Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey/Archive 2

Archive 1 May 2006 to June 2007

Here is a suggestion for a new beginning to the synopsis of the movie. This is very short -- far, far shorter than the current description -- and it can probably use some expansion. However, I think a brief synopsis of the movie's plot is sufficient, because it is not the purpose of this article to describe every single nook and cranny and "deeper meaning" behind every single moment of the film. --Modemac 15:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first segment takes place in the late Pliocene Epoch, at the moment when prehistoric "man-apes" begin to evolve. This sequence contains no dialogue at all (though later in the film it is suggested that the scene takes place "four million years ago"). The movie focuses on a group of "man-apes" who encounter an object completely alien to them. After their encounter with the alien "Monolith," the starving man-apes learn to eat meat for the first time...and to murder other man-apes and conquer other territories.

In a shot often described as one of the most famous moments in motion picture history, a victorious man-ape throws a bone into the air, and the film instantly jumps forward to the modern era.

The second sequence of 2001 does not have a title, though the title "TMA-1" has been adapted from Clarke's novel for this scene. The remainder of the film takes place in a near-future time (presumably around the year 2001, as the film's title suggests). We follow the actions of a scientist or politician named Dr. Heywood Floyd, as he travels to the United States' base on the Moon ("Clavius") to examine the discovery of a mysterious alien object -- another Monolith, one that exactly resembles the original Monolith discovered by the prehistoric man-apes. Dressed in spacesuits, Floyd and other scientists touch the Monolith and pose for photos in front of it...when a piercing radio signal strikes them all, presumably coming from the Monolith itself.

Before any kind of explanation can be offered for this scene on the Moon, the movie jumps forward once again to its third sequence, "Jupiter Mission: Eighteen Months Later." The story here takes place on the spaceship Discovery One, which has been sent on a scientific mission to the planet Jupiter. An entirely new mystery develops aboard this spaceship, apparently unrelated to the story of mankind discovering the Monolith: the intelligent computer abord Discovery One, HAL 9000, rebels against the crew and murders all but one of them. The surviving astronaut, Dave Bowman, remains alive through a remarkable feat of ingenuity involving being ejected from a personal space vehicle without a helmet to protect his head. He manages to shut down HAL-9000 on his own...and when he does so, a recorded message from Dr. Heywood Floyd plays, describing the discovery of the Monolith to him and that it sent a radio transmission to Jupiter/

However, at this moment the movie jumps once again to a new sequence: "Jupiter And Beyond The Infinite." This is where the famous "cosmic light show" of the film takes place, as Dave Bowman arrives at Jupiter and encounters the Monolith (whether this is the same Monolith is unclear). Upon discovering the Monolith, Dave is then transported across vast distances of space and/or time to an alien world, where he undergoes a transformation from a mortal human being into a new form of life -- known to audiences as the Star Child.

Groan. Ok. Fine. -- Jason Palpatine 20:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You put an awful lot of effort into that considerable synopsis, and we do want you to know that it's appreciated...but we have to remember that this is an encyclopedia article meant to summarize the movie, not an intricate in-deptch examination of every single moment on the screen. The articles for The Godfather and The Godfather Part II, for instance, each provide a synopsis for huge (nearly three hours each) movies in a few paragraphs. The replacement synopsis is very brief and certainly in need of expansion, but just enough to give a description of what happens at different parts of the movie. Thank you for everything you've put into this article; it doesn't have to be lost, and you ("you" meaning "everyone reading this") can certainly expand it to a proper length. --Modemac 20:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong that the monolith teaches the man apes to eat meat, the monolith teaches them to kill. This is a significant fact. Also, Modemac is right, your synopsis does need to be shorter.

No. You are wrong. Clarke -- in Lost Worlds of 2001 -- stated the point was that they were being taught to "eat meat." This is a change from herbivore to carnivore/omnivore. To eat meat, they would have to kill -- that is peydation. The lesson was to teach them to prey on other animals, but they also chose to prey on their own kind as well. THAT was not in the monolith's lessons. Also, the current synopsis is not to long. -- Jason Palpatine 02:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A shorter synopsis will be welcomed, i dont know what is it with wikipedians that like to show all their amateurishness with long unnecesary synopsis for every little sci-fi movie (with the evident exception of Blade Runner).

length of synopsis = perfect -> details needed - - - wikipedia IS for this, otherwise where else then?! 89.217.132.143 20:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before continuing to edit on wikipedia, you will need to familiarize yourself with some of the basics. The guidelines regarding plot outlines are provided here. The clear consensus on this talk page is that the synopsis is too long, so please stop removing the tag until editing has brought it down to proper length.--Hal Raglan 01:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're fun HR: there is NO debate or comment about "plot length" on the page you're mentioning 62.167.44.68 05:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The correct link is

here. The main article and the talk page address the issue. And there is a consensus above on this talk page with all other editors (other than the one anonymous editor who keeps switching IPs) that the plot synopsis is overburdened with too much detail.-Hal Raglan 13:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

anyway, i do NOT see ANY consensus about a too long synopsis : one guy proposing a shorter synopsis is NO consensus, OR with my position (= synopsis is perfect so) I AM the new consensus!
according to your link (thanks), Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reasons such as a complicated plot. -> 1) why 400, 700 or 600 or 900? it's just a stupid wording and 2) (HR please read this so you can get the point:) unless there is a specific reasons such as a complicated plot (reasonS!?)... "UNLESS" = a) 2001 is longer b) 2001 is full with important details 3) you want more?! 84.227.26.41 04:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly think wikipedia guidelines are just "stupid wording", why are you wasting all of our time here?-Hal Raglan 13:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be a bit shorter. One example that popped out: Floyd walks down a corridor, meets a man, and makes a phone call. I don't think this play-by-play is critical to the understanding of the movie.

You ask, "If not here, where?" That's easy: they made a movie of it. I hear some guy even did a novelization.--NapoliRoma 13:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hal, I think your edits to the plot section are perfectly reasonable. The editorialising, frequent remarks re. music, and overly-detailed portions such as NapoliRoma's example were unnecessary. However, when those are chipped away it's good stuff and I don't believe it needs its guts ripped out (nor have you done that). As a general comment, having watched this article every so often over the past 6 months or so, the balance is slowly improving. The Reaction section was once titchy, it's now filled out appropriately. The Plot is too detailed, it's being trimmed. IMO Scientific Accuracy is bigger than necessary as well and prima facie shouldn't contain anything that is not cited. However, the next thing I'd like to see is more on the Production side, as three paras is pretty brief for a picture that took four years to make. I've been putting some stuff together to rectify this and can add detail there in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose 15:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the "Speculation" section as

Certainly agreed. Any section titled speculation has a 99.99% likelihood that it does not belong in the Wikipedia. This entire article really needs a world-class cleanup effort. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 08:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "predictions" section of this article seems to imply that 2001: A Space Odyssey was intended to be a prophetic work. I see no particular reason to consider it as such. This caption for an image "This vision of a giant underground moonbase is the most inaccurate of Kubrick's predictions. The political and financial commitment necessary to build such a place would exceed the GNP of the entire world." is worded as a criticism against Kubrick, as though he 'should have known better'. Why not also mention that Kubrick was incorrect in predicting that men would turn into enormous glowing fetuses, or that our computers would try to murder us? It does contain some interesting facts, but I think it should be re-worded to avoid sounding critical of the film. -

And? -- Jason Palpatine 12:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kubrick i think i may have read wanted to make a really well made "science fiction" film,- the title is beautiful, and has become somewhat abstract post 2001,- but still a well crafted name for a well crafted film. I always felt that prediction was not a real big issue of the film. Book_M 09.06|grg

I am removing the quote "There before him, a glittering toy no Star-Child could resist, floated the planet Earth with all its peoples." from the caption for the image of the starchild under Synopsis as it is from the

I am also removing "Then he waited, marshaling his thoughts and brooding over his still untested powers. For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next. But he would think of something." - which was added by

Bungopolis 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Jason Palpatine disagrees with the removal of this quote: "The book and the film are reflections of each other. In fact, an entire chapter from the book is included in the film souvenir program. I believe the quote pertinent and appropriate."

Firstly, we must consider that the quote includes an assertion about the Star Child that cannot be supported with evidence found in the film: namely, that the earth is something of a "toy" for the Star Child. This implies that the Star Child wields a power over the earth, and that the Star Child is a reckless creature. Indeed, according to the trivia, the Star Child was in early production scripted to detonate nuclear devices orbiting the earth: a plot that would have been consistent with Clarke's quote. However, it was decided to remove this element from the film, and as it stands there is nothing in the film to suggest that the Star Child is going to 'play' with the Earth in the way implied by Clarke's quote. Rather, the image of the Star Child is highly ambiguous, unlike in the novel.

Secondly, plot expansions of the Space Odyssey story from the Clarke novels should not be projected into the plot of the film. One cannot assume that a viewer of the film has read any related literature (I haven't, for instance, read any of the Clarke novels), so to include plot that is not drawn directly from the film in the synopsis of that film is misleading and confusing.

Thirdly, even an endorsement of related literature by Kubrick (as might be implied by the inclusion of "an entire chapter from the book... in the film “souvenir program," though I highly suspect that was the result of a marketing director who was uncomfortable with the film's ambiguity) should have no bearing on our decision to expand upon the plot of the film. If the intentions of a director differ from his film then, perhaps, he has failed―but that is a judgment the viewer should make. In this vein we should not attempt to 'correct' Kubrick's ambiguities. In intuitive terms: if Kubrick, one of the most precise directors in history, had wanted us to see the Earth as a "toy" then he would have shown us it to that effect. --

This, of course is your second argument. “One cannot assume that a viewer of the film has read any related literature (I haven't, for instance, read any of the Clarke novels), so to include plot that is not drawn directly from the film in the synopsis of that film is misleading and confusing.” Sorry, either way, the results are the same. Clarke and Kubrick exchanged information both ways during the development of both projects. The differences between the two end products and the correlations only add to people’s perceptions. One cannot assume that a viewer of the film has NOT read any related literature (I have, for instance, read all of the Clarke novels and The Lost Worlds of 2001), so to include material from the book could be seen to relate directly to the synopsis of the film by others. You – a person who never read the novel – may consider these snippets misleading and confusing but others could consider them to be straightforward and apparent. I again remind you, that the full introduction of the novel is also used in the film's souvenir program. I.e. it is the introduction to both versions of the story. Also, you are not the only person who has seen the film without ever reading the novel.

Conversely, there are people who have only read the novel and never experienced the actual film aside from various fair use images. Using your analogy, the images would detract the book -- and many editions of the novel do contain images from the movie. Sorry, but I consider this argument nonsense at best. And unfair to the many others who read the article at worst. That earlier quote was there for roughly a month and you have been the only one to come forward to delete it.

Finally we come to your third argument – “In intuitive terms: if Kubrick, one of the most precise directors in history, had wanted us to see the Earth as a ‘toy’ then he would have shown us it to that effect.” Etc, etc, etc… IMHO: that was the whole point of the image in the frame. That was my interpretation, before I even read the novel two years later. Maybe it was someone elses, or another person looked at it differently. One interpretation was that the Star Child had returned to Earth after nuclear war had wiped out humanity and it was there to act as the seed for begining life anew (Life Magazine). The interpretations are endless, with or without the quotations from the novel.

To use a cliché -- what the image means and the first quotation that is the book’s answer to it are two sides of the same coin; or maybe the same side of 2 of the same coins. But that is a judgment the various readers of the article should make; not just you alone – or me alone for that matter, except for the fact that I am the contributor of the entry you are deleting. -- Jason Palpatine 07:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The book is the book and the film is the film. The initial idea was Stanley Kubrick's, hence the collaboration with Clarke(whos short story "the sentinel" got Kubrick's juices flowing) and hence the film(2001) is the master and book the slave(though the book is a book in it's own right and the viewer can read the book as an extension of the film in the story).

The book and the film were both produced hand in hand, but this wikipedia article is about the film 2001, not the book. Still the book should most certainly be mentioned, but not quoted from,- as the text of the book is the book, and the film is the film, a work of film. The book and film were not meant to be a single multi-media project/experience. The starchild ending is too important in the film to be ever extra defined by the book unless you decide the book is relevant to your personal interpretation of the film. I think of the book as the book and the film as the film,- they over lap sure, but i dig the metaphorical angle of the film's ending, a lot of people do. Respect both works as they ARE.

Mr Kubrick did not include lengthy information of the orbiting nukes, nor the starchild being anymore than a floating glowing newly developing baby with an interesting look on it's face. There is a lot of text around about Kubrick's and CLarke's development of story/film and the novel. --Book_M

Still disagree. --Jason Palpatine 00:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the article (currently) list "The survival of ...Howard Johnson's restaurants ... to the year 2001" as an inaccurate prediction? In 2006 there are still five operating Howard Johnson's restaurants. - Nunh-huh 11:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the HJ article: "In 1980 the restaurant chain was sold to the Marriott Corporation and all company-owned restaurants were changed to other brands. The lodging chain was sold to Prime Motor Inns." The exisence of 5 individually owned restarants is somehow lacking. In the movie, the corporation still existed in 2001, that did not turn out to be tha case. -- User:Jason Palpatine speak your mind 12:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement as it appears in the article is incorrect. I suggest that it be fixed. - Nunh-huh 13:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. --User:Jason Palpatine speak your mind 20:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by this line from the introductory paragraph:

Kubrick collaborated with Clarke, and together they first concurrently produced the novel version that was released alongside the film (which eventually grew into the so-called Space Odyssey series of books), and then towards the end Kubrick simultaneously wrote the screenplay.

First of all, I recall the novel being released shortly after the film, not concurrently. It's the "then towards the end" part that I can't understand, however. Towards the end of what? The filming? How could the screenplay have been written towards the end of filming? Don't films usually need a script before filming starts? I think this sentence should be re-written, but I don't know the exact chronology so I can't do it. --

The words "towards the end" appear in the external link http://www.talkingpix.co.uk/Two%20Views%20of%202001.html, which talks about the screenplay and novel being developed concurrently. If I read it right it seems Kubrick and Clarke wrote the novel first, then Kubrick did the screenplay, while at the same time, or later, Clarke does more on the novel while not knowing what Kubrick's final version would be like. Quite a chronological mix. -213.219.151.76 22:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that somebody linked the lunar monolith to

That's a good question. I put the link in while expanding the TMA-1 article itself. I remember the name from the book, rather than the movie; I had thought it occurred in the movie as well, but honestly can't remember. There are a couple of early versions of the screenplay floating around on the net, that refer to TMA-1 in the scene names/descriptions, but not the actual dialogue. Thoughts? It's easy enough to unlink if it's inappropriate - or could mention in the TMA-1 article that that name is only used in the book. Before I changed the TMA-1 article, it only mentioned the movie, not the book. Paddles ^T_C 13:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned -- shown. Remember, with a single exception, Kubrick deliberatly ommitted the use of direct dialouge in the movie. He presented everything he could visually. In scene after scene, characters talked around what was hapening. On the journey in the sub-orbital shuttle, Halvorsen and Michaels show Floyd a stack of diagrams, maps, and photographs indicating the discovery of an anomaly in the moon's magnetic field in the

Tycho crater, dubbed TMA-1 (Tycho Magnetic Anomaly #1). There was an image I included in the article that showed a closeup of the file Floyd was reading Image:2001TMA1printout.jpg

. The image was to establish this. But somebody decided that...

..and proceded to delete it and a number of the other images I and another admin had left in the article -- butchering it. Your comment here demonstrates the point I have been repeating over and over to the brickwalls here: "2001 is primarily a visual experience; to not use multiple pictures, IMHO, would leave the article in a banal half-state. It was on account of the visual nature of the work that I incorperated more than the usual number of images. I have tried to be accomidationg to you, but it seems to mean nothing to you. How many other people disapprove of the article as it now stands? Ok some of the prose may need touching up -- I am not a professional writer!" -- User:Jason Palpatine speak your mind

PS -- I hope this was helpfull. -- Jason Palpatine 17:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recently:

This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B-Class This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

It was Clas A quality earlier, but.... -- Jason Palpatine 20:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason, Class B is the highest grade that can be assigned to an article without going through official processes. The next grade up is

this criteria, but it failed. I will try to address the editor's concerns and re-nominate. See Template:Grading scheme for more information on grades. Aguerriero (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Cedars 02:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a great deal of changes today, incorporating all of the advice given here. I think the article still needs some cleaning up, but I hope we're closer now to a successful nomination. --

Bungopolis 08:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Huh? The closing admin said the poll was "close" - I don't get this. The voting was 6-5 for. That is not close. That is a clear no consensus. I know Wikipedia is not a democracy, but how can something where there is only one vote difference be said to be close to having support? I'm only saying this because it seems my vote swung things towards no consensus. Previously it was "60% suport" (see comments on various talk pages). How many other votes like this have gone through because of a 6-4 "60%" support? How can two people in a vote of 10 people make the difference between something succeeding and failing? Carcharoth 06:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have a clue how many at 6-4 have gone through. This is the only one I have come across. The reason I was adament about failing it at 6-4 was the 60% statement at the top of

WP:RM has slightly different standards. I am still unsure why. --liquidGhoul 06:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• You Know, there was a related AfD debate which went 7 to keep, 4 to delete, and 4 to merge. The powers that be ruled that the result was delete, when the majority voted against deletion. Sick hypocrisy. What are the four pillars? -- Jason Palpatine 22:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The arguments made by the voters are more important than the count. For example, someone voting "agree because it's my favorite book" gets less weight than someone voting "agree because it's been on the bestseller list for 10 years". Putting verifiable facts into your vote is important, whereas claims that 2001 the novel is a "significant literary classic" strain credibility all the way to Jupiter. Clarke is an important sf writer and a smart man, but he doesn't write great literature; he's not very important in the world of writing, whereas Kubrick was a major auteur in cinema, and his film is considered a masterpiece by many who don't care at all for most sf film. But that's just my opinion. -- Slowmover 21:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it isn't considered a significant sf literary work -- why then, was a study guide of the novel published? I undrstood that was done only with literary works considered to be significant. -- Jason Palpatine 23:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess a study guide indicates popularity and interest in the subject. It's not a measure of literary greatness. You're entitled to believe otherwise, of course. -- Slowmover 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I said significant, not GREAT. There is a difference -- about a couple of light-years. -- Jason Palpatine 23:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments, hopefully helpful:

1) Quote from article: "The second chapter of 2001 does not have a title, although "TMA-1" is sometimes adopted from Clarke's novel for this purpose." - this sentence mentions "Clarke's novel" before anything has been said about such a novel. Something needs to be said about the novel in the lead section to avoid confusion.

2) The first reference I can find to the book that was published later that year is in a link called "novel version". Why not give the book its name, and say more about the relationship between the two. The current link to The_Lost_Worlds_of_2001 is not enough. In general, there is a lack of linking from the film article to the book article. Currently, you either have to click on the disambiguation hatlink and browse a list, or you have to get all the way down to the series box at the bottom, or you have to click "novel version", which is an unclear, poorly named link. At the very least, I think the book should be mentioned in the lead section and linked from there.

Carcharoth 01:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing an extensive, beefed up plot synopsis for 2001. I should have it ready and posted tomorrow, along with some questions and requests posted on this page. Hopefully you will all find it up to standard.-Dark Kubrick 20:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the plot synopsis is a bit of a contention here. We used to have a huge synopsis that was overly detailed and too long, which got moved to a seperate article. That article has since been deleted, and now we have a brief synopsis which I think is pretty good. If you return to a long, detailed synopsis it will probably be deleted. --

Bungopolis 21:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Listen to the man. I should know. Ref: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis). The results were 7 to keep, 4 to delete, and 4 to merge. The powers that be ruled that the result was delete, when the majority voted against deletion. Sick hypocrisy. -- Jason Palpatine 21:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note: I just want you people to know; just as the powers that be haven't changed their minds, neither have I. I still maintain that this is a wrong decision. I branched the synopsis article from the main film article in an act of good faith. This was the work of many and not any single individual. This user thinks 2001: A Space Odyssey is the best science fiction film ever made; and a 196 word synopsis just does not do the film justice.

I don't have a problem with a separate synopsis article myself, I just assumed the same thing would happen again :). --

Bungopolis 23:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

My point exactly. -- Jason Palpatine 23:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The plot synopsis is still pretty bare-bones I think. The third and fourth segments are only given a couple of sentences and are pretty vague. I'd be happy to somehow preview my synopsis and make sure no one thinks it's too long or detailed. Edit: Alright, I'm a little confused here. I clicked and read your link, Jason Palpatine, and I understand what happened, but what exactly is the "wrong decision?" I really want to improve this article, as I think 2001 is the best film ever made, period. -Dark Kubrick 21:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this [version]. The deletion of this summary in place of a no frills less than 200 word synop just was wrong as it didn't do the film any justice. Also, the deletion of it and the spin-off went against the vote of the majority. -- Jason Palpatine 22:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That is sad. Your interpretation may have been too detailed, but this current synopsis is just terrible, especially in comparison with yours. So, pretty much any synopsis anyone submits, it will probably be deemed too long and deleted?

Actually Jason wrote the current one too ;) But I think it's pretty sufficient, to be honest. Why don't you go ahead and post your synopsis here on the talk page where it won't be deleted. Then we can all look at it and decide what to do -- maybe we'll integrate the best parts into the current one, or maybe we'll try again to host a separate article for it. --

Bungopolis 00:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

OUCH! Thank you, but I must disclaim such honour. I posted the current synop to the article (more than once) but I am not its writer. It was oriniated by Modemac. You can find his original submission here further up the page in the earlier section --Proposal: A new synopsis. -- Jason Palpatine 00:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops... Anyway, I think this whole synopsis thing is kind of secondary. I must say I think we need more content on the production, especially the special effects, which were quite revolutionary. I have the Stanley Kubrick Archives mega-book with essays on the subject, but I'm too damn lazy to read them. --

Bungopolis 01:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The film is divided into four segments. The first chapter of 2001, titled "The Dawn of Man," takes place in the late Pliocene Epoch, and contains no dialogue whatsoever. It shows prehistoric "man-apes" in their environment, and focuses on various aspects of their survival, such as avoiding predatory leopards and capturing water holes from other groups. Eventually, the man-apes wake up and encounter a black, rectangular monolith, and nervously approach it.

Afterwards, a lone man-ape (called Moonwatcher) is in a field covered in bones. The man-ape picks up a bone and plays with it, but as the scene progresses, he begins to more and more use it as a weapon, until by the end of the scene, he is smashing the bones with aggressive force. The man-apes are then shown to be eating bloody carcasses, presumably tapirs, which marks a drastic change in their diet from small plants and leaves. With their newfound weapon, the first group of man-apes easily take back the water hole.

In a match cut often described as one of the most famous shots in motion picture history, a victorious man-ape throws a bone into the air and the film jumps forward to the modern era, the image of the bone matched to that of a man-made satellite—presumably a weapons platform, illustrating the advancement of human technology.

The remainder of the film takes place in a near-future time (presumably around the year 2001, as the film's title suggests). The second chapter begins with no title, and proceeds to show a transport shuttle docking into an orbiting space station, with Earth in the background. Several shots of the interior of the shuttle's cabin show it carries only one passenger: Dr. Heywood R. Floyd, a scientist bound for the Moon.

Floyd arrives in the space station, as a monotone stewardess says the first spoken lines of the film: "Here you are, sir. Main Level, please." Floyd meets Mr. Miller of Station Security, and the two walk through the sterile space station to a restaurant, but Floyd stops and makes a call as Miller goes on ahead.

In the first real narrative exposition scene, Floyd meets an old friend Elena and her colleagues, and sits down for a chat. After revealing that he is going to the Moon base Clavius, one of Elena's friends, Dr. Andrei Smyslov, becomes interested and inquires as to why no one can get in contact with the base, and Elena mentions that the base denied emergency landing to a shuttle. Floyd expresses blank surprise and naivete at these facts, but when Smyslov brings up the rumor that an epidemic has broken out at the base, Floyd turns resolute and firmly refuses to comment on the situation.

The next scene resembles the space shuttle docking sequence from before, as Floyd's lunar landing craft Aries heads towards the moon base Clavius. The craft settles down onto the base and is lowered down on an elevated platform into the heart of the base.

In a meeting room on Clavius, Floyd lectures to several scientists on the importance of hiding the real reason for Clavius's suspicious activities: they have dug up a black monolith (similar to the one the man-apes encountered) and the epidemic is simply a cover story. The scene cuts to a transport shuttle on the Moon, where Floyd and two other scientists debate what the monolith is and where it came from, saying it was "deliberately buried." The shuttle lands at the dig site, and the scientists warily approach the monolith. They gather around it for a group photo, but before one is taken an earsplitting sound issues from the monolith.

Before any explanation is offered for the Monolith's tone, the movie jumps forward once again to its third chapter entitled "Jupiter Mission: Eighteen Months Later." The story here takes place on the spaceship Discovery One that has been sent on a scientific mission to the planet Jupiter.

Accompanying the pilots, astronauts

EVA Pod

to retrieve and repair the part, but upon examination they find that the part is completely fine. HAL suggests restoring the part and waiting until it fails to determine what’s wrong with it. Bowman and Poole enter a pod, shut off all audio communication, and have a private conversation from HAL about what to do if he turns out to be wrong. Unbeknownst to them, HAL is reading their lips.

Poole heads out in a pod to restore the part while Dave watches inside the Discovery One. As Poole exits the pod to manually restore the part, HAL uses the empty pod to somehow detach Poole from his air support (it is never shown how he does this with the pod.) Poole floats lifeless into space as Bowman exits the ship in another pod to rescue him (forgetting to bring his space helmet). While Bowman is outside, HAL murders the three hibernating scientists by sabotaging their life support systems.

Bowman manages to retrieve Poole’s body and asks HAL to “open the pod bay doors.” HAL refuses to let him in and reveals that he knows of Bowman and Poole’s conversation in the pod. He also informs Bowman that without his helmet it would be fatal to enter the emergency air lock. He decides to do it anyway, and by using the pod’s ejection system propels himself into the airlock, seals the chamber, and fills it with oxygen.

Bowman enters HAL’s “brain room” where all of HAL’s

operating systems are stored. With HAL pleading for him to stop, Bowman proceeds to dismantle and disconnect him. Gradually HAL reverts back to his earliest programming, loses his memory, and sings a children’s song

.

--Jason Palpatine 03:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, glad you like it, and don't bother apologizing for the tweaks, as I want this to be as accurate as possible. Thanks for your approval, and I'll post it within a couple of days if no one says anything. -Dark Kubrick 03:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it's added. -Dark Kubrick 02:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some major copyediting on your synopsis. I would like to remove a few non-essential parts, but I am pretty happy with it as it stands. I would also like to add an image of the man-apes approaching the monolith.--

Bungopolis 05:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Want me to put it in? I have several good images to choose from. -Dark Kubrick 05:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show them? --

Bungopolis 05:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

"Here's the best, I think. -Dark Kubrick 05:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, I'll add it now --

Bungopolis 07:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Recording "Supposed to be activated after they reached Jupiter"? No. The hope was that none of the predictable failures would occur. But they made recordings for all possible foreseeable failures, including the one where the ship got marooned at Jupiter. The ship was meant to go slingshot around Jupiter and head for Epsilon Eridani at .88C. If Dave had not freaked out and turned off the computer, this particular recording would not be activated at all. I have written some more thoughts on this at http://www.geocities.com/gregu10/ettuHAL.txt Frizb 23:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On July 22 I removed "a weapons platform orbiting Earth" from the following sentence in the plot synopsis:

In a match cut often described as one of the most famous shots of motion picture history, a victorious man-ape throws a bone into the air and the film jumps forward to the modern era, the image of the bone matched to that of a man-made satellite; a weapons platform orbiting Earth.

Sailorlula argued on my talk page that the satellite clearly is a weapons platform, and I agree with his reasoning, so I changed the sentence to the following:

In a match cut often described as one of the most famous shots of motion picture history, a victorious man-ape throws a bone into the air and the film jumps forward to the modern era, the image of the bone matched to that of a man-made satellite—presumably a weapons platform, illustrating both the advancement of human technology and the unchangingness of human behavior.

On July 27 Vfp15 removed that part of the sentence as I originally did, but I restored it, and said I would post about the debate here, which I am now doing. Here's the argument Sailorlula originally made on my talk page, followed by my response:

I would respectfully like to argue that you can clearly discern, strictly from viewing the film alone, that they are indeed weapons.

Let's remember first that almost all the important messages of 2001 are conveyed in a less-than-explicit visual manner and are only communicated once the viewer "connects the dots" and draws a conclusion. E.g., perhaps the most important example all, that the Monolith has educated the man-ape. We know this only by drawing conclusions from the visual and audio material presented. Man-ape touches Monolith, man-ape picks up bone, quick-cut to Monolith and back once more, accompanied by Thus Spake Zharathustra swelling, and suddenly man-ape knows about tools/weapons. The logical conclusion to draw, upon which virtually everyone agrees, is that the Monolith taught man-ape about tools/weapons.

I argue that it's equally clear that the orbiting satellites are weapons. I list reasons in descending order of 'strength:'

1. The edit cut from bone/weapon to satellite. With this sharp weapon-to-satellite visual transition alone, Kubrick is practically handing us on a plate the "satellite=weapon" interpretation.
2. If you view the movie on the big screen (NOT on TV at home), you can discern the liveries of different countries on the different satellites in orbit. If memory serves me -- (I wish it was playing in Cinerama somewhere so I could confirm!) -- I believe you can make out (at the very least) CCCP (USSR), China and Germany. Curiously, all presumably nuclear powers around the year 2001. On TV at home all I can make out is a red blur on one satellite (USSR or China) and what looks like the German flag on another. Perhaps an HDTV-DVD release will allow us to examine this footage more closely.
3. The shape of the satellites in the eyes of a 1968 audience. 1968 viewers were generally familiar only with ball-shaped satellites such as Sputnik and Telstar. The 2001 satellites were all barrel-shaped (some might even call them gun-shaped) with the barrels all seemingly pointed at Earth. For 21st-Century viewers used to seeing barrel-shaped satellites such as Hubble, this jarring-to-1968-viewers detail is easy to miss.
4. Kubrick clearly has violence on the brain. Just before seeing the satellites we witness the man-ape violence. Later, while Heywood Floyd sleeps on his way to the space station, his video screen depicts some sort of battle between futuristic-looking tanks. On the way to the Moon, the stewardesses watch a karate battle while sipping their meals. And then there's that little matter with HAL.
5. This is reaching a bit, but the satellites, as contrasted with the space station, are clearly in a lower Earth orbit as would be consistent with optimal placement of space weapons targeting Earth.

I argue that these details leave the astute viewer with little doubt that Kubrick intended to visually convey that the satellites are indeed weapons.

Documentation, OUTSIDE of the film footage itself that supports my argument includes the original 2001 script,

http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/2001.html

which explicitly states that the satellites are thousand-megaton nuclear bombs, and display the insignia of Russia/CCCP, America, France, Germany and China.

--Sailorlula 22:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The script is a fake. Similar to the Fall of the Republic treatment that was released after

Star Wars VI, or "Star Trek III -- Return to Genesis". Kubrick ordered all production materials of 2001 destroyed after the film was released -- that included the script. Apart from an excerpt in Making of Kubrick's 2001, nothing of it survives. The fake you are referencing was written by someone who was familiar with the comic version of 2001 and based it heavily on it. Sorry. -- Jason Palpatine 04:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

You make a very convincing case, and I definitely do interpret the satellites as weapons also. I've added to the satellite line, saying it is "presumably" a weapons platform, and elaborating on the significance of that. --

Bungopolis 23:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

No. Disagree. Kubrick thought the display of weapons in orbit would relate too much to Dr. Starangelove. He decided to make the orbiting hardware less obvious. The theme isn't bone= weapon, it is bone = tool. Man's use of tools is the theme -- the fact that a weapon is just another form of tool is irrelevant. The satellites looked like satellites -- I saw NOTHING in the film presentation to indicate that they were anything other than Kubrick's versions of the network of orbiting instruments that circle the world today. -- Jason Palpatine 01:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fair enough; that was my original position as well. But I find it very hard to drop the interpretation that Kubrick was making a visual equivocation between the two objects. It's such a brilliant use of cinema! Just those two frames make such a profound statement on humanity. If the satellite is not a weapon, however, I think a lot of the insight is lost. Maybe this should be discussed in the interpretations section, but I think this interpretation should at least be mentioned (as an interpretation) in this section. What does Clarke write about that scene, if anything? --

Bungopolis 03:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I think we can solve this by writing that the imagery suggests such a comparison. It's an interesting insight into the development of Kubrick's vision, because looking at the original script [1], "orbiting bombs" are explicit in the background summary. I think you are right, Jason, in that he decided to water down this element (I've read he was 'tired' of bombs after making Strangelove also), but the suggestion of it clearly remains, as summarized by Sailorlula above. --

Bungopolis 03:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

"Later, while Heywood Floyd sleeps on his way to the space station, his video screen depicts some sort of battle between futuristic-looking tanks." I don't know where you got this from. The film on the screen is a love scene in a futuristic car. (Making of Kubrick's 2001)

Yes, flags for the US, and Germany are shown. And one satellite displayed a red star representing ether Russia or China. All of these countries have satellites in orbit today -- remember, Kubrick was trying to see the future. But their shapes are based on bones, not guns. They have absolutely no aerodynamic configuration such as would be necessary for atmospheric reentry that would be required for an orbiting nuclear bomb to be delivered to its target. Finally, there is the Outer Space Treaty -- it forbids weapons in space. Kubrick consulted with many actual science advisors in the space science community -- they pointed that out to him; which was another reason for the change to less threatening instruments. They could be anything. Short of some sequence in the final cut where it is openly said or shown that the instruments are weapons, I suggest the idea remain out of the synopsis. -- Jason Palpatine 04:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll remove it. But I still like the idea that it's a weapon :) Thanks for letting us know that the script is a fake, I wonder how you discovered that, though? --

Bungopolis 04:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Does satellite=weapon belong in the Synopsis? I think so. There are already other implied conclusions in the Synopsis. I vote we re-restore Bungopolis' version of the sentence. Does it belong in the Interpretations? Absolutely. Sailorlula 09:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with Sailorlula. He makes some pretty strong points, and also we never really see the apemen use the bone as a tool. They only use it as a weapon to get food or water. If Kubrick wanted to emphasize it as a tool and not as a weapon, he would've included a shot of the apemen using it as a tool, not just a weapon. -Dark Kubrick 09:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Bone as tool: the apeman does use the bone as a tool, viz. to kill animals. When used to hunt, the bone is a tool, when used to attack other apemen, it is a weapon. In 2001, the bone-as-tool sequence precedes the weapon-as-tool sequence.

2) I'd still remove the bit about the space platform having weapons. If the satellite isn't unmistakably used for weapons (and after six viewings I never saw that it was) then saying it is a weapons platform is speculation. If we quote reasons for thinking it is a weapons platform (e.g. early drafts of the script) then we are guilty of original research. That's a basic wikipedia principle: no original research.

3)I'm not insisting it isn't a weapons platform. I don't think it is, but who knows? I'm saying that if it is a weapons platform, it is far from obvious. If you want to put this back, then you should quote someone else's original research, e.g. Pauline Kael or Roger Ebert, and include a reference to the quote, either to print media or to a net link. Otherwise, correct or not, it's your original research and your speculation. Vincent 04:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We (or at least I) have already agreed that the weapons platform interpretation is too subjective and have removed this sentence. It should be discussed in the interpretations article however, if it isn't already.--

Bungopolis 04:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Ooops. I jumped the gun there on the debate, apologies. But really the point stands: even in an interpretation section, you really should quote someone else rather than provide your own interpretation. Cheers, Vincent 04:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The elimination of the weapons in space theme is detailed in In J Angel's Making of Kubrick's 2001.

BTW: What is WRT? -- Jason Palpatine 02:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WRT = "With regard to" -- Sailorlula 02:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have way too many pictures in the article, a total of 10 including the theatrical poster. I think a lot of these photos could be easily edited out without hurting the article too much, and in fact improving it a bit. Some of the images aren't even needed, like the one in the "Interpretations" section, where the caption calls it "one of the most surreal and psychedelic sequences in the film", but all we see is Keir Dullea.

I didn't want to take any pictures out until I posted some reasons here, as some people probably worked to get these images up there. The images I say to take out are the aforementioned one with Keir Dullea, the one showing the revolving space station, the one that says "Life Functions Terminated", the one showing the Tycho crater map, and one of the two in the "Scientific Accuracy" section: either the Discovery One or Poole jogging. I also think we could replace the current synopsis photo with a picture of the Star Gate sequence light corridor thingies, as a reader might not understand what that would look like just reading the article. -Dark Kubrick 00:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with you here, Dark Kubrick. Some of the pictures do not reinforce a point in the article, nor do they illustrate an important image that cannot be sufficiently described in words, which I think should be the criteria for inclusion. Here's what I think specifically about each image in this vein:

1. Image:2001child2.JPG Star Child — The Star Child is very hard to describe, and is the probably the most important image of the film, so I think it deserves to be shown. Keep.
   
2. Image:Station.jpeg Space Station 5 — Caption about classical music is not reinforced by the image (you have to hear it to illustrate the importance of the music in this scene). The space station itself does not illustrate any other point. Remove.
   
3. Image:2001TMA1printout.jpg TMA-1 — An unnecessary illustration of a point, which is a bit of a stretch in terms of significance anyway. Does it actually matter if the audience knows the monolith is called TMA-1? Certainly not; the text in this frame is not really being "used to convey facts to the audience instead of through dialogue", it's just a realistic depiction of a map. The next image better illustrates Kubrick's sparse use of dialogue to convey facts. Remove.
   

   No. I inserted this image and caption when a number of readers challemged the reference of TMA-1 in the movie article. Some users claimed the term was never used and that "TMA-1" was only used in the novel -- the same way Saturn was used. I included the image for the very same reason it appears in the film -- to show that the point was made visually. A number of people suggested that the term TMA-1 shold not be used in the article because it was never used in the film. This image is necessary for that point. It may not be relelvant to some of you, but is is significant to others. KEEP. -- Jason Palpatine 19:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I remember why you added this image, and it did indeed prove that the term TMA-1 is used in the film (note that it was me who asked the question). But does this really belong in an encyclopedia article on the film? It's a trivial fact. The only people who need to know this are editors, so it can remain on the talk page. —

   Bungopolis 20:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   As I recall, the use of fair use images on talk pages is not allowed here. --Jason Palpatine 00:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Well we don't need the image on the talk page either. I've seen it now and I believe you. I also have the DVD, so I can check myself. Where can I read the policy on fair use images on talk pages, by the way? I'm going to remove this image from the article now, because I think it stands out as the least useful. Note that it is currently present on the

   Bungopolis 01:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Please, no need to be angry. BTW: you just hurt my feelings. For policy, see

   Wikipedia:Fair use. I encountered the problem on my talk page and some others I had posted images on. The Admins removed them. Chop, chop! --Jason Palpatine 02:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I can assure you I wasn't trying to appear angry, and I'm very sorry if I hurt your feelings. There was no malice intended; I think you have made some great contributions to this article and your dedication keeps everybody on their toes with every edit, which is a good thing.--

   Bungopolis 02:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Thank-you. --Jason Palpatine 02:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Image:2001-terminated.jpg Life functions terminated - this is a far better illustration of the point that was being made in the previous image caption, because it's a significant fact, and it's completely unambiguous to the audience. Keep.
   
5. Image:2001dave.JPG Keir Dullea/Stargate sequence — This image should be replaced with an image of the light sequence itself, and moved to a special effects section that discusses the use of slit-scan photography.
   
6. Image:Discovery1b.GIF Spaceship Discovery — Illustrates a good point in the context of realism (the non-aerodynamic shape). Keep this image, as well as the caption.
   
7. Image:2001-centerfuge.jpg Centrifuge — Illustrates the structure of the centrifugal living quarters, which is hard to imagine without a visual. It's not redundant to the previous image. Keep.
   
8. Image:2001interview.jpg TV screens — Does reinforce a point, but it's probably not neccessary; we are all capable of imagining what a flat-screen television looks like. Remove.
   
9. Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg Moonbase — Does not reinforce the claim (which is unverifiable, by the way) that the moon base is the "most inaccurate prediction," which is not a particularly important point in the article anyway. Remove.
   

"unverifiable"? Is there any such instalation on the lunar surface today? Was there anything like it in the year 2001? Was there anything on the drawing boards? It was an entire city -- NASA's plans (1968 and now) are nothing on that scale. ref: Filming the Future by P. Brozney

Furthermore I think at least one image should be added: the ape-men approaching the monolith. The monolith should be depicted in the article because it is hard to imagine without a visual and is a central image of the film. This frame could also be used reinforce a claim about the convincing costuming for the ape-men, which should be discussed under the special effects section.

—

Bungopolis 01:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Alright, I see what you mean with some of the images you've chosen to keep. I'll get an image of the light sequence and replace the current image with it. I'll also get an image of the ape-men and the monolith, as that's a good point too, but before it's added the article should probably actually have a section on the ape-men effects. -Dark Kubrick 02:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I argured this point some months ago with others. I do not belive the existing article has too many images. 2001 is a primarily visual film, not a narative one. Leave well enough alone. -- Jason Palpatine 19:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree with you that because the film is primarily visual, images have an important place in the article. This does not mean, however, that any image from the film is a good candidate for inclusion. Nobody is proposing we remove all of the images, just that we think carefully about exactly which images should be included, which is what we are doing. I proposed that the criteria for inclusion be as follows: that it illustrates a significant feature of or image from the film that cannot be sufficiently described in words, or that it reinforces an important point in the discussion of the film. Remember also that all these images are under an all-rights-reserved copyright and are being used under a claim of fair-use. The more images we have, the weaker a claim we have, because it begins to detract from the value of watching the film itself. It is also conceivable that, in the future, fair-use claimed images will not be permitted on Wikipedia (for instance, if/when somebody sues it for infringement). We should, therefore, err on the side of frugality when it comes to frame captures.—

Bungopolis 21:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the TMA-1 image is actually pretty effective, perhaps moreso than the hammering "LIFE FUNCTIONS TERMINATED" (which in my opinion is one of the film's few genuinely redundant moments). The TMA-1 image on the other hand illustrates not only the visual communication, but the scale of the big-screen image (sidebar did not address this directly, but it's an excellent example). This image looks "buried" to modern video-screen eyes but when viewed at whoppingly huge dimensions and 70mm sharpness, it's right there for ya.24.33.28.52 16:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'll start this again, since no resolution seemed to have been reached. I want to remove the image under the music subsection (seriously, what does that image DO?) and possibly one or both under the Predictions section. Anyone agree?--Dark Kubrick 02:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still agree --

Bungopolis 03:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

-- Beardo 05:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think it is the most lacking section of the article. I'll do some work on this section soon, when I can be bothered. --

Bungopolis 04:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh yes -- please watch for livery on the satellites. Also, on the food tray dispensing unit during the space-station-to-moon segment, there's a brand name on the unit visible (in, I believe, the upper-left of the frame), I think Westinghouse or Whirlpool. Last, on the food trays themselves, I believe each of the eight straw-bearing modules has a Seabrook Farms logo in the lower-left corner. Thanks in advance, -- Sailorlula 01:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So did you make it to the showing, How was it? -- Sailorlula 20:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was amazing. If you ever get the chance to see it on a big screen, and particularly in 70mm (many showings are in 35mm transfer), you must do it! Watching the DVD pales in comparison to the theater experience, including the sound and music, which are much more powerful at full seat-rumbling volume. The TMA-1 radio signal tone is unbearably ear-piercing, as well as the "LIFE FUNCTIONS TERMINATED" beeping, for both of which the audience scrambled to cover their ears. It was really pretty bold of Kubrick to have decided to actually cause physical pain to the audience. Although the audience giggled quite a lot at the pre-historic scenes (the apes are a bit less convincing in full size, so it was a little hard to suspend one's disbelief), it was very cool to experience it with a full house. There was a roar of laughter and applause (appropriately cynical laughter and applause) at HAL's great line "I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over." The EVA scenes were also incredibly stressful and claustrophobic. In this sense, 2001 is an incredibly immersive experience when presented as it was intended, and the Star-Child is a strangely comforting as a finale to the whole thing. It can't say how exactly it has changed my interpretation of the film, since I don't really have a unified "theory" to begin with, but I did find the amplified emotions as a result of the scale of both image and sound pretty enlightening. The Castro seats 1400, but the balcony level was closed, so there might have been 700 people? The line to enter went around the block. A passer-by commented "is this really the line for a 37 year old movie?" Sorry Sailorlula, but I couldn't catch any of the details you mentioned as I was too busy enjoying the movie and it kept slipping my mind... --

Bungopolis 07:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Sounds like it was great -- I'm jealous. The last time I saw it on the big screen was in 2001 in Times Square at the now gone Loews Astor Place, during a winter storm. The huge theater had maybe ten people in it, including a couple in their early twenties behind me who'd never seen it before. The film jammed during the intro. After the end, I asked the couple what they thought, and all they could say was "It all looks so dated -- it reminds us of EPCOT!" -- Sailorlula 18:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks pretty good. Very straightforward, "just what you see."24.33.28.52 22:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The start of the new synopsis reads "2001 opens with approximately 3 minutes of complete darkness accompanied by György Ligeti's Overture from Atmosphères". This may appear to be the case on the DVD, but is not the way it worked in theatres. The music was played while the theatre was still lit and the curtains were closed over the screen (as was also the case during the intermission music). I'm guessing younger folk who never saw the film in a theatre are just confused. This needs to be repaired in the Synopsis. -- Sailorlula 03:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the curtains Sailorlula, I'll fix it. I'm going to see the film at a theater tommorrow, I'll see what they do in this respect today! --

Bungopolis 04:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Done. --

Bungopolis 05:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Tangential question about that. Is 2001's reputation (particularly among casual viewers) being hurt today by the mistaken impression that people are supposed to sit attentively during the entr'acte? Since the DVD does not bother to explain such practices or anything. I don't know if it would be worth getting into in the article, but think that this might be the case at least in some small way. Sort of a "how dare you make me sit through three minutes of black, mister high and mighty 2001 a space oddyssey?" Anyone know if there's been discussion of this that could be referred to?24.33.28.52 08:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WRT entr'acte, I've read multiple reviews on IMDB showing this is often the case. I used to hate that on the original 2001 DVD, a corny, still filler image was kept on-screen during the intro and intermission music (vs. the more recent releases with music and black screen). Given how many clueless viewers think they're being asked to sit staring at a black screen in rapt attention, maybe adding the stills wasn't such a bad idea! -- Sailorlula 21:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new Synopsis states that only two of four 'chapters' are titled, which is incorrect. The first is entitled "The Dawn of Man". On a deeper level, I think there's a bigger problem with characterizing parts of the films as chapters at all. It seems a tad arbitrary and subjective. In addition, I've found at least one critic, Robert Castle, who asserts that the "second chapter" has no title because it's not a second chapter, but a continuation of "The Dawn of Man" sequence -- view his interpretation here:

http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/46/2001.htm

Castle's view aside, it seems that we could simply mention the names of the individual segments in the Synopsis without giving a total or calling them chapters. -- Sailorlula 04:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about "The Dawn of Man" - I couldn't remember if this title was actually used in the film, but I missed it when I checked. I will correct this. I'll also find a way to deal with whether or not the 2nd "chapter" should be viewed as such. --

Bungopolis 04:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Done. --

Bungopolis 05:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I would not add this explanation to the article because it's original :-) Vincent 05:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This error is verrified in Making of Kubrick's 2001. Why did you delete it when it is valid? --Jason Palpatine 05:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the "2001: A Space Odyssey (film)" wiki article:

"Upon release, 2001 received mostly positive reviews"

From the "Stanley Kubrick" wiki article:

"Initial reactions from critics were overwhelmingly negative"

A repair is clearly needed --Sailorlula 22:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the usual history go that reviews were generally unfavorable but that the film became a popular hit? The popular success of the movie is something that gets a bit glossed over in this day and age with people giving the old "critics love it but the people hate it" attitude, which really is not true of this movie historically speaking.24.33.28.52 01:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection from reading the many 1968-69 reviews in "The Making of Kubrick's 2001" is that most critics -- while impressed by the film's technical virtuosity - were generally negative or just plain bewildered. (As far as rank and file viewers are concerned, a quick look at IMDB reviews for 2001 shows that many folks have extreme positive or negative opinions.) I'd say the text in the "Stanley Kubrick" Wiki article is the correct verison. -- Sailorlula 02:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True about imdb, but bear in mind that it's a relatively recent development and speaks only for those with ability and volition to comment in such places. Ticket sales over a long period of time speak more about a popular success than anything else, and 2001 is an easy example of that. There's also a considerable anti-2001 sentiment on the internet that may not have existed even fifteen years ago. I would not consider imdb a definitive measure of popular success in this case particularly, but also just in general due to the old "telephone poll bias".24.33.28.52 09:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, IMDB is both anecdotal and totally too 'newbie'-slanted. Then again, I saw 2001 in June of 1968 (in Cinerama!) when I was 10, and I remember a lot of folks disliking it at that time. But all this is about the audience, not the critics. I think the article text should go with the "most critics were negative" take. -- Sailorlula 09:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, generally negative would be about right. Talking about this movie on these terms is difficult because while 2001 has been a darling of -criticism- (academic examination done after the fact) it has often garnered hostility in -reviews- (newspaper & magazine recommendations for their audience)... the two are often taken for the same thing in the general vernacular, which really makes things tricky. With 2001, the release pattern itself also (potentially) introduced skew in terms of reviews--many reviewers were looking at a movie that already had a reputation, which can introduce that reactionary element. Blah I'm longwinded. Anyway, it seems a fair enough edit.24.33.28.52 22:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but a look at the many critiques provided in Jerome Agel's book The Making of Kubrick's 2001 simply doesn't support the conclusion that the film received "mostly negative reviews." The entire "Reaction" section of this article is incredibly skimpy and needs to be rewritten and greatly expanded with examples of the kinds of responses 2001 received at the time of its initial release, both pro and con. The provided quotes from

Stanley Kauffman, and Roger Ebert don't even begin to provide an adequate representation of the varying critical reactions to the film.-Hal Raglan 02:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Would someone please explain to me what this is about? -- Jason Palpatine 22:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the section Were 2001 Reviews Good or Bad? immediately above this one. --

Bungopolis 22:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Does "MGM made a publicity still..." refer to the following: 2001_photo? If so, it's an octagonal corridor. Of course, this may be a different photo, but Bowman is holding the antenna part, and lots of the corridors are octagonal anyway: 2001_spaceodissey.gif Slov01 13:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone feel like the cast section is unneeded? 2001 is definitely not an actors' film, and the three main stars are already mentioned in the infobox and other parts of the article. We'd also get rid of a useless image as well.--Dark Kubrick 02:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree --

Bungopolis 05:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I also agree -- those curious can go to IMDB for that info. -- Sailorlula 12:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the section then.--Dark Kubrick 13:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - it may not be an actors film, but they are still an important part. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia - we shouldn't say - "go to IMDB for that info". -- Beardo 14:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can when the information is non-notable and for other sites to handle. Half the cast section is a bunch of red links on people whose articles will never be created (or shouldn't be). I don't think people will miss Sean Sullivan who played Dr. Bill Michaels. The four main cast members (Dullea, Lockman, Sylvester, and Rains) would make for a slim section. My point is that the cast is not really an essential part of this particular film article.--Dark Kubrick 01:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the section again unless someone responds here soon.--Dark Kubrick 02:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that the article weould be poorer for the removal of Ed Bishop. Some people may be looking to see who played the parents. -- Beardo 03:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If people want to learn about Bishop's role in the film, they can go to the Ed Bishop article. As for the parents, why should we mention people who have a 1 minute appearance in the film?--Dark Kubrick 16:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not, we are an encyclopedia, let's be encyclopedic ! Perhaps this could be spun into a separate article with just a link from here ? Then it doesn't clutter up this page, but is still availble in wikipedia. -- Beardo 19:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why be encyclopedic about information that is incredibly trivial and only takes up space? Seriously, people can just go to IMdB for that info; Wikipedia doesn't have to cover every minuscule detail. Look at some of the Featured film articles-plenty of them do not have cast sections, and do not need one, and those films have more notable characters than Poole's parents or some space captain who has no dialogue.--Dark Kubrick 21:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the section. As for a separate article, the information does not even warrant its own sub-article.--Dark Kubrick 20:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Wiki standard favoring British English over American English? If not, then aren't recent changes to this article spurious, such as 'videophone" to 'visiophone', 'aging' to 'ageing', and 'realized' to 'realised'? -- Sailorlula 12:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well - the film was made in Britain, Clarke is British, most of the crew were British, Kubrick lived in England. What more do you want ? Seriously - I think it is a close thing. Though I have never heard of a "visiophone" - is that supposed to be a British version ? One that's coal-fired or something ? -- Beardo 14:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coal-fired: I love it! Seriously, the ethnicity of those involved in producing the film, or where it was made, doesn't have much to do with the issue I was raising. I was asking; what, if any, is the Wiki standard for this sort of thing? Just because Milan is in Italy, I doubt that all Wiki articles should call it Milano instead of Milan. BTW, 'visiophone' does show up in a Google search, but much less frequently than 'videophone'. Apparently it's a UK alternative. -- Sailorlula 15:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English - "If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect." Thus the articles on Clarke and the 2001 novel should use British English; the article on Kubrick American English. But this one is less clear cut.

If we can't decide on that, the rule is if "there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used." -- Beardo 04:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just my 2¢, but the film is an American movie studio production (M-G-M). Regardless, I'm forgiving of UK English conventions where they creep in, but editing the article only to change regional English conventions is unnecessary. — David Spalding ^Talk/_Contribs 16:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

** If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please do not be too quick to make accusations!

— WP:MOS National varieties of English)

On this subject, could we please cease the edit war over 'judgment' vs. 'judgement'? According to my Oxford, both are correct. My Webster's prefers 'judgment' so if we leave the spelling in the article as is right now it should satisfy proponents of both 'British' and 'American' spelling. Cheers, Ian Rose 21:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war? What edit war? I made a snap reversion last night, based on my Concise OED, 11th ed.,

sit down, take a stress pill, and put it all in perspective. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

That's okay mate, the warning you slapped on the other guy's talk page for alleged vandalism over the word change suggested somebody else might need the stress pill - thanks for clearing that up... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose 14:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I broke with 9000 tradition and highlighted my own screwup, doesn't mean others are invited to do so as well. I'm sure you've made bad edits, too. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the 'American' thing, why is the "Kansas City Film Critics Circle awards" mentioned? Who gives a rats arse (or 'ass' for the Yanks) about this Kansas circle bollocks? No serious international film buff outside of America does that's for sure. Kansas City Film Circle really, I ask you. Why not mention that the Leamington Spa W.I. gave it 3 stars in their weekly sewing circle discussion as well? —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 83.61.2.236 (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

It's a good catch, but I vote for removing it from this section. Perhaps a new section is needed specifically for this class of errors? Of course, we'd then have to populate it with all the other errors of this sort (as seen on IMDB). Thoughts? -- Sailorlula 12:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Sailorlula. Article is too long already to denote such a detail, and should not be devoted to picking out every little technical error or failed "prediction". Both do disservice to the movie in that it's notable for trying to avoid science/tech errors where other movies disregard that entirely, so picking its bones for errors to expand a list is a slanted approach in comparison to other films--and of course the latter, the "predictions" is a common misinterpretation of the purpose of SF generally. Suggest not only removal of this piece but also the so-called "forecasts" about the USSR and Pan Am, possible further trims to section.24.165.147.43 19:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --

Bungopolis 22:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Because someone has just changed the redirect, but there was no concensus on a move. -- Beardo 23:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that someone me? --(trogga) 01:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was this the first time a space going habitation was shown as a spoked wheel (even if partially under construction)?

One possibility for the cup mentioned above - it was designed for use in zero gravity so has an "automatic fluid suck back".

Jackiespeel 17:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. An earlier wheel station based on Von Braun's original concept was put to film in the movie "Conquest of Space." Unlike Kubrick, who fully understood the principle of its design, the makers of this film shot the station sequences on a flat and curved set. -- Jason Palpatine 09:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by the following plot error assertion:

Possibly the most glaring plot error is the failure to troubleshoot the core problem by trained and experienced pilots:

• HAL 9000 is a very intelligent computer, thus, assumingly, it is an extremely complex system at either the software or hardware level, probably both. To consider it “fool-proof”, as done in the film, seems an unwise assertion.

This assertion should not be written in the passive voice. Who is considering HAL 9000 fool proof?

Are we saying that because certain characters in the film consider HAL 9000 fool-proof, and they are later proven wrong when HAL makes mistakes, that this is an error in the plot?

The whole thing is speculation, and quite lame at that. I vote for deleting it altogether. Sailorlula 04:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'm deleting it now. --

Bungopolis 06:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

If the ships were viewed from a "fixed" position (with a slowly rotating camera), then the stars behind them would appear to move. Is it OK to delete this bit? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 11:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the assertion is bogus and we've deleted it before. Feel free to remove it again. Sailorlula 19:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Scientific Accuracy section is still a mess:

• Way too long, given the relative insignificance of the entire subject to film as a whole. The section comes off as a 2001-geek playpen for showing off our latest catches from repeated viewings.
• Intro paragraphs are rambling and disjoint.
• List contains cinematography errors, which should be removed and/or relocated.
• List is basically a poor duplicate of that on IMDB.
• List still contains suppositions. Some appear to be kept on list because they're beloved old chestnuts:
  • Fluid going back down straw. Just because there happens to be a source (in this case "The Making of 2001") that claims it's an error, doeesn't make it so. Let's get real: would an 'airline' use beverage containers in Zero-G that didn't automatically retract undrunk fluid?
  • Pen not rotating properly. How do we know that ink sloshing around in an inner chamber isn't changing the pen's center of gravity on-the-fly (so to speak)? Again, really just conjecture.
  • Discovery centrifuge/Coriolis effect/tellurian(Earth) gravity. How do we know Earth-strength gravity has to be simulated? A much weaker force would still hold the crew and loose objects in place. Again, conjecture, conjecture, conjecture.

I propose we tighten the intro significantly, cut many sentimental entries, and tighten the remaining entries a lot. Comments? Sailorlula 19:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, as usual --

Bungopolis 20:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 09:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong agree. 24.165.210.213 21:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsevation of the dining scene in the film where Bowman tosses his Newspad onto the table demonstarates that they are clearly in 1g gravity. Gavity affects the way a object falls. In this case though, we should give some allowances to the fact that the film was shot in actuall Earth gravity, which accounts for the way things moved. Comments were made about the Lunar sequences. We now know that people walking on the moon have a tendency to bounce, which was not shown -- both in Clavius City and Tycho. But these sequences were all filmed before any of the moon landings had taken place. In fact, the sequences were filmed before any probes from Earth had landed on the moon. We had nver seen either the moon's farside or its surface at that time. Remember, another error in the film was the appearance of the moon's far side shown in the first frames of the opening titles -- it showed the far side also having mara just like the side facing Earth. We now know that such features only exist on the side facing the Earth. -- Jason Palpatine 23:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (speak your mind | contributions)[reply]

I have a question for everyone: is there any definitive way, from viewing the film alone, for us to know the orientation of the centrifuge within the forward sphere of Discovery? That is, is the plane of centrifuge 'horizontal', 'vertical' or what? Also, did the book have anything to say about this?

Sailorlula 05:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The centrifuge is set virtically at the back of the sperical command-module. The thimbal shaped projecton at the rear where it is conected to the instrumantation modules, contains the flywheel. A vertival access tube is in the center (Bowmwn was shown climbing up it to get to HAL) going from the podbay up to the command deck. There is a door in the back of it at the midlevel -- this is the entrance to the centrifuge hub. -- Jason Palpatine 09:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The synopsis is very well written, however in my opinion we really don't need included in it, at what point certain musical scores are playing for the different scenes. To me it detracts from the purpose of the synopsis altogether, which is a cliffnotes versian of the movie. Any opinions? Coradon

I think the music is such an integral part of the film that it deserves mention in the synopsis. The opening sequence with Also sprach Zarathustra, for instance, is probably most memorable because of the music that accompanies it. --

Bungopolis 04:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the music references are crucial and should stay. And by the way, it's CliffsNotes, not CliffNotes- Sailorlula 04:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although a somewhat minor part of the overall article, I'm uncomfortable with the wording of the statement "Some of the film's predictions turned out to be incorrect though entirely feasible". This would certainly be true for some of the items listed underneath, notably videophones. But to describe suspended animation as "entirely feasible" seems a bit strong; "plausible", maybe. Also the implied temporal context seems a bit confused - are we supposed to view these items as feasible from a contemporary point of view, or one from when the film was made? Presumably it is meant to be judged from a modern perspective as they are noted to have "turned out to be incorrect", but if so, it seems a bit pointless to include counterfactual events such as the survival of the Soviet Union and prominent corporations beyond the year 2000.--Adzze 00:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - I've gone ahead and removed the "entirely feasible" phrase.

Sailorlula 04:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's pointless to include the survival of the USSR and Pan Am; that's why I deleted them. They're back. It's stupid. The film is not "predicting the survival of Pan Am." It has no investment in Pan Am other than the fact that it had to be an airline of some stripe.24.165.210.213 15:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Disagree. First, for completeness and symmetry's sake, these entries are needed to complement the inclusion of entities that did survive, earlier in the list. Second, of course there are reasons Pan Am was chosen. Pan An was the exemplary airline of the day, just as IBM was the exemplary computer coorporation and Hilton was the exemplary Hotel. In the 1960s Pan Am was already selling advance booking tickets to the Moon - see http://experts.about.com/e/p/pa/pan_american_world_airways.htm. (Fun Fact: Pan Am was so exemplary that the 747 was conceived based on a dare between Pan Am's President Juan Trippe and Boeing. See http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Commercial_Aviation/Pan_Am/Tran12.htm .) Third, many younger viewers don't even realize that Kubrick explicitly intended to depict the continued existence of the Soviet Union within the film -- this entry serves as a gentle reminder of this.

Nobody is saying these were clairvoyant forecasts that turned out to be incorrect -- it's simply interesting to compare what the film imagined versus what turned out to be. Would you be more comfortable with their inclusion if the section was entitled "Imagining the Future"?

Sailorlula 10:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just think it would be better to confine it to technical/technological "prediction." I think of Pan Am more as a "given" in the context of the story. However, your suggestion of a title change for the section does make sense. Re: USSR in particular, I must confess I hadn't considered that angle, but I still think that there's a negativity to referring to it as a sort of "failure" on the film's part.24.165.210.213 10:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Scientific Accuracy section it is noted that in the airlock scene the since it is not fixed to the station the pod should move away from the station by virtue of the bolt explosion and escaping pressurized air in the pod. However, the robotic arm of the pod is in fact gripping the manual airlock door opening mechanism and hence could have remained stationary simply by not allowing the robotic arm to flex. Engineerboy 02:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking, but unsupported by the film. After Bowman opens the door, the pod rotates 180° to put the rear entrance of the pod to the airlock door. ... For my money, all these technical "glitches" and "false predictions" are rather childish. 2001 is a fictional story, and

literary license and suspension of disbelief are taken for granted. Kubrick was no more "predicting" moon bases and sentient supercomputers than Lucas is telling us "there really were Jedi knights using lightsabers thousands of years ago." — David Spalding ^Talk/_Contribs 17:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

A lot of people take it on themselves to meticulously study a work of fiction -- taking it apart in much the same way someone would take apat a pocketwatch. This was unprecidented at the time this work was done, but comonplace today. Works such as Star Trek, The Prisoner, Star Wars, Frank Herbert's Dune (novel) and so many others have been put under the microscope. One of the best examples is [[J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings; Christopher Tolkien wrote The History of The Lord of the Rings, a 4-volume work that documents the process of J. R. R. Tolkien's writing of work that breaks it down paragraph by paragraph.

The comment about the accuracy of the pod sequence has been noted since the film's original release. It was note in Making of Kubrick's 2001. Though the idea of the arm holding on to the ship is a new outlandish idea I've never heard before. When he turned the pod around it was clearly shown that he had retracted them and they were away from the shop. Additionally, the Discovery airlock did not appear to have and ancoring stuctures to it. -- Jason Palpatine 00:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another (possible) non-mistake from the airlock scene: when I saw the film it was my impression that he wasn't holding his breath, but rather was hyperventilating. I noticed this because I believe this is what you *should* do before going into hard vacuum, since your blood is the only place to store extra oxygen. However, I don't currently have access to a copy of the film to verify this, and I could easily just be remembering what I think should have happened rather than what did. So, if anyone knows whether or not I'm wrong about this, I'd be much obliged if you could tell me. Zombiejesus 18:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I watched for that when I saw the film recently, and I distinctly saw puffed-out cheeks as he bounced around the cabin, suggesting that he was holding his breath. Lebroyl 19:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, the extensive reworking of the synopsis during the last week is chock full of errors, supposition, subjective weasel-wording, and extraneous information garnered from the novel and the maybe-not-authentic 'script' floating about on the Web.

I reverted this edit. The original author David Spalding restored it and writes:

== Massive, spurious edit my eye ==

I take offense at your premature reversal of my edit of the

2001: A Space Odyssey

synopsis. Several plot points were missing or wrong in the existing synopsis, and so i added points which are central to the plot. I've examined the film over 25 times, and have discussed it at a film school level, so my edits are not those of a dilettante.

I'd like to remind you that

the talk page and we can sort it out there. — David Spalding ^Talk/_Contribs 15:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

2. Following this encounter, a lone man-ape (called "Moon Watcher" in Arthur C. Clarke's novel) is shown discovering the first tool, while scavenging through a pile of bones. The man-ape picks up a bone and plays with it, becoming increasingly agitated, finally crushing the other bones as with a club. The man-apes are next shown eating meat — presumably that of a freshly killed tapir. Moon Watcher, now leading the tribe, recaptures the waterhole, clubbing an enemy ape to death with the newfound weapon. As one or two of his tribe mimic his actions, he howls in triumph -- Man has learned to kill.

The bone is inconsistently referred to as a 'tool' and then a weapon. This distinction is non-trivial.

With regard to "becoming increasingly agitated": this verbiage is subjective, interpretive, and I would humbly suggest, off the mark. "increasingly excited and gleeful" might be more accurate.

3. In a famous match cut that follows, the victorious Moon Watcher throws his bone weapon high into the air, at which point the film jumps forward to the future, matching the image of the tumbling bone to that of a man-made satellite (explained in the novel and film scripts to be one of several orbiting nuclear weapons).

There has been EXTENSIVE previous debate here about whether or not the satellites are weapons (see previous talk entries). The consensus has been that, BASED ON VIEWING THE FILM ALONE, this is much less than clear and should not be part of the synopsis. Again, the book and the so-called 'script' are not relevant here. You could have familiarized yourself with the previous discussion on this point before adding this, but then, you have walked in in the middle of the picture, so to speak.

4. Johann Strauss II's "The Blue Danube" waltz accompanies the following scenes of space transport. As the sequence develops, it depicts a transport shuttle docking to an Earth-orbital space station, zooming closer to show a fountain pen floating in space (mirroring the bone weapon, and the orbiting satellites).

With regard to zooming: wrong. There is no "zooming closer" to show the pen. This is a film article, so there should be precision in the use of film terms. There are establishing shots/long shots, closeups, and even a racking focus shot of the pen, but no zooming.

With regard to the "pen floating in space" verbiage, that reads very oddly and gives the impression that the pen is floating outside the cabin, which it's not.

With regard to the pen "mirroring the bone weapon, and the orbiting satellites", that is subjective interpretation and does not belong in the synopsis.

5. In the first narrative

9. Bowman, in the EVA pod, now appears to travel across vast distances of space and time through a tunnel of colorful light and sound, in what is often labeled the "Star Gate sequence." Ligeti's Kyrie segues to Ligeti’s colossal orchestral essay "Atmosphères." After passing over a strangely colored alien landscape, Bowman arrives alone in a Louis XVI-style hotel room (the alien-sounding music of Ligeti's Aventures is heard through an echo chamber). As he walks about the room, he is depicted suddenly aging, first in his spacesuit, then in an ornate dressing robe, sitting down to a well appointed breakfast.

Wrong. It's not breakfast. It might be brunch, lunch, dinner, or a midnight snack, but it ain't breakfast:

Image:2001LastMeal.jpg

(Click on image to take a closer look.) Dave's plate has what looks like a piece of fish, chicken, or veal; a green vegetable; and carrots or perhaps sliced tomatoes. There is a dinner roll on his bread plate. He is savoring a glass of white wine (there is another glass filled with water on the cart).

10. Enjoying his meal, he accidentally knocks his water glass on the floor, smashing it and breaking the silence. Looking up from the spilt water,...

Wrong. It's white wine, not water. You can see this plainly in the film. Dave even savors the wine and observes it in the glass (perhaps looking at its legs?) -- I doubt he'd do this with water. There is a separate glass of water on the cart. Also, much has already been written about the possible Judeo-Christian symbolism of a broken vessel of wine.

So David, you say that you've viewed 2001 more than 25 times?

Comments on undoing these edits please.

-- Sailorlula 23:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now you're talking, I going to correct several of the items based on your arguments and discussions above.

1. Granted that the script and novel are not accepted here, but I caution you that Kubrick and Clarke developed the script, and Clarke then wrote the book. IGNORING things like the name of hte lead ape is myopic ... I mean, the actor WHO PLAYED HIM calls him Moonwatcher. But, to be sensitive to those of you who've invested significant time on this page, I can go along with limitations that have achieved consensus. Fixed nevertheless.

2. There are a number of critiques of the film which follow the theme of "the first tool" or "the first weapon," but you're right, let's try to be consistent, but not straight-jacket ourselves into using one or the other. I personally find more pith in the theories which follow various "tools" in teh film (of which HAL is asserted to be the highest achievement of a "tool"). -- Subjective characterization removed, it's not necessary for a synopsis. Good call. Updated.

3. Excellent point. Fixed.

4. I'll buy that. "Synopsis" does not equal "analysis." Fixed.

5. Quite right. Fixed.

6. Nolo contendere. Fixed.

7. Good point, fixed.

8. I won't even touch the "cross" symbolism, but you're correct, the "star gate" opens from a point above where the monolith "disappears." Fixed.

9. Right, could be any meal, not that it's relevant: eating and drinking are themes shown too often to be coincidental. Never thought that he's drinking wine, but will leave the assessment out of the synopsis.

I appreciate you keeping that extant, strong desire to revert in check; reverts are for vandalism, not

P.S. I found a valid film reference for the name "Moonwatcher" in the program guides sold in teh US and UK.[2]. — David Spalding ^Talk/_Contribs

Thanks for the speedy fixes David. I'll remove the 'disputed' flag from the main article. BTW, I have my original copy of the program you mention above -- my Dad bought it for me during my first in-theatre viewing of 2001 back in summer 1968! -- Sailorlula 03:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed 'disputed' flag on Synopsis.) Thanks! Heh, do you have the US or the UK? I have two US versions (from my viewings) and a UK version (my mom and brother saw it in London). Never have figured out which I prefer. ;) — David Spalding ^Talk/_Contribs 23:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the film the first time in 1968 in Hicksville, Long Island, NY so I'm presuming it's the US version -- what are the differences that you see? I don't have it in front of me, but I believe mine has a shiny silver cover.

-- Sailorlula 02:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The US versions that I have are 2.35:1 ratio, wide, with the poster image on the cover. Insides, content, and "rice paper" inserts are pretty much the same. The silver one is, so far's I know, considered the UK one, but surely they could've shipped those to US venues as well. I think the silver ones are rarer, I could be wrong, but it's nice to think so, eh? — David Spalding ^Talk/_Contribs 06:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have some issues with this section. I fixed some grammatical, punctuation issues. But I note we have a whole subsection devoted to, cough cough, things that 2001 "failed to predict." ("Some important innovations were not anticipated:")

I think it's irrelevant to the film. Okay, to start with, it's a fictional film, not a science fair. Comparing technical projections depicted in the film with actual developments as of 2000 is fair game: biometrics, videophones, electronic (?) fountain pens, flat panel tv/computer displays, automated computer control, zero-G toilets on extended space flights, voice command computer interface, microwave ovens (arguable), etc. Interesting and fun to reexamine from our historical viewpoint. But faulting the film for what it didn't "predict" is IMHO a double-fallacy. It didn't predict the

's reemergence, ... sigh ... and a few hundred other developments of the last quarter of the 20th century that 2001 "failed" to predict." You get the idea, surely.

The overall article is long enough, I think the rationale that Jason, Sailorlula and others have promoted for the synopsis can be applied to other sections: discuss the film, what's in the film, but leave conjecture about what the film "doesn't have" to subjective fan pages. Thoughts on this? TIA. — David Spalding ^Talk/_Contribs 06:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already posted on this matter and generally agree. Although sailorlula had a point in his response, I still think that it's fun but not necessary or well-suited to the encyclopedia article.24.165.210.213 08:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although my name was mentioned here in regards to another matter, I'm not sure wether or not I should be flattered. I must agree here (surprised?) -- a failure to predict section is I think a little too far left field by any definition. As for it failing to predict the internet, there was a sequence that was filmed that depicted Floyd accessing a global information network during his time on the Aires leg of his journey to the moon -- it was cut and never used, but is in the novel. -- Jason Palpatine 08:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (speak your mind | contributions)[reply]

The following "comment" was added to the article last night (subsequently rv'ed): [[Retarted E-Dorks|People with too much time on their hands]]. Are we really gonna make a list of what this movie didn't Anticipate? You people are too much. —The preceding

1984 (novel) (he said, hoping that no one's fact-checking this morning). Oh, I think I recall the "Aries" segment you refer to, wasn't that where Clarke described the "NewsPad" that Dave and Frank were watching on the Discovery, was really a flat panel computing/informational device? I love that idea, Sharp is (was) working on one circa 1996. Bravo, Clarke. ... OMG, that just reminded me of something.... — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 14:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I removed the "inaccurate predictions section" with the incorrect Pan Am reference by 66.251.25.90. Here t'is in case anything needs to be added back in a new way.

Some of the film's predictions turned out to be incorrect:

• Good-quality, high-resolution
  videophones
  are common.
• Space travel is commonplace by 2000. In the film:
  • At least 2 colonies have been established on the moon.
  • Manned missions to Jupiter are feasible.
  • Hotels in orbit, part of a revolving 2000-ft Space Station.
  • Commercial space flight is routine.
• Technology is available to put humans in suspended animation. (A similar process is possible for short periods, as in heart surgery, but it's trickier, messier, more labor-intensive, and less effective than in the film.)
• Computer artificial intelligence can closely approximate sentience, self-motivation and independent judgement.
• The survival of Pan American Airlines and the unitary Bell System to the year 2000.
• The survival of the Soviet Union to the year 2000.

— David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 21:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having got rid of the "things not predicted" stuff, I think that the things predicted but not yet true should go back - mostly. The technological stuff - not the commercial. They weren't saying "Pan Am" will survive, but that the world of 33 years away would include familiar names. -- Beardo 22:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to revert the restoration, because we've had a discussion here, but the re-wording is much less weasly than the "turned out to be incorrect" statement. Thanks for the effort. — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick go at rephrasing it two weeks ago, because I thought that a comparison of the "2001" of the film with the real year 2001 was interesting and noteworthy, but to claim the film was a "prediction" that was partly "wrong" is to misunderstand the film and, for that matter, the creative arts in general. In some ways, the film obviously does show a best guess from 1968 as to what life would be like 33 years later, but only to create what would have seemed a believable setting for the events of the film. There's nothing wrong with mentioning this; Kubrick's guesses were, in part, pretty accurate. However, to extrapolate from this that the whole film is little more than fortune-telling is to do it little justice, and is, ipso facto, original research. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book?

Is this based on a novel by Clarke, or was the novel based on the screenplay? Nowhere in this article is it stated that the movie is based on the book, though the article has the category tag 'films based on books'. Whichever is the case, it needs to be stated clearly, probably in paragraph #2 if the former is the case. Tempshill 14:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The movie's screenplay and the book were written simultaneously. That way, Clarke and Kubrick could make suggestions for each other. However, the book was released several months after the movie. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Andy120290 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply

]

So that category is not really correct - unless you argue it was based on "The Sentinel". -- Beardo 18:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should definitely mention the book in the article, most likely in the opening, because they were written concurrently, and were meant to accompany each other. Bonus Onus 17:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Am

The survival of Pan Am now appears as both correct and incorrect predictions. We ought to go with one or the other. -- Beardo 18:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Am put the chocks in for the last time in 1991. I've removed it. — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 21:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though there were two other Pan Ams after, apparantly. -- Beardo 22:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two "Pan Ams" subsequent to the real Pan Am -- the original company founded by Juan Trippe -- were just the brand name being recycled for two other much smaller companies.

-- Sailorlula 06:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - but this is an argument about technicalities. But the more I think about it, the more I feel that NEITHER comment really belongs. Kubrick wasn't trying to say which companies would survive - but making the point that space travel would (will ?) become the domain of the airlines. In this way, Virgin Galactic is really fulfilling the prediction. -- Beardo 20:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarke first wrote the "script"(book) first then he gave it to Kurbich to then he started to produce the film. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 75.16.211.95 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

"Soviet" vs. "Russian"

I smell an edit war brewing. Unless someone can show a screen shot or effects production still which shows the USSR symbol on a satellite, then specific reference to "incorrect prediction" of the USSR's longevity or the like is supposition. Of course, in 1968, it was a perfectly reasonable supposition, as the USSR was the US' chief rival in the famous "race for space." It's not critical to the film ... the fact that two great nations were competing and still competing 33 years in the future was what Kubrick was probably trying to illustrate. Harping on differences between the film adn subsequent historical developments are silly -- Kubrick was not Nostradamus, let's stop trying to shove a talented filmmaker in that role. — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 14:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This point has already been debated on various and sundry talk pages.

1] One of the satellites bears a red star livery as on the Flag of the Soviet Union. This is plainly visible on the DVD.

2] The Russians/Soviets are carrying Aeroflot flight bags that display a hammer and sickle.

( I don't even like bringing this one up, since it is information from outside the film and its veracity is disputed:)

3] The so-called 2001 script http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/2001.html floating about the Web refers to a satellite with "

CCCP

markings".

Some have argued that since the Aeroflot logo still includes a hammer and sickle to this day, the second point doesn't count. I beg to differ. Kubrick included the hammer and sickle within the film in 1968. To me that clearly indicates he was imagining the Soviet Union would still be in existence (and not that he imagined that Aeroflot would continue to use an obsolete graphic within its logo into the 21st Century).

Regards, Sailorlula 06:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a local theatre is going to be screening the BFI-restored print in January during a day-long festival of "alien flicks." I'll look for that darn, # ^%*#@* red star if it's the only thing I do in January. ;) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is local for you -- I wanna go too! BTW, the Aeroflot hammer-and-sickle bags are the thing to really watch for, not the satellite star, since arguably the red star could signify a Communist Chinese Satellite just as well. I believe the satellite liveries in the film are, in order, US Air Force, German Flag, French Air Force, and finally Red Star and Bar. (Go here: http://www.starshipmodeler.com/2001/2001ref.htm and click on the links listed under "Addenum.")

Regards, Sailorlula 07:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Star

The red star logo-ed satalite is the final one shown before Space Station 5 appears. This is really a moot point -- I don't know why we are persuing the matter. I have always debated whether that satelite was Russian or possibly Chineese. The concept of the matter being discussed (the survival of the Soviet Union) only came about as a result of the fact that the year 2001 is now past history. There really is no actual mention of the Soviet Union in the film -- but that was on account of the fact that there was no necessity to the plot to do so. The only country mentioned was the United States through the use of the term "American". A british news agency doing a report about a space mision of the United States would mention the country's identity because it is not their own.

Kubrick used pagent over dialouge to present 2001, with the characters' scripted lines talking around what was going on in the story. And even if he had persued the usual talking picture method -- some dialouge just wouldn't be necessary. When Floyd talked with Elaina and her friends, there was no real need for the viewers to be told their nationality. From their accent, and the nature of their conversation, we know that they are not Americans (not to mention the afore mentioned Aeroflot flight bags). Would it be necessary for someone to say "these people are from the Soviet Union"? No; such a sentence would not be needed.

Looking at the film from the point of what is and is not openly said there is no way to say one way or the other. Looking at the film from the point of actual history and the lack of any mention of the USSR by name in the film, we could infer that Russia, and not the Soviet Union, is the government of these travelers. Looking at the film from the point of view from when it was first released, the opposite is true.

Also, there is the novel/film sequel 2010. Regardless of 2001 the film, both Clarke's novel and Peter Hyams film of it are considered canon continuations of Kubrick's story. In both versions, the government of their country is clearly stated to be the Soviet Union.

Finally there is the dictionary:

Soviet:

1. A native or inhabitant of the former Soviet Union.

Russian: a: A native or inhabitant of Russia. b: A person of Russian descent. c: A native or inhabitant of the former Soviet Union.

The two terms are (by the parameters listed here) interchangeable. So, the point is..... I'm not sure. I really think there's no need one way or the other. I'm not going to edit the article itself -- there would be no point for me to do so. However, I thought I would share these few points here in this discussion. Best; Jason Palpatine 08:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of interpretation - but fact. Does the film explicitly refer to the Soviet Union - no. So why criticise the film for not predicting the fall of the USSR ? (And what 2010 says is its problem and belongs in the article on that film/book.) -- Beardo 11:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is 'criticizing' the film or Kubrick for imagining that the USSR is still in existence, we're just pointing out that Kubrick imagined it that way. Removing the Soviet mention in the 'imagining' section ignores the hammer and sickle on the Aeroflot bags. And, IMHO, the point is not trivial -- let's remember that Kubrick's previous film was nothing if not all about the US vs the USSR. I hardly think the distinction between Russia and the USSR would've been trivial to him.

As far as countries explicitly 'mentioned' in the film: this is a non-verbal film with visual cues, so 'mentioning' really has to take into account things mentioned visually. That would include at the very least countries whose languages appear on the buttons in the space station customs, the French, German, US, and either USSR or Red Chinese insignia on the satellites, and the UK, via the BBC logo during the Discovery crew interview.

(Incidentally, there are a number of reviews, analyses, and commentary on 2001 online where the writer explicitly refers to them as Soviets:)

http://www.filmsite.org/twot.html

http://www.thecityreview.com/2001.html

http://trumpy.cs.elon.edu/metaverse/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey

http://hollywoodgames.com/movies/movie.aspx?MID=1713

I feel strongly that the Soviet Union reference should be restored -- if for nothing else than to clue younger readers in to the fact that the Cold War was still a big thing to people in 1968.

-- Sailorlula 19:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jason. We need to rein in our personal passions about the film, myself included, and work to ensure that the article here is objective, NPOV, avoids conjecture and interpretation (other than simply reporting published interpretations,... like that butthead who sent me a 3 page, single-spaced "you got it wrong" letter about one of my reviews before publishing his book on teh film; but that's another story). My own reading of the film is that the dawn of man sequence shows Moonwatcher's tribe competing with another ... and then in 2000, Kubrick illustrates another example of two tribes at least suspicious of each other, bone-whomping giving way to detente. (Cute clue: watch what Rossiter does with his hand when Sylvester sits down with the Russians). Liverie on the satellites would support that, if it's there. It's pertinent that, in 1968, the Cold War was an immediately recognizable and contemporary allusion to use to support the plot. In 1968, the "Russkies" were Soviet; they were our chief competitors in the space race. Audiences "got" that. But it's adding some bias to suggest that Kubrick was 'predicting' anything political with the film. I don't think he was, and unless you can find an interview with him in which he claims this, it's

original research. So Sailor, your angle that the Cold War was something that Kubrick was clearly alluding to, and 1968 audiences grokked that, is worth reflecting in teh article. But probably not in the "imagining" or "predictions that didn't hold up" sections, though. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

P.S.: Reviews that say "Soviet" are interpretations, not citations from the film. You guys shot down "Moonwatcher" though it's in the souvenir book and other canon places. Same restriction holds IMHO. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

Weasel words?

I reverted a tagging by an anonymouse user with

qualifying as weasel words, please do so and "call 'em like ya see 'em." TIA, David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I tagged weasel

"widely recognized today among critics as one of history's greatest films."

That's weasel.

Who were the critics? When did they recognize it as such.

It may be true, I mean, I know my cinema history, but still, it's a weasel worded statement and has no place in any encyclopedia. It's an opinion, rather than a pertinent fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.244.76.104 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-15.

• I think it's sufficiently documented by the references and citations. Certainly, selection by the AFI retrospective "top films" list is sufficient evidence in itself. (See also: Category:Top film lists.) For more, read under Reaction. Anyway, If there is a section that you think uses weasel words, mark that section, please, not the entire article. The Reaction section is a bit spare, I agree, and could use some more citations to support the claim. (I'll do a few minutes work on it now.)
  
  BTW, please sign the Talk page with ~~~~ at the end of your comment. Consider registering, too, it's free and adds credibility to your edits. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Jason Palpatine 18:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ebert

I mentioned that Roger Ebert was a young critic in the article because, he only started with the Chicago Sun-Times the year prior, he was not popular yet and he didn't yet win the Pulitzer prize. His reviews would have been seen and written differently that they would today. Funa 16:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's superfluous. The statement clearly intimates that he said that then, not later. Charles Champlin had only reviewed for the LA Times for three years, would you also point that out? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Belief

Plot summary follows popular belief

I believe I can prove that the popular beliefs about the technology in this movie are wrong. Some of the evidence comes from Clarke's early work in space radar and radio, and in his article about meteorites. Copies of two of his articles can be found on my web site at www.geocities.com/gregu10/geek/geek.htm Later in life Clarke became an expert in two other areas of space exploration, predicting how the astronaut will behave, and predicting when radio signals can be corrected for errors. All of these obscure technologies add up to a better explanation for the pods behavior, for the AE-35, and for HAL not letting Dave back in the ship.

The first issue I have is the pod. Clarke's 1940s paper on meteorites concluded that a large space ship in the asteroid belt would not be nimble enough to dodge meteorites, nor powerful enough to destroy them. In the movie we see meteorites just before the fatal scene. Then the pod warning light turn on, then we see the severed air hose and the dead astronaut cross in front of us followed by the pod. The pod crossed the astronauts path after his death. The pod was trying to save the astronaut from a meteorite. This scene might be a pre-view of what happened to Apollo 13. That would be true if we could prove that Apollo 13 was hit by a meteorite and then the oxygen bottle failed. Similarly the accident on Columbia happened not because the wing failed, but because the wing had been hit by ice, and was the part of the wing most likely to fail if it got too hot.

The second issue is the AE-35. Using filtering techniques such as the Viterbi algorithm for radio communications was well known in 1968. Viterbi developed his algorithm for the Venus spacecraft, and prior to that Wiener and Kalman had developed filtering algorithms used in television screens for radar applications. Hal never says the AE-35 failed. He predicted when it was going to fail, in the future. This is possible when using error correcting algorithms. Hal does not understand why the astronauts are so upset about his prediction. Despite something like 76,000 systems on board, Hal expects the astronauts to know all about the AE-35 unit at the base of the microwave. Hal has never seen anything quite like it. Hal suggests putting it back, and waiting for it to fail!

The question is why does Clarke know it will fail. His 1947 article on radio range to Jupiter shows clearly that power and range are available for communicating to earth. Furthermore, Clarke showed that none of the other radio problems such as Doppler, ranging or tracking will create any unsolvable problems. So why was Hal waiting for the AE-35 to start error correcting? Why did Hal think the astronauts would want to know as soon as Hal knew? Was there some fact of radio that Clarke missed back in 1947? The answer is yes - Clarke failed to consider that a spaceship near Jupiter would accelerate to 35,000 mph or more, causing relativistic changes in wavelengths of the radio nearly one part in a million. This relatavistic change is the reason the AE-35 unit started doing error correction, and led to the prediction of the failure of all microwave communications in a few days. But the AE-35 never did fail. They turned it off. In the 1960s book Making of 2001 Clarke is quoted saying the computer was perfectly correct, it was ground control who messed up. Ground control was not travelling 35,000MPH!!!

At this point Hal knows that Dave is a threat to the ship. If you read the 1962 US Navy study about conflict resolution on my website by Mesarovic you will see the prediction that crew performance will decline rapidly if the two crewman talk to each other. This is what happened, and Hal was well aware of the fact - he observed their lips moving while they were together in the pod - talking paranoia about Hal. Early NASA studies such as the NASA 1962 University Symposium have simpler mathematical models for astronauts and test pilots. It was Mesarovic who worked out the case of two astronauts on a ship being controlled by the ground with a seven hour communication delay.

If you think critically during the time that Hal is doing the psychological workup - you can tell that Hal doesn't know what they are talking about. Hal is just filling in the blanks for the psychologists at NASA. He is boring chess partner as well. Not intelligent.

Frizb 02:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote in credits

I just finished watching the movie on AMC for the second time and in the credits I saw this quote "thus spoke tharathustra" under someone's name, I think it was near the music credits. I do believe thats from Nietzche. So does anyone know why this quote appears in the credits? Ice Jedi5 22:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better late than never, I hope... "

Also sprach Zarathustra" or "Thus Spake Zarathustra" is the name of the musical piece by Richard Strauss most commonly associated with this movie, the brass fanfare.--NapoliRoma 05:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

"learned to kill" issue

I am pretty sure that the apes have omnivore teeth, rather than herbivorous, which suggests that they already ate meat, though this contradicts their apparent gathering-only behaviour. If they do have omnivorous teeth, surely they did not "learn to kill" but instead learned to use tools (in this case, a weapon-tool). Certainly, it seems that they did learn to kill other humanoids at this time, but I suspect that this whole confusion is a result of faulty costume design, being the omnivore teeth in a herbivore's mouth.

My point is: "As some of his tribe mimic his actions, he howls in triumph — Man has learned to kill" should be eliminated. Anyone agree?

Asteroceras 20:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any doubt that the tribe mimic his actions and he howls - apparently in triumph - but "Man has learned to kill" is arguably editorialising and really belongs in a discussion under Interpretation (suitably cited of course) rather than Plot. Cheers, Ian Rose 21:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "man has learned to murder" would be much better, don't you think? What matters is the reason behind killing, with the ape killing the other purely in a display of power and domination. That one thinks he is superior to the other and it entitled to something.—The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 72.164.65.78 (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

Scientific accuracy - rotation

If I am not mistaken, I think another inaccuracy is the rotating vessel as they travel to Jupiter. Such a quickly rotating object could not be attached to a non-rotating object (the rest of the ship) without contributing a rotation to the latter, although in the movie the rotating section is connected to the rest. ~ Rollo44 09:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This would be true if the centrifuge were the only part of the ship that was rotating. The 
conservation of angular momentum would require the rest of the ship to rotate oppositely. 
However this can effect can be eliminated by having another section of the ship rotate. 
This is why helicopters always have two rotors, for example. In Arthur C. Clarke's novel, 
a flywheel is mentioned which performs the task of canceling the angular momentum of the 
centrifuge. Scurvycajun 04:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TMA-1

When the sun shines on the Monolith, do the scientists die when they hear the radio disturbance, or do they just fall down. I don't remember exactly what happened, but I always wondered if they died or not. Could someone clarify this for me? (I'm 69.120.63.248, forgot to sign)

>>>The monolith sends out a radio beacon. The signal blares in the headsets of the space suits. The humans instinctivly put their hands to their heads (another sly reference to our animal/instinctual-past). They don't die. Just an ear-ache.

Ahh, thank you. I was the only one in my family who saw it, so I couldn't ask anyone what they thought had happened.

Whoops! I forgot to sign last time. --69.120.63.248 02:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We know for sure that Floyd does not die because he subsequently records the video message placed on board Discovery. -- 125.238.78.251 11:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Marshall Lewis[reply]

Box office gross

Suprisingly,there seems to be little in this article in terms of box office gross, or even how the film compares in terms of high grossing films.Can anyone provide this information.Rodrigue 22:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error-free computer performance record

Jason and Jackaranga seem to be having an edit war dispute over: "Computers depicted as having an error-free performance record, completely unlike the glitch-heavy computers of today."

First: it's not really depicted in the film that computers generally had an "error-free performance record", only that the 9000 series did (before HAL's malfunction). It's not even implied that computers generally might be error-free, because HAL's perfect record is something of a marvel to the BBC interviewer and the astronauts.

Second: there is a general misconception over what constitutes computer-error that might come into play here. Computer hardware can malfunction, but it is very unusual, since digital circuits are designed with restoring logic -- signal re-amplification at every logic gate -- that makes the probability of error astronomically small and impossible for all intensive purposes (this is one of the most powerful discoveries of our history).

Software error is a different thing all together. Computers do exactly what they are told. But when your PC does something you didn't "tell" it to do, this almost certainly does not constitute a computer error. Instead, it constitutes a programmer error -- the instructions written by the author of the software you are using (or any of the programmers that built the systems down the entire chain of software underlying it) failed to anticipate the state you were to create in your computer when you issued your command.

When NASA's satellites, probes, and robots malfunction (occasionally compromising the entire mission), it is not because the computational circuits inside of them have "made" a mistake, but that the software running on that hardware already contained one. Assuming the film does suggest that all computers are "glitch-free" (which it doesn't), to say that "many space probes have glitched and been lost," and that therefore our computers make "mistakes" in a somehow more important way than the hypothetical machines of the film, is a misleading oversimplification.

--

Bungopolis 21:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Tks Bungopolis. While I don't know that Jason and Jackaranga are quite in an edit war at this stage (only one round each so far!) and your last few paragraphs above may be getting in too deep, I fully agree your main points. I don't think the film implies that computers as a rule will be 'error-free', in fact not even the 9000 series is shown to be such - look at HAL! The line in the article is simplistic at best and inaccurate on all counts at worst. It would say delete it completely. Cheers, Ian Rose 22:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not in an edit war! :) I just thought I would remove the part about computers having many glitches nowadays. Most personal computers, especially if badly setup will crash from time to time. However computing systems can be made that have a much better record that Windows or other personal operating systems. I think it's unfair to compare HAL to a personal computer, when the film clearly states that he is the best type of computer available. I don't know of any space probes lost due to an uncaught computer bug. However if this has happened with any recent ones (remember it must be from 2001 onwards!) feel free to add it back in, with the reference. In the film it's debatable whether or not HAL has an error, or if he does it on purpose.--Jackaranga 12:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few examples: In 1998 the

Bungopolis 14:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Those are all prior to 2001 though, still interesting, I didn't know about all those.--Jackaranga 11:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of the Movie

Can someone please tell me what the hell was Kurbich trying to explain in the movie. I read the book and seen the movie on TCM. I still get the theme of the movie in general. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.16.211.95 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 22 April 2007.

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

--

Bungopolis 18:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

In its simplest terms, the film is about the evolutionary progression of mankind, specifically at two crucial points: the first at four million years ago, when pre-humans were on the verge of extinction, and the second in the near future. (Kubrick probably meant the second point to also be a time of possible self-extinction by nuclear annihilation). At both points, an alien presence (the monolith) affected/caused/aided the evolutionary transition. A lot of this is made clearer in the novel. A human comprehending a star-child is supposed to be like a proto-human trying to comprehend a modern human. — Loadmaster 15:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starchild?

What the hell does the "Starchild" supposed to symbolize. I thought it symbolises "New Life" or something. I thought the part were Bowman(spelled right) transformed into Starchild was retarded. I still dont get the whole ending part of 2001 that well. The ending is just retarded. The rest of the movie is just and everything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.149.160.56 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 22 April 2007.

Come on, grow up. Cinema is a medium of art, and people have accepted surreal and abstract art. Some people just throw junk together or clip things out of newspapers. Surely, film has that freedom as well. 2001: a space odyssey is a beautiful work of art, in its entirety —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.164.65.78 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 22 April 2007.

Eyes

Is this the move that has that scene where a closeup of an eye is blinking and the screen changes hue? I saw a parody of it on something, and i being driven crazy as to where it is from.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.164.65.78 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 22 April 2007.

Yes, this shot is a transition between the "Stargate" sequence and the "Louis XVI room" scene near the very end of the film. --

Bungopolis 05:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.166.222.34 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 24 April 2007.

Number of Acts

The rest of the film can be divided into four acts — an unusual number, rarely seen in any form of narrative — each but the second preceded by on-screen title cards.

Is there any independent evidence that there are four acts? Arguably, the movie has three acts, each preceded by an on-screen title card. The first act, titled "The Dawn of Man", would therefore span several million years; i.e. we are, ourselves, still living in the earliest period of the human race. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.193.71.9 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 24 April 2007.

Since Kubrick gave us 3 title cards, I agree that we should think of 2001 in 3 acts, not 4. The first two time-frames (Savanna, Clavius) are clearly shown to be in continuity through the match cut, and that is definitely an important suggestion the film makes about us, as you said. You could also split the film using the appearance of the monolith, in which case "Jupiter & Beyond the Infinite" would be divided into 2 parts (stargate/room, star-child) giving us 4 acts divided another way. --

Bungopolis 21:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I would actually consider "Monolith appearances" to make the film 3 acts, as I would consider the third act as Bowman arrives, investigates monolith, is whisked off to nether regions, is twiddled, still seeks to touch/investigate monolith, and is changed as were the ape-men. Three characters reach out and touch/try to touch the monolith: Moonwatcher, Floyd, and Bowman. Adds up to 3 acts, not 4.

I agree that the Dawn of Man and Clavius sequences are part of a single act, as the themes, metaphorical ties from Moonwatch to Floyd, and significance of the monolith are consistent. Anyway, this article is not the place to conjecture or interpret "how many acts" the film has. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kubrick2001.com

An anonymous editor (presumably the site owner) keeps adding a link to kubrick2001.com on the external links section. This was happening last year for a while too. It's a cool little flash presentation, but it definitely doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, since its highly interpretative. Does anybody object to me removing it every time? --

Bungopolis 22:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I have no objection. Link spam is discouraged. If another editor feels the site is a worthwhile external link, fine. But site owners (or presumed owners; e.g. the same IP or anonymouse edit repeatedly adds the same thing only) aren't entitled to "advertise" their sites in WP articles. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 12:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia Section?

I didn't see a trivia section, and after posting my comment about IBM thought to return and create one, but I see my comment was already reverted. Any objections to starting one? Max.inglis 19:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a movement underway to remove (or not include to begin with) trivia sections in articles about movies, TV shows, etc. I've see comments to this effect in several article talk pages, but I haven't found a good talk page or reference for this yet, though. — Loadmaster 20:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRIVIA--NapoliRoma 20:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

(speaking from memory) The film style guides, adn WP MOS, generally encourage editors to integrate trivia into an article, where relevant. There is a cleanup template specifically for trivia sections which are overlong and need to be integrated into the article proper. HTH.

• WP:TRIVIA
• Here's another guideline =>
  WikiProject Films - Style Guide - Trivia
   ;)
• Template:Trivia

David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 12:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]