Talk:2010: The Year We Make Contact

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

The Soviet astronaut that was pulled into the big monolith.. Was he actually killed or did he just get pulled in like Dave had been? - NemFX (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess nobody knows. But since he's never mentioned again in the film, the novel, or any of its sequels, it's safe to assume the former. Cop 663 (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources states that he is killed.. but for a long time i firmly believed that he was pulled in due to the line of Floys "Do you think that Max knows?" about the monolyth and after his fate.

The only hint the movie gives is the pod spining out of controll.. when in 2001 Dave's pod got teorically pulled in with him.. unless from outside his pod also spined out without his corporeal form.. Still i would imagine seeing Max pod spining that they would recover it to get his corpse.. after all Leonov had more pods

I just completely rewrote the Plot section, and don't quite know how to handle this scene. I personally think Max disappeared into the Monolith like Bowman because the "stars" appeared in it just before the flash of light. I'd ideally want to keep Max's fate ambiguous but can't figure out how to do so in a non-clumsy way, and I don't want to go into a lot of meta detail about how we don't know whether he's dead or halfway across the galaxy. YLee (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the monolith does open, and we do see the stars in it - but I do not think Max goes into it - he is swept away with his pod. I think it opened to allow the star child (Bowman) to exit and return to Earth - i.e. the final scene of 2001 with Bowman overlooking Earth happened in 2010 - he was in the hotel room for 9 years. Though it seems a strange coincidence that Bowman should be about to leave at the precise moment Max just happnened to be there... Arswann (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the movie Dave said "He's with me" about the Russian pilot. I just watched the movie "S" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The reason the Leonov cannot contact Max as his pod spins away into space: he has been taken into the Monolith. Did not get this on the first watching. Not sure who viewers thought was Max later, since Floyd obviously suspects what has happened, that Max has gone into the Monolith. 2600:8807:4800:2130:44E8:51BC:90D9:B1A3 (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC) dfoofnik (not logged in)[reply]

This bothers me: the title of the movie as it appears on-screen in the movie is "2010".

"The Year We Make Contact" is an advertising tagline which appeared on the movie posters, one of which was used as the cover of video releases. It was never, and never intended to be, part of the title of the movie. But almost everyone gives the title as "2010: The Year We Make Contact".

If I'm not the only person in the world who cares about this, maybe somebody could fix it here.

-- Thomas G. Atkinson 141.157.14.202 (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've come here 15 years later to echo this comment. Surely "the year we make contact" is a poster and trailer tagline, not a subtitle. I don't think it's even the only tagline - I'm pretty sure "something wonderful is about to happen" was another one. Unless I've gone all Mandela effect, nobody in 1984 was calling the film anything other than '2010', and that's what it says at the beginning of the film and in the credit block at the bottom of the poster (and at the end of the original trailer). Even the first footnote in this article links to a BBFC listing for a film called simply '2010'. I dunno where this crazy confusion started but it's all over the internet now. It seems to have become one of those self-corroborating non-fact facts. Alexistwit (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The movie poster leaves the title ambiguous; is "The Year We Make Contact" a tagline or a subtitle? It's true that the title sequence simply uses "2010", which is how the film is referred to in shorthand. Clarke's novel, which seems to have come out before the movie (my copy has a "soon to be a major motion picture" ad on the first or second page) is subtitled "Odyssey Two". And the soundtrack release has no subtitle. However, MGM seems to have treated "The Year We Make Contact" as a subtitle; it's not just on the movie poster, but on most of the VHS tape covers, where it's placed directly under "2010" as a subtitle; it's also on the tape labels as part of the title—which would not be the case with a tagline. I also saw a release that didn't have it—the packaging wasn't labeled, but from the look of it I suspect it was a copy for UK distribution. A copy under the Warner Bros. label also used "The Year We Make Contact" on the tape label. My DVD—Warner Bros., produced in 2001!—also places "The Year We Make Contact" as a subtitle on the cover, and on the little ring label around the hole. This is significant, both because this disc is a widescreen/standard definition issue that doesn't have any cover art, and so isn't using the movie poster, and because it reads: "2010: The Year We Make Contact", in which it's clearly used as a subtitle.

The IMDb page dates from 2003, which means that it predates this article, and the earliest versions give "Odyssey Two" as the "script" title and "The Year We Make Contact" as a "promotional title". At that time the film was under "2010", but now it uses "2010: The Year We Make Contact" as the official title. Rotten Tomatoes uses that as well—I can't see it on the page, but it's in the URL address for the film's page on Rotten Tomatoes. So it seems that, for better or worse, "The Year We Make Contact" is usually regarded as a subtitle; both the original studio and the subsequent licensee/distributor treat it as one, and so do other sources that people are likely to consult for information (why and when they started doing so is less important, IMO, than the fact that they do).

The fact that other sources just say "2010" doesn't actually refute the subtitle, any more than if they refer to Ben-Hur rather than Ben-Hur: a Tale of the Christ, which is the title of the novel, and so subtitled on the movie poster (I can't remember if it's in the credits, but I think it is). If they actually said something about it being "official" or "unofficial", it might be reasonable to consider that; but you can't infer much from their silence on the topic, which distinguishes them from actual use by the studios. And for Wikipedia, the subtitle provides natural disambiguation; other topics are called "2010" or have "2010" in the title, and the novel can be distinguished because it has a different subtitle—the one used for the movie script, but not in later marketing (I suspect "Odyssey Two" was used at some point, but that's just based on my recollection, which isn't a reliable source). So there are several reasons for keeping the article at this title, and treating "The Year We Make Contact" as a subtitle. It's widely known and identified with the film, and occurs in a number of official sources, as well as familiar reference sites. The only arguments against it seem to be "it's not used in the credits" and "it's not mentioned in some reviews/other sites". On the whole, these arguments weigh in favour of keeping it as it is. P Aculeius (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"in the novel Walter Curnow is bisexual and has a relationship with Maxim Brailovsky, breaking it off when he learns that Zenia Marchenko is in love with Maxim." Is there some sort of reliable source for this? I wouldn't have a problem with Walter being bi, but I think somebody is reading way too much into the text of the novel. I read it again a couple of weeks ago, and the only episode I recall that might hint at something like this, is when Floyd gives Walter a manly talking-to about his behavior with Max, when Zenia is around. The way I read it, Curnow is genuinely shocked; he hasn't thought along those lines, at all, but it suddenly becomes clear to him that Zenia has. Nerdjob (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose going by

reader response theory

the answer is there's no such thing as a reliable source here, your interpretation of the text is as valid as any other. That said the exchange between Floyd and Curnow regarding the "one case [where the crew's] adoration had gone too far" in ch. 28 is portrayed as both very uncomfortable and emotionally charged, re-read it with this in mind and see what you think. I'm unsure what Walter could think Haywood means by "your behaviour with Max" other than a sexual relationship which would elicit "a frigid silence" followed by the defensive "I was under the distinct impression he was more than eighteen", or why Floyd would avoid making eye contact if he was simply referring to horseplay. Later at the end of ch. 39 when Curnow and Floyd are described as taking the first step toward genuine friendship by exchanging vulnerabilities, Curnow's is in acknowledging that he's a little saddened to see Max and Zenia cementing their relationship and by extension firmly ending his and Max's fling, echoing an earlier passage in the chapter about spreading himself too thin.

Clarke often made reference to this kind of post-gay flexible and relaxed approach to sexual orientation in the future portrayed in his books, sometimes he's more direct about it than this (e.g. the description of Karl Mercer and Joe Calvert's "apparently stable liason" in ch. 10 of Rendezvous with Rama, or the general attitudes in Songs of Distant Earth where anyone whose preference is purely for one gender or another is considered emotionally unbalanced) but it is certainly one of his recurring themes and (I think) clearly in evidence in his descriptions of Curnow in 2010. The Movie adaptation expunges all the physical relationships between characters (most notably Zenia and Floyd's) which results in characters and relationships that are less complex and adult than those in the novel. While you could easily argue Curnow's orientation is open to interpretation, I think acknowledging this interpretation of the text adds significantly to a discussion of the differences between the film and the book.Splateagle (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to add a page reference to the comment about Curnow in the article, as it's a subtle moment that is easy to miss. BTW, there's also a brief mention of a gay couple at the beginning of

2061. Rubble pile (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Good idea - any suggestions how best to reference it? Splateagle (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just add <ref>Arthur C. Clarke, ''2010: Odyssey Two'' ([insert place of publication]: [insert publisher], 1982), [insert page number].</ref> In an ideal world it would be good to add page numbers for each of the things mentioned in this section. Cop 663 (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reader-response criticism that addresses this question can theoretically be reliably sourced. The real questions are:

1. Can we find a truly reliable source, like professionally published criticism or analysis, or are we just opening the door to the inevitable stream of fan-written web postings?
2. Even more importantly, is such a tangential question worth exploring in this article? Currently, it's mentioned in only a part of a single sentence of a section which itself is completely unsourced and could be construed as
   forbidden original analysis
   .

I would suggest that, if this topic were worth including in a Wikipedia article, it'd be more appropriate to detail in 2010: Odyssey Two, where the relationship is at least suggested. But that article currently doesn't even mention Curnow or Brailovsky, let alone their relationship. We must remember that Wikipedia articles should remain focused on their subjects, not become opportunities for writing mini-essays about subtopics. Not everything that is true or plausible needs to be included. We're better served by attempting Saint-Exupérian perfection. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both questions strike me as subsets of the wider issue of whether or not the two differences and discontinuities sections are worthwhile parts of the article. If it is worth examining the differences between the novel and the film, the removal of the physical relationships between characters seems an important part of that, if however the section itself is a digression it should probably be entirely removed Splateagle (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most Sci-fi writers were erotica writers. The only writer who made any attempt to NOT include any sex at all in his writing was AZIMOV. HE had plenty of sex in real life and was a notorious flirt with the young women around him (read his essays, he admits to it.) Everyone from Niven (straight male human/female human sex) to Heinlein (all sex possible including genderbending and self-incest) inserted some sex somewhere. The best thing to do is simply ignore it and just enjoy the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.22.132 (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section is currently flagged as trivia which strikes me as unproductive and inappropriate (hence the (reverted) removal of the tag). The

Any suggestions for a better structure and/or specific "trivia" which could be removed to improve the section? (for example the change in location of the monolith from Saturn to Jupiter seems a significant detail, the missing blue suit helmet is arguably less so?)Splateagle (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this article needs one of them. 24.68.62.185 (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not true that it is inaccurate that there is no sound in space. Sure vacuum does not transmit sound in a conventional way, however explosions in space still create pressure waves, the particles of the explosion hitting the hull of the ship would vibrate noise into the ship thus transmitting sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.3.252 (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is accurate that there is no sound in space, but you are confusing the cause with the effect. Using your example of an explosion in space, the particles or debris of an explosion in space would not carry sound with them. They simply can't. Should debris from such an explosion actually hit the hull of a spaceship with a significant force, then it might be heard inside the ship as, like you said, vibrations from the hull. Therefore it is not the explosion itself that is making the sound, but the effect of debris hitting the ship. If something hit a ship in space, there would be no sound heard on the outside of the ship. And you would not hear a spaceship whooshing past the camera in space as if it was flying through the air....simply because there is no air. We can easily transmit signals (that may be decoded as sounds) through space, but they would have to be "formatted" for such transit (such as radio waves for example). However, such waves aren't actually heard in space itself. The radio waves would have to be decoded by a radio receiver that picked up the signal, and it would be the speaker on the receiving equipment that would be making the actual sounds. 80.41.27.163 (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of my edits was reverted, but I found proof that the sentence "In the novel, Chandra never reveals to HAL the real reason behind their hurried departure from Jupiter" is simply wrong. In chapter 47 you can read: "Although Chandra, as agreed, had carefully explained what they were trying to do, did Hal really understand what was happening?" So Chandra does explain everything to HAL - as in the movie ... Normen Behr (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had also removed the part wich says that a difference is that in the original movie all three pods are lost and that one is pressent in 2010. Actually in the movie Curnow states "There is one pod here.. hatch is missing" .. that makes clear that that pod is the same Bowman used to recover the body of Poole and in wich he had to blow the hath to enter Discovery throught the emergency door. In the novel is further explained that Bowman recovered that pod since it still could be used as a remote control probe.. and in the 2010 novel they even use it as an unmaned probe (in the movie they changed that part for the fatefull maned mission of Max in the russian pod). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.165.183 (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having recently watched the film again, ironically in 2010, I was reminded the entire centrifuge part of the ship is not shown. The obvious answer is it was simply to expensive and to complicated to rebuild for a gimmick effectively used in the previous film. It is a noticable absence though given the large volume of habitable space it contained for the ship. There are other minor differences between 2001 Discovery and its 2010 version though. The keyboards that appeared in the pod bay and brain room, also a large red 1 and blue 2 painted on doors. The CRT displays versus flat panels has already been mentioned in the article and was an unfortunate step backward in set design. Skywayman (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC) i hate u , lolss . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.152.30 (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of centrifuges: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_(film)#Special_effects  : the scene mentioned occurs at about 1 hour and 24 minutes into the film.[Timings from the UK DVD version.] From about 1:22, the two characters, Dr. Floyd and the commander, have been rushing around and walking about in the room where the floating pens trick takes place. They are obviously meant to be located in one or other of the spinning wings of the Leonov which emulate gravity. Under gravity, or the rotating frame substitute, the floating pens would fall to the floor, or the desktop they came from. In short, the film-makers spent an inordinate amount of time, money, thought and effort in creating a demonstration that could never happen in a real spacecraft. I'm unsure whether this should be mentioned in the main page. Qordil (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you can find a reliable third party source which states this. Chaheel Riens (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you think qualifies as reliable. In my view, a first-semester beginner physics course is sufficient to substantiate it. The Pen would fall to the floor, though not absolutely identically to how it would in an identical room resting on the surface of the Earth. There would be a measurable coriolis effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upon since buying the Bluray region B / UK version, where image is maximized for optimum performance fair enough.

Sound as become an issue with me since noticing the original Dolby stereo film mix has been re-mixed as and who did the re-mix? It’s now got part of the (left and right front stereo) or (centre phantom signal folded onto the centre discrete channel). Thus this no longer makes the Dolby film mix original to its 70mm Road Show release Dolby format 42.

Also the surrounds have been re-mixed with fake split-stereo surround where the original surrounds where produced in monaural surround hence the Dolby format code (Dolby format 42)

LFE.1 has also been re-mixed and this is evident with the first edition DVD release if carefully listened too or monitored discreetly (with each or one of the channels muted for closer inspection of the DolbyTrue Dolby digital mix).

This doesn’t reflect the original mix as heard in (1984) on 70mm / 35mm Dolby stereo would be near to impossible to notice this because of the common crosstalk that folds onto centre and surrounds.

Start of chapter 17 DVD Centre channel has a few neighboured mechanical car effects in the distance that sounds like (hover vacuum cleaner).

The left and right has (centre phantom dogs barking and slight atmospheric ambiance). Surrounds remain mute until the scene cuts to inside a home of Widow, Mrs. Bowman where the sound of announcer on the centre channel is heard for a Pan Am advisement.

The sound of dogs is then heard distance on the monaural surrounds. That should be enough for those who may not even notice this.

Bluray Region B Same as above except the centre has partly the centre (left and right phantom sound folded onto the centre mildly of the dogs barking).

The left and right still has the (centre phantom sound of the dogs barking).

Surrounds has partly the left and right same centre phantom dogs barking (thou there seems to be some sly panning to the right surround with 1/3 of the same sound heard on left though you’d have to fade off the right surround to hear this)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBListening (talk • contribs) 20:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. How is this related to the article? 80.47.64.168 (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, folks. The third footnote in the References section is wrong. I'd appreciate your fixing it. The material supposedly from The Odyssey File is actually an expanded version of a chapter from The Silicon Jungle (Ballantine Books, 1985). I should know. I'm the author of this particular Jungle. For my Chapter 14, "As the Jungle Thickens: AKA the Great Modeming," I connected with Peter Hyams and Arthur Clarke via a 300-bps modem. I helped them line up the Kaypros used during the scriptwriting and provided them with some technical advice, as the chapter makes clear. I can understand the confusion about the two books, but those are the facts. Ballantine Books published both The Odyssey File and The Silicon Jungle. David Rothman / 703-370-6540 / [email protected] / [email protected] Davidrothman (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm hoping someone can expand upon the first reference cited: "LoBrutto 1997, p. 456". I'm assuming LoBrutto is the author, what is the publication? Jedikaiti (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming they meant Vincent LoBrutto's "Stanley Kubrick - A Biography" but it was published in 1999 not 1997, so who knows if this is what they meant. LoBrutto has written several film-related books so whoever included this source needs to clarify it. 80.47.64.168 (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The release section seems very odd. It is focused on comic books and DVD / BD. I think this section should be much more like the RELEASE section of 2001: A space odyssey. That is, about the theatrical release and rereleases, as well as home media including VHS et al.67.2.145.52 (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike 2001, this film didn't really have much in the way of re-releases because it wasn't seen to be as "important" as 2001 (ha! what do they know?). There were 70mm screenings though, so perhaps if someone can dig up all the relevant dates, etc. VHS information might be harder to find, but someone out there might have some film mags from the 80s that include those details. 88.104.21.71 (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Been a while since I read the original, but I seem to recall that Bowman "put forth his will" and destroyed the Discovery at the end of the first novel. So the sequel had to work around that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.149 (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He never returns to Discovery until the events in 2010. The bit you're referring to takes place when Bowman (as the Star-Child) is looking down on the earth, and destroys the orbiting nuclear weapons. But it has just occurred to me that both the book and the film of 2010 ignores that bit. Halmyre (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone correct the item about the special effects and the pens being used by Heywood to plan the escape from orbit with the Leonov. I have seen a making-of documentary about 2010 and it clearly shows the pens stuck to a sheet of transparent film which could be moved and rotated to make them appear to float in space. (I was specifically looking for how they achieved this effect). This is the same technique used in 2001 when Heywood's pen drifts out of his pocket and the stewardess on the Pan-Am Orion catches it and replaces it while Floyd is sleeping. There was no CGI involved here - just some very nice technical solutions to make it appear like magic.

- Sam, Helsinki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.181.36 (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The making-of documentary does show Scheider trying to get the prop pens to stick to the glass. The technique didn't work; the pens kept falling off the glass. In the end the technique was abandoned and the pens were added during post-production as a special effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the first sentence in the plot section basically ruins 2001 for anyone who is just looking to see the plot of 2010... It should be put more around the lines of "Nine years after the events of 2001[...]" instead of giving away the ending to the first movie... Spoilers for previous movies should either not be included in the article or put in further down so people don't necessarily see them if they're just trying to get an idea about what the movie is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.220.168 (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think you can word a plot summary for 2010 without giving away what happened at the end of 2001 because the events in the sequel take place because of the events in the first film, so it needs to be made clear what happened. 88.104.28.16 (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Movie is from 1984. Article states:

"Critical reaction to 2010 has been mixed to positive, with the film holding a rating of 66% of Rotten Tomatoes, based on 32 reviews"

Rotten Tomatoes came out in 1998. So how did it receive this review? Also..."based on 32 reviews"? Is that really relevant? 24.117.62.13 (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to say that the Rotten Tomatoes review was at the time of release, rather than contemporary?

The number of reviewers is important because it gives an indication of how much an average the rating is. Obviously the greater the number of reviews the more stable the rating. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yVVEEY09?url=http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1995-hugo-awards-2/ to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1995-hugo-awards-2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~This movie is called "2010" at start and end of film. The words "the year we make contact" NEVER appear on the screen. These words were used to promote the film but the movie's true title is "2010". I suppose it's like when people refer to "Superman The Movie", which is also called only "Superman" on the screen (the words "the movie" don't appear on the screen). Unlike, say, "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", which has those exact words on the screen. I have no idea why people refer to "2010" as "the year we make contact". Abbythecat~~

I worked in video for decades, and that tag line has frustrated me for almost 40 years. A couple of people have mentioned it here; I really don’t understand why it remains here, as it’s extremely non-“encyclopedic.” PacificBoy 04:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius: You undid this edit. Did you look at the moments I cited in my edit summary? Marcus Markup (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to look at them, because it doesn't actually matter whether it's in the scene. The reason for not including "and motion" in addition to the detection of organic molecules is that it's cumulative detail in a plot summary where every word counts—it's been edited down multiple times, cutting out seemingly significant details because they weren't necessary to explain the plot, and Wikipedia's guidelines regarding the length of plot summaries—despite being only advice—are very strictly enforced. Listing all of the reasons why the characters do anything isn't necessary to explain the plot. If absolutely necessary, there's room for about one more sentence—but every other addition makes that less feasible, and more likely that if anything needs to be added or explained in future, the section will have to be scoured for words to cut before it can be done. So you have to ask yourself—are the added words necessary to explain this point in the plot? I don't believe they are, but I guess I'll leave it to you to decide. P Aculeius (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to look at them, because it doesn't actually matter whether it's in the scene.Their reason for sending a probe down in absolutely important. That there was motion down there was a big reason... it was stressed in the dialog which you would know had you looked at the source I provided (which is still available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nNiUBVwF-o , 24:35 and 26:05). They devoted two separate takes to the issue. I actually came to this article for this very reason... I was researching Clarke's ideas on extrateresstrial life, and how he played with those ideas in his books, and I found this article had incorrect information about the very subject of the movie: extraterrestrial contact. The nature of those extraterrestrials is VERY important in a sci-fi novel, and the fact that they were moving on Europa was a big deal to the Roy Scheider character, it was a big deal to me, and it was a big deal to the screenwriter. Not to you, though. Marcus Markup (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't read the part of my reply where I said I would leave it to you to decide whether the added words were necessary—if you had, you wouldn't still be arguing about it here, much less making half a dozen separate edits to say so. There wasn't "incorrect information about the subject of the movie". It simply mentioned that the detection of chlorophyll was the reason for sending a probe, rather than the fact that the whatever contained the chlorophyll also appeared to be moving toward the sun at the rate of one meter per minute. Which is what the dialogue says—nothing about "extraterrestrials", unless by that you mean "chlorophyll", which at best implies "plant matter growing at an improbable rate of speed". It's not called anything other than "chlorophyll" in the dialogue, and even later, when we see the camera footage just before the probe is destroyed, all we see is a blurry patch of green.

In the subsequent conversation about what happened, Dr. Floyd says, "something wants us to keep away from Europa." He doesn't say "you all saw the aliens moving around down there!" The discovery of chlorophyll on Europa is important because it implies the existence of life there. Floyd even describes it, after the probe's destruction, as "the possibility of life where it never existed before" (emphasis mine), without attempting to describe just what kind of life there might be, or mentioning any "extraterrestrials". Presumably if something inorganic—water, ice, lava, boulders—had been detected moving, it wouldn't have been very important. The detection of chlorophyll, moving or not, was a big deal. Is it worth noting that whatever contained the chlorophyll was detectably moving toward the sun? Perhaps. But that's less crucial than the fact that there was chlorophyll detected in the first place. P Aculeius (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've now changed "organic molecules" to "chlorophyll" and added the words, "moving toward the sun at the rate of one meter per minute", which by my count means the plot summary is now at 694 words, out of a strictly policed 700. That doesn't really leave enough room to mention that the probe's cameras depicted a blurry patch of green just before it was destroyed; I suppose I could say that it "sees green", but that'd be noticeably sloppy writing. I also considered cutting the added words to "moving toward the sun" or "moving sunward", but either of those formulations (as well as "moving") would seem to require more information to explain what kind of motion is involved—and if I said "chlorophyll and movement" were detected, it might imply that something other than the chlorophyll-containing thing or things was moving, which is not what the dialogue says. Now the plot summary has inched closer to the limit at which any further additions or changes will require other parts to be cut or reworded—likely awkwardly, since it's already quite economical with words. So I sincerely hope that this wording is satisfactory. P Aculeius (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's like pulling teeth to make even the slightest of improvements to this encyclopedia sometimes. It's wearisome. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today, another editor noticed that

I don't read this as a rule forbidding the inclusion of the main actors in a film, simply because they're not listed in the fine print at the bottom of a poster. Besides the fact that the paragraph begins with "in general" and suggests alternative methods of determining who belongs, template documentation is not Wikipedia policy. As I noted multiple times, John Lithgow is included in the list as one of the main actors, and isn't listed on the movie poster; the editor in question doesn't seem to think this is a problem. In fact I think it would be hard to justify excluding him, as he appears in more scenes and has more lines than most of the others. I fail to see why Douglas Rain shouldn't be treated the same way, given that his role is crucial to the film.

2001 really had just three major characters, and Rain portrayed one of them—arguably one of the two most important. The return of Rain, along with his co-star, Keir Dullea, for 2010 was important to the film, and both of their characters were essential to the plot. The movie poster only lists four actors, but there are six major characters, and I see no reason to exclude Lithgow and Rain. Nor does it make sense to include one, but not the other. Both are mentioned in the article's lead paragraph, and 2010 is mentioned in the lead paragraph of the article on Douglas Rain. Excluding Rain, but not Lithgow, from the infobox solely because his name does not appear on the movie poster is arbitrary and pointless. P Aculeius (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As always, when it comes to questions re who should be in an infobox and who should not be, I am happy for a concensus to be reached. For clarity, the edit that I reverted was made in April 2023 and not yesterday. Quentin X (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]