WP:BRD, I have already explained above in what way my 2nd edit was different 3> Look at STRONGNAT. It specifically says YMD in accessdates is NOT impacted by STRONGNAT. 4> You cannot take that one sentence you quoted out of context, & say it trumps everything else in the MOSGUIDE: MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT & WP:DATERET & more.--JimWae (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Having all the accessdates in a YYYY-MM-DD format is actually a benefit to readers & editors alike, making it clear at a mere glance which date is an accessdate & which is a publication date--JimWae (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

More alphabet soup. Could you warm it up for me? Yworo (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Shall I take your response to mean that you need it explained in even simpler terms or that you want to avoid addressing the issues raised? MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT specifically permit YYYY-MM-DD in accessdates, exempting them from other parts of MOS:DATEUNIFY. Is it your opinion that readers & editors are too dumb to handle YMD, so we must not expose them to it? MOSGUIDE says otherwise. --JimWae (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm saying "Make me some soup." And why don't you make me a sandwich while you're at it. Yworo (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

In other words, you are being entirely dismissive of my concerns because they are not your concerns, or because you have other date preferences? My 2nd edit was entirely within guidelines, yet you completely reverted it anyway. So I should be submissive to you, is that what you mean? Would that be because you OWN this article? While you made 3 complete reverts to the same article within 12.5 hours, I made only 1 complete revert, accidentally changing things other than date-format. Your edit summary for reverting my 1st edit was ambiguous. My 2nd edit was not a complete revert; it more fully observed the guidelines MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT & WP:DATERET than yours or the other editor's did, yet you completely reverted that too -with an edit summary using an idiosyncratic interpretation of what {uses mdy} means. Meanwhile you bargained (see below or [11]; "bargained" being a charitable interpretation) with that other editor over your withdrawing your support for his changes re dateunify to entice him not to make other changes. --JimWae (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

2001 footage used by the Beatles? Probably bulls***.

Is there actually a credible source for the claim that unused 2001 footage is used in the Flying sequence from Magical Mystery Tour? Looking at the footage and knowing how it was shot this seems extremely unlikely. The 2001 footage was shot on 65mm so would have required extremely expensive reduction printing to get it down to the 16mm format that the film was edited on. I suspect that people looked at the weird colour filter effects on both films and made the connection there, but the 2001 footage was achieved by swapping the colour separation masters which leads to the strange shadows and solarisation effects in that footage. However the MMT footage is simply monochrome tinted and could have been achieved by adjusting the chroma in broadcast or by standard 2 light colour timing.

The 2001 footage was shot in the Hebrides and the American West, and the MMT shots do not look like that. it's ice bound Arctic (or antarctic) seas and snowy mountains far too big for the Hebrides. Also much if the MMT footage is side views, where as 2001 was exclusively forward. Again I suspect people are only looking at superficial similarities. However the footage does remind me of the background plates for Dr Strangelove, the camera style and the landscape seem to match, and the final shot of the Flying sequence bears some strong resemblance to the very opening shot of DrSL. However this is merely personal observation (original research?) and there is no corroborating evidence.

The citation given for the use of the 2001 footage is the BBC HG2G site, but that is itself an unsourced user generated content style page, and not at all authoritative. Given the huge amount of material on The Beatles (among the most important figures in music history) and Kubrick (ditto for cinema history) available, that such a poor quality resource is used makes me doubly suspicious. I cannot find a reference anywhere that actually cites a credible source for saying the Flying footage is from any Kubrick film, therefore I think such references should be deleted and will do so if no one can produce a credible primary or secondary source establishing 2001 footage was used in MMT (i.e. not a trivia page or a "I bet you didn't know this" blog post or slide gallery). Verlaine76 (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

In addition, of course MMT was shot in 1967, when 2001 was still in production, it seems unbelievable that Kubrick was discarding footage while 2001 was still in production. Verlaine76 (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Some very valid points are made here. It is unlikely that a person as secretive about his ongoing productions as Kubrick would have discarded footage and allowed it to be used in this way. If h2g2 is the only source, this has to be removed, because it is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes..--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Rob Ager

Re this edit: This happened before with Talk:2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)/Archive_9#Controversy_about_the_Slab_cult_object_of_the_movie with another obscure critic whose views had issues with WP:UNDUE. Rob Ager does not write for major publications and appears to be a legend in his own lunchtime. There is simply not the space to list every opinion about the film.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

User:ArtDragon1973 has hit WP:3RR on this today, so it seems to be very important for him/her to see Rob Ager's name in print. Since this person is a self-published author, his views fail WP:DUE. Also, if the purpose is to point out the HAL/IBM link (which Kubrick and Clarke always denied), it can be done without giving a name check to a self-published author.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing that should overturn the previous WP:CONSENSUS regarding this information. The WP:SPA account has made no attempt to explain why we should reconsider said consensus. As it stands the info can go on a facebook page but does not belong here. MarnetteD | Talk 18:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said at User talk:Ianmacm, there is nothing new about the claimed IBM/HAL link, although Kubrick and Clarke always denied it, saying that it was coincidental and the invention of the film's audience.[12] This may be worth a mention, but not in the context of a conspiracy theory proposed by an obscure film critic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Kubrick's Odyssey: Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick; Part One: Kubrick and Apollo

Dear Stanley Kubrick wiki editors,

Have any of you seen the above mentioned documentary? It may be of interest to his article, if anyone cares to view it and contribute:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1992167/

MerlynDanielMali (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Examples of the Monolith

In addition to SimEarth, another game by Wright, Spore, has the monolith.--184.13.147.21 (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The monoliths are also very present in Kerbal Space Simulator where they inhabit many planets and give of a signal.50.32.142.134 (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Wireless Tablet Device?

The caption on one image on the main page shows Astronaut Poole using a "wireless tablet device" in the film. I believe this is only a console display, with no indication of wireless capability or a mobile "tablet-like" feature. This should be corrected in the main article. Lets not make more of this than what is evident for 1968 technology. I love the film but creating mythology from it is not good. 97.95.38.108 (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

In 2011, Samsung cited 2001 in its lawsuit with Apple over the iPad.[13] The device shown here undoubtedly looks like a tablet PC, but it is stretching things to say that it is connected to a network via wireless; maybe it is, but there is not enough evidence to say this. The devices in the image cited by Samsung appear to be freestanding and placed on the table while the astronauts are eating their meals, rather than being console displays.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Celebrity reactions

First, I do not know of another film article that has a section by this title. I have to ask what use is it? After all this is an encyclopedia not People Magazine. Next, 10's of 1000's of people had reactions like this - why is RH's any more important than anyone other persons. If the consensus is to include it IMO this one mention has WP:UNDUE problems. A section like this would need more than one persons negative reaction to the film and should include an array of "celebrity" reactions. Other input is welcome but, per WP:CONSENSUS one should be formed before the section is reentered. MarnetteD|Talk 01:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to leave this link to show the info that the IP wishes to be added. MarnetteD|Talk 01:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

My general bar for content (of any kind) is this: does inclusion enhance the reader's understanding of the subject? In this specific case, the answer is clearly no: Rock Hudson's reaction tells me absolutely nothing other than the fact that Rock Hudson was confused, which does not help me to better understand the film. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no need for a section on its own, esp. with no context of who Hudson is. Infact, this conversation can serve no purpose.... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It is of minor interest, and does not need to be mentioned because it is WP:TRIVIA. What it shows is that initial audience reactions to the film were mixed, something which could be mentioned without an anecdote involving a Hollywood star.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said when I reverted this addition myself not long ago, Hudson is not the only celebrity whose reaction to this film has been recorded, and if someone wants to start a "Celebrity reactions to 2001" article or list, then fill yer boots, but let's not clutter this article with such trivia. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a decent idea. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I also concur. In addition, this is not the kind of film that warrants reporting celebrity reactions. A film about celebrities or the paparazzi would warrant reporting such reactions as relevant. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If it could be tied directly back to the film, that'd be OK. For example, Galaxy Quest has reactions from various Star Trek alumni. But a random anecdote about Rock Hudson is kind of weird. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hah, exactly. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Box-office/The Numbers

This edit recently added a much lower figure to the box-office number in the infobox, sourced to The Numbers. I appreciate that The Numbers is considered a reliable source—and one I have used myself before today—but extreme care must be taken in using it for older box-office data, since in many cases it mistakes the old style gross rental for the box-office gross. In this case, the $12 million figure it has down for 2001: A Space Odyssey's foreign/international gross is incorrect.

Variety reported gross rentals up until the 1990s, and the $12 million figure is actually the foreign gross rental as reported by Variety at the end of 1969, and The Numbers has unfortunately confused this for the box-office gross. The rental is typically only half the exhibition gross (so the foreign gross at this time would have been around $25 million). This is not an uncommon error at The Numbers, and while I would regard it as reliable for sourcing the box-office for current films care must be taken for older films. To illustrate the problem here is another notable example: The Numbers has the foreign gross for Cleopatra (1963) at $14 million. Again, this is the foreign rental: Cleopatra had earned $38 million in worldwide rentals by 1966, with $23.5 million coming from the United States (see Hall & Neal, p.166); simple arithmetic tells us that the foreign rental at this point was $14.5 million (which more or less matches the foreign gross figure at The Numbers).

The problem is exacerbated for 2001 because it was re-released in 1974, 1977, 1980 and 2001 and The Numbers omits foreign earnings from these reissues too. In this instance, The Numbers is simply too incomplete to be used as a source. This leads us to the next question: if The Numbers is wrong, is the TCM database correct with its $190 million worldwide figure? There seem to be no sources to corroborate this figure either, and Kolker (2006, p.16) has the global gross at $138 million. That is a substantial discrepency—over $50 million—but there are a couple of explanations for this: i) Kolker's figure doesn't include all the grosses either; ii) Kolker and TCM may have used different formulas for converting the theatrical rental to grosses. In truth either of those figures could be correct and the Kolker figure should perhaps be added to the infobox, but either way, the figure The Numbers has down for the foreign gross is far below the true value. I hope this clarifies why I reverted the edit. Betty Logan (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

HAL vs. Hal

There's some inconsistency in how HAL is spelled (currently 17 instances of "HAL"— of which 8 are "HAL" used alone and not part of "HAL 9000"— and 27 instances of "Hal"). The HAL 9000 article exclusively uses "HAL" yet the early screenplay draft uses "Hal" when characters address it with speech. The novel also uses "Hal" as a nickname. Any thoughts on this? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The usage should be consistent. The screenplay probably has "Hal" when the word is meant to be spoken as Hal (as in Shallow Hal) to distinguish it from when it is supposed to be pronounced as an acronym i.e. Aitch-Ay-Ell. Regardless of how it is pronounced in the film it is still an acronym so that is the form it should take in written English. Betty Logan (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Casting

Surprised there isn't a section about casting TBH. There's this very interesting article on the BBC site today, stating the Kubrick initially cast Nigel Davenport as HAL, but later decided he did not want a British voice. Not sure where to add this into the article at present. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If it is just a sentence or two add it to HAL's entry in the cast section. Betty Logan (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Dorchester Hotel connection.

The room at the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey is based on a hotel room at the Dorchester. Fast-forward to the 9:45 mark. Does this deserve mention in the article? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfTgU8G6Ljc --RThompson82 (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"Douglas Trumbull in the HD-DVD release of 2001: A Space Odyssey". Homevideo.about.com. 2012-04-09. Retrieved 2012-08-21.

The video is interesting but it gives only a passing mention. Kubrick and his wife Christiane apparently stayed in a suite at The Dorchester during filming, and this where the idea for the hotel room scene at the end came from.[14][15] I've raised this over at Talk:The Dorchester to see if this can be knocked into shape.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead section too long

The WP:LEAD has five paragraphs against the recommended maximum of four and is getting too long. It could do with some trimming. The fifth paragraph especially could be reduced, as it contains things mentioned later on in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Original research?

The second half of the second paragraph in 2001: A Space Odyssey (film)#Dialogue seems like original research. I'm specifically referring to the long block of text that's sourced to a Roger Ebert review. As of this revision, it's citation #55. Ebert's review is a good one, of course, but it doesn't really discuss the film's dialogue in any major way. Ebert discusses the film more at length in this article, but he still doesn't really spend any time on dialogue or identify the "most memorable" dialogue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, just my quick glances through the article have led me to believe that there is a bit of synthesis going on in some sections. There seems to be a lot of "because of A, and because of B, then it must be C" type of arguments. I think the page is really well developed and sourced, which has the tendency to lead to my synthesis over time as random editors visit the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Strangely enough, the article passed GA with that paragraph pretty much verbatim. I'm guessing the reviewer never actually clicked on the link. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Not surprising actually, especially with an article this large. It's easy to get lost in the text and assume it was right. Put in the list of things that need to get cleaned up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

GA reviewers rarely go through each and every link. They will do a few spot-checks and if they pan out then they will assume the rest are ok, which I think is probably the case here. Things slip through GA, and the fine tooth comb is reserved for FA. Betty Logan (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

There was a hoax article with fake citations that got Good Article status some years ago. In any case, yes, go through the article and check the references and improve the article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Article is too big:

The entire article is too big. The leed is a bit too long. The plot section is overly detailed. The manual of style says that plot sections should be "400 and 700 words". The current summary is around 1165 words.

The development section is huge. But it also seems well cited. It's possible that Development of 2001: A Space Odyssey could be created, and the development section then trimmed.

I've already removed a long section on some conspiracy documentary, and another section listing parodies. These are pretty trivial. The article is already long enough, it doesn't need to cover such frivolous and poorly cited examples. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

There does seem to be some precedent. See: Development of Deus Ex which is a Good Article rating. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd be careful with simply splitting. The page is 69kb (readable prose), but what I see is a lot of wordiness that can be trimmed. Not to mention that the lead is actually too large (should be around 4 paragraphs), and there is some stuff at the bottom (like Home Media) that needs to be sourced and better formatted. Might I suggest a request at the League of CopyEditors first and see what they can do to clean up the prose here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

First, we should try to trim on our own before bothering them. They are more for the final copy editing rather than doing the bulk of reorganizing, trimming and formatting. So I suggest:

• 1. Condense the leed
• 2. Trim the plot section
• 3. Condense and trim anything else possible.

Then after that work is done make a request with the guild. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

If that works for you. I was merely pointing out that splitting right now might not be the best idea, because the page is bloated with unnecessary wordage.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the conclusion that the article is too big, and I do not agree it needs to be split. WP:TOOBIG stipulates that articles over 60k porbbaly should be divided although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material. I certainly think a film of this stature warrants the amount of coverage in this article. A lot has been written about the film, so I think approaching the article with the mentality of condensing and trimming it would not be in its interests. It has already been awarded Good Article status, and if you honestly believe it no longer satisfies the criteria then you should list it for a fresh evaluation. I agree with some of your other points: the second, third and fourth paragraphs of the lede could certainly be condensed, and the plot can certainly be tightened up, but I disagree with re-organizing the article and trimming stuff from it. As Bignole indicates it is on the threshold of acceptable and the status of the film warrants the coverage. Betty Logan (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have also reverted this edit which excised the entire pop culture section. While I agree with the criticisms of the section I think completely removing it is an extreme response. We should perhaps reduce it to just the most prominent examples that can be sourced to third-party secondary sources but its pop culture influence should be addressed in some form, perhaps along the lines of the one I did at Gone_with_the_Wind_(film)#In_popular_culture. Betty Logan (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't think coverage should be trimmed, merely the wordage. I think it's a little verbose, especially in the lead (which appears to contain information that isn't anywhere else in the article). The plot should/can be trimmed, and the pictures need to go. It's rare to see pictures in the plot section, as there is typically no real world coverage that is provided to justify the non-free images there. As for the pop culture section, I will also point out that it should be written more like the rest of the article and not simply bulleted points of reference. That is what makes it appear to be nothing but trivia. But if you can find similar references, then those "bullets" become examples written in prose form. Like we did at Jason Voorhees#In popular culture.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Popcornduff seems to have tackled the plot bloat and tightened up the lead; I agree the images need to be moved out of the plot section since you don't need images to summarise a plot i.e. they are merely decorative. The match cut image could perhaps be used elsewhere in the article since it has been heavily discussed through the years. The pop culture section certainly needs work, I just restored it as a temporary measure. I suggest removing anything that it isn't sourced to a secondary source and then we can make a decision about what to do with what is left. Betty Logan (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The plot section is still a tiny bit too big. It's around 825 words. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It is only a guideline at the end of the day, not a policy, and this isn't exactly a Transformers movie. If we can use tighter language to bring it in under 700 words then that's great, but it's better not to cut essential details from the synopsis with the sole aim of just satisfying a guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

People say that sort of thing a lot - "this film is hardly Transformers" - but Transformers probably has a more complex plot than most movies, including this one. (The secret is that complexity is not the same thing as sophistication.) I've yet to find a film whose plot can't be summarised in under 800 words, so I've trimmed this one more. Popcornduff (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, actually the Transformers film series are incredibly complex in that they are filled with tons of characters, tons of scenes, dialogue, and have running times around 2.5 hours. They're very stupid, but complex. The 85 animated film similarly is non-stop action. 2001 is actually easier to summarize, since there are so many scenes of not much happening and silence and the action is pretty simple and straight forward. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately Transformers can be pretty much described by a plot summary of any size since you just choose an appropriate level of abstraction. Leaving out details does not really matter that much because ultimately there is a very conventional story arc there. With 2001 the plot itself is broken into distinct components that do not really conform to a single story arc, and it contains concepts and imagery that are integral to the plot. You can only refine the detail so far before the plot summary loses coherence, which is not the case with Transformers. Betty Logan (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It can still be trimmed to around 700 words with ease. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the discussion is getting a bit off track. 700 words is no magic and 800 is imho in doubt close enough if editors feel the subject require that many. Whether the Transformers are "complex" or whatever matters fairly little in this regard.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that it's a matter of "700 words" being some magic number, but so much as the article as a whole is unnecessarily wordy (possibly contains a bit of synthesis), uses a lot of peacock and weasel words (a lot together, not a lot of each), and some basic structure adjustments. It just needs some tightening of the prose all around. If the plot is 700 words or 800 words, that's a small piece of a much large puzzle.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Just some pre-FAC feedback...

Just copyediting the article and noting a couple of things....

This ("Though the film was released in the United States over a month before its release in the United Kingdom, and Encyclopædia Britannica calls it an American film,[10] other sources refer to it as a British, American or British-American production") seems really laboured for the lead. I read this and think, "really? who cares.." - I'd just say it's been variously called a British, American or British-American production and leave it at that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point. I don't think we need that much detail. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

cool. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

effet special : matte shot pour les vaisseaux spatiaux

d'après le livre : Le futur selon Kubrick de Piers Bizony, les mattes des vaisseaux spatiaux ont été faits à la main, et non pas en filmant les fonds étoilés avec les vaisseaux non éclairés. L'obtention de fond étoilé avec les trous noirs (correspondant au pourtour des astronefs) a du être fait par une bi-pack caméra. ux — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.169.243.247 (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

from the book: 'The future according Kubrick Piers Bizony', spaceships were made by hand. Obtaining starry background with dark holes (corresponding to the periphery of the spacecraft) had to be made by a bipack camera. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Copy editing

I added a copy edit template to the article. LuisVilla removed it and said "Was already in pretty good shape; not sure why the template was added." That's fair enough. I should explain myself.

Don't get me wrong, there's far worse writing on Wikipedia. But I think there's still quite a lot of waffly, cod-academic writing in the article - not good for an article with GA status. Here are some examples from the Dialogue subsection:

"Only when the film moves into the postulated future of 2000 and 2001 does the viewer encounter characters who speak."

This could be rewritten simply as "The film contains no dialogue before the scenes set in 2000 and 2001."

Of course, this is actually redundant because in the same section it says: "There is no dialogue at all for both the first and last 20 minutes or so of the film." That sentence continues:

"...the total narrative of these sections is carried entirely by images, actions, sound effects, a great deal of music (see Music) and two title cards."

So basically the story is told using a bunch of completely normal methods. The important information here is that there's no dialogue - we don't need a list of everything the film contains instead.

There is a lengthy paragraph describing exchanges of dialogue that could be summarised in a sentence or two. The same paragraph contains:

"They are preceded by the space docking sequence choreographed to Strauss' The Blue Danube waltz and followed by a second extended sequence of his travel to the Moon with more Strauss, the two sequences acting as bookends to his space-station stopover."

A lengthy sentence about music in the middle of a section about dialogue. Why?

"Alongside its use of music, the lack of dialogue and conventional narrative cues in 2001 has been described by many reviewers."

First, that's a really nasty use of passive voice. Second, what have reviewers got to do with it? This isn't a bit about critical reception. What was it they were describing, anyway? The important bit of information here is really this: "The film has little dialogue and few conventional narrative cues."

I hope I've demonstrated why I think the article needs some serious copy editing. But I won't re-add the template. If I get time soon, I'll rewrite it myself - though obviously help is welcome! Popcornduff (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You're doing good work so far; sentences like "the perception that the satellites are bombs persists in the mind of some but by no means all commentators on the film" really do need to be trimmed. And while I think the many references to critics and reviewers are good-faith attempts to conform to the first bullet point of WP:YESPOV, this article does go overboard with it at times. One procedural note, though: the problems you're describing and fixing go beyond the usual definition of copy editing so that may explain the confusion around the template. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both of the above editors. The article needs editing, not copy editing. Most articles that are tagged for copy editing look something like Robert_Lawrence_Kuhn#China does at the moment: sentences that barely make sense, spacing and punctuation that need work, inconsistent tenses, and other sorts of stuff that makes it challenging just to get through a paragraph unscathed. The 2001 article has, for the most part, sentences that are valid grammatically, but it could use some editing to make it more accessible to a general reader and less academic in tone. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

So Orange Suede Sofa thinks my editing goes beyond copy editing, which is why the template is contentious, but Jonesey95 thinks it isn't as drastic as copy editing? ;) Whatever - we agree on the need for rewriting, which is all that matters. Popcornduff (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

ENGVAR

Two reverts have been done on the spelling of "color/colour". Per WP:BRD, I'm bringing this to talk (though this should have been done before the second revert).

A recent edit had changed a single section the article from American English to British English, e.g., "color" to "colour". Per WP:ENGVAR, neither spelling is "incorrect". It states "While Wikipedia does not favor any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently...". The article is currently in American English, and per the guideline, should not be "corrected" to British spelling, especially haphazardly.

The guideline does allow for one spelling to be preferred where there is "Strong national ties to a topic", with examples "Great Fire of London (British English)" and "American Civil War (American English)". In the last revert to "colour", the editor commented "No - the film was made in England - therefore UK spelling". That's not sufficient for a claim of strong national ties. First, the film uses American dialog. Second, the film is often listed (correctly or not) as an American production. While that may not be sufficient to claim strong national ties to America, the locale of filming is not sufficient for even a weak national tie to British, much less an overriding one needed to change the whole article to British English.

If there are no dissents, I'll put it back to the original "color" per ENGVAR. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree. The film was made at MGM British Studios in the UK with a largely British cast and crew. See para 2 in the lead, plus financing. I understand the convention to be if the film was made in the UK and has a majority British cast - then British English applies. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

So? It was made by an American director. You could come up with all sorts of reasons to bounce between different national variations, and that's why we have a guideline to say not to change without consensus. It should stay at American, since that was the status quo version. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Even if it were a "British" film, it doesn't mean that it automatically qualifies as "strong national ties". And its "British-ness" is debated. That's two steps below the requirement to change ENGVAR in the article. And changing one word in one section is specifically against ENGVAR. This change fails guidelines on three counts. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

After a week, with nothing given to counter guideline issues, I am reverting to original "color". --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Should the "parodies and homages" section move to a separate article?

Ianmacm(@Ianmacm:) just removed some entries as by WP:POPCULTURE. Wouldn't it be best to split it off to a separate article so that a) no entries have to be removed and b) the article stays short and on-topic (see also the section #Article is too big:)? If you agree on that how should it be called "List of references to 2001: A Space Odyssey", "2001: A Space Odyssey in popular culture", "Cultural impact of 2001: A Space Odyssey" or something else? --Fixut͉͇̞͖͉̼̭͉͓͑̈̉́͑ȗ̹̲ͨͮ̂̂̄ṙ̫̥͚͚̜͙͍̰́̈́ė̺̩̞̗̓̉ͧͩ̿ͤ̎̆ (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Possibly. One of my long term hopes is to get this to Featured Article status, so a not entirely interesting list of pop culture references has WP:TOPIC issues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

So I'm going to split it off the article tomorrow if there are no objections to that. I'm still not sure what the best name for it would be though.

Also should a small section that just lists the most relevant pop culture references with a {{further|}} link to the complete list stay there – or should it be removed entirely? --Fixuture (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)