Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Guarding the guardians

Bold textWow.

Betty Logan, Ianmacm, et al have set themselves up as guardians of the 2001 page. Good for them--if only they knew what they were doing. I don't remember voting for them--do you?

There are hundreds of examples of their incompetence, stupidity and hypocrisy--see for yourself.

E.g. 08:17, 9 July 2015‎ Betty Logan "Inaccurate plot revisions. There is no expedition to the moon. The monolith is dicovered on the moon and there is an expedition to Jupiter."

Does the word "expedition" occur anywhere (spoken or written) in the movie? Betty Logan does not cite anything in favor of her assertions about what happens at the moon or at Jupiter; we must simply trust her. She is a self-appointed guardian of this page and that should be enough for us, right? She asserts "There is no expedition to the moon." How does she know this? She asserts "There is an expedition to Jupiter." How does she know this? Is this a quibble about the meaning of a word not in the movie? Then why is Betty Logan quibbling about it? Utter stupidity. It is not my quibble; it is hers. Her "attempt" to improve the page does something very different. She does not cite hearing or seeing anywhere in the movie e.g. "This is not an expedition" or hearing or seeing anywhere in the movie e.g. "Ah, now this is an expedition." Both are Betty Logan's interpretations. In both cases she sees things, interprets them and then applies her own words to them, words not in the movie. One looks like an expedition to her and the other doesn't. She is interpreting. (And she interprets badly.) She is not reporting what is actually in the movie but her interpretation of it. (SYNTH: Imagine if a character DID say "Boy, this is some great moon expedition we're on." But what happens or does not happen in the movie seems to be of little interest to her. She knows an expedition when she sees it--she has led many in real life doubtless--and she is using that experience to label or interpret what she sees in the movie. Oh, an editor is not to use SYNTH or OR on the movie page. Betty Logan, try again. Perhaps she has not led a single expedition in real life; then why should anyone trust her interpretation here? Betty Logan, try again after you get off of that dilemma's horns. I suggest she delete her own revision--and most of her others for good measure.) Oh, all she is doing is applying a common word in a common sense and accurate fashion? No, she is not. Betty Logan, I call your bluff. In various forms one of the words she should be looking for is spoken a score of times in the movie and appears several more times as text. But our expert Betty Logan chooses for only the best of reasons to not use it--or she does not know the movie as well as she might have everyone believe and doesn't know what the word is. And thus deletes another editor's word out of ignorance or something worse. She and the other guardians do this relentlessly. The movie page is not to include interpretation and yet there it is. The guardians see motes in the eyes of others but will not see the forests in their own.

E.g. 15:05, 4 July 2015‎ Ianmacm "(rv good faith edit, not clearly stated within the film itself)"

Ianmacm replaces an interpretation he does not like with one he does: his own. It is not a fact the characters are or represent hominids. Where in the film does it state the characters are hominids? He claims the term the other editor used was "not clearly stated within the film itself". Fine. But it is "not clearly stated within the film itself" ANYWHERE what the characters are. Ianmacm, I call your bluff. The film does not state anywhwere they are hominids. How then can Ianmacm delete one term not in the film and use another term not in the film in good conscience? "Do as I say, not as I do." Hilarious and hypocritical, Ianmacm. But typical. There is an ambiguity here (just as there are throughout the film) which Ianmacm either does not see or sees but will not tolerate. He thinks he can describe everything in the film and knows that everyone else is wrong--evidence of that is his relentless deletions. He does not discuss; he deletes. He is unfit to edit the page. This film is not for him. Let him find another, one without ambiguity. I do not doubt he would argue that all he is doing is using a more general word, a more accurate word, one consistent with what everyone sees. That is not what he is doing at all. "Hominid" is inaccurate. "Hominid" is not consistent with what everyone sees. There is no consensus about it. The very fact that an editor used a different term, which Ianmacm deleted, is evidence of that. It is Ianmacm's interpretation. He is forcing it (and his incompetence, stupidity and hypocrisy) upon the page. He does this relentlessly, by deleting the comments of others (and thus by not permitting discussion), by hypocritical application of wiki rules, etc. Those characters are not hominids. They are at best fictional beings created by modern human beings on a film set in the 1960's. They have neither genus nor species. Indeed, how can one know they are chordates? I see no bones inside them. That they are chordates is an interpretation, tenable or untenable. In either case they are not "real". Fictional characters do not need to have what real beings do. Why assume it? They are modern humans in costume; the costumes are not anatomically correct relative to any known real hominid, past or present. How then are they even representations of hominids? (Ianmacm makes no distinction between being a hominid and representing a hominid, so why should I?) It is an interpretation. They are not real. They are fictions. Ambiguous fictions. Potentially mythic or legendary fictions. They are whatever they are; I see no reason to interpret and classify these fictional characters as hominids. Fictional characters do not need vertebra, brains with two lobes, etc. We see what we see; all else is interpretation. Is that not clear? Attempting to classify them within a realistic Linnaean system as hominids is an interpretation and is futile; it sweeps the ambiguity under the rug and pretends the film must be what it may not necessarily be. One may agree or disagree with "hominid" but it is still an interpretation. The word does not occur anywhere in the film. It is Ianmacm's word and thus Ianmacm's interpretation. Am I asserting the film should only be described with words used in it? No. Either way there is a problem, but the problem is not mine; it is yours and you seem incapable of not just solving it but of even addressing it, even admitting it exists. Your original sin is to assume--to interpret!--the film is like all other films. You see no reason to think it is different? Oh boy, you are not paying attention, you are interpreting them all away consciously or unconsciously, there are thousands and many of them are utterly obvious .... (SYNTH: Attempting to classify the Wolf Man as a kind of real wolf leads to similar problems. The Wolf Man might resemble a mammal, even a wolf, but he isn't; he is a monster, a fiction. The Wolf Man is fictional, dragons are fictional, orcs are fictional, and so are these characters in this film. Ianmacm can interpret them as ancestors of the fictional modern humans in the film, and so might I, but no one can prove it, it is not objective, we see no such thing in the film. It is an interpretation, plausible or implausible, of an ambiguous relationship. Or does Ianmacm assert what we see in the film really happened millions of years ago? Does he have fossils or DNA to back up his claim? Is he an expert in anatomy? Oh, that would be SYNTH and OR. Or Ianmacm could cite the interpretations of hominid experts--and thus an interpretation magically ceases to be an interpretation, a cited opinion becomes a fact even if the opinion is wrong. See the problems? And yet he insists his interpretation of hominids is correct. Perhaps Wikipedia should institute a point system: submit too many errors, too many interpretations, too many errors of fact, etc., no more editing privileges. If Ianmacm earned a point for every blunder he has submitted, he'd be long gone.) The film is a work of fiction, not a documentary. The difficulty (impossibility?) of objectively describing what one sees in it is due to the nature of the film. I do not think it is accidental or incidental. It leads naturally and invariably to interpretation. But interpretation does not belong on the movie's page. Quite a problem you people have. You seem to deal with it by pretending the issue does not exist. And by allowing people like Betty Logan and Ianmacm to lead you around by the nose.

I will not get involved further. (You would delete anything I submit. How long will this post last before Ianmacm deletes it? I doubt he would permit anyone to be aware of or discuss the issues above.) I will just sit back and laugh.173.15.103.65 (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What a wonderful example of POV editing. Criticism of good established editors, whilst this IP hides behind an anoymous number. Obviously this unregistered IP has not read Wikipedia guidelines. It is not the time for this IP to "sit back and laugh", but to consider how their "edits" were reverted because of their POV. This is a encylopedia, not a forum against good editors who are prepared to better the project. David J Johnson (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment David J Johnson defends others and chastises me without addressing the specific and factual issues I raised. He attempts to criticize me for being anonymous. Does anonymity automatically transform fact into opinion or vice versa? Would my name help you determine the value of my comment? Do the names of editors guarantee the value of comments? Where is the logic in this? (Bacon's idols.) He attempts to criticize me with "POV editing". He did not understand my comment. My comment pointed out it is those editors who want everyone to look the other way as they use POV editing. ALL editors have a point of view. To deny a POV is to deny one's nature. Human beings are not soulless robots. My comment speaks for itself. And the content of my comment David J Johnson does not address. (E.g. where do "expedition" or "hominid" occur in the movie? Please explain.)173.15.103.65 (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment I think the points raised by the anonymous IP have been duly answered by the editors below. The extraordinary long rant above is largely POV, and inaccurate. As previously stated, it is a pity that this "editor" has to hide behind a IP address, instead of informing other editors of their views and interests. May I respectfully suggest that you refrain from attacking other long serving editors and constructively use Wikipedia in a consise, postive way? Finally, please sign your "comments" in the accepted way. Case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment May I respectfully suggest David J Johnson directly respond to my direct and specific points: where do "expedition" or "hominid" occur in the movie? Please explain.173.15.103.65 (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

What we do know from the screenplay of the film is that the Dawn of Man sequence is set 3 million years ago and uses the words man-apes. Since 2001 is a work of fiction, it is not profitable to get into long arguments about how accurate it is. The timescale would coincide with Australopithecus, which is the link given in the article, and I agree that it is not ideal to give this as a wikilink as it is not something stated by Clarke or Kubrick. This point could have been made succinctly without a long rant against my good self.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment Ianmacm makes an assertion about the screenplay. Perhaps one should start another wiki page for the screenplay. (Then one would have a page for Clarke's novel, a page for the movie, and a page for the movie. Heck, one could have a page for the advertising.) I was discussing the movie, not the screenplay. Even were a screenplay an authoritative and definitive version of a movie, I must ask: which is this page supposed to be about, the screenplay or the movie? They most certainly are not identical. The best evidence of what is in a movie is the movie itself. (One of us does not understand this. It is not I who invokes the screenplay.) In this context a screenplay is tantamount to hearsay. It is a blueprint for a movie but in many cases is modified and even ignored as actual filming progresses. (SYNTH, OR, etc.--I don't care, it is tangential to my point.) I do not care if Kubrick wrote it. I don't care who wrote it. Again, I discuss a movie I see in a theater, not a screenplay I read at home. In the movie I see no evidence whatsoever the scenes with those early characters takes place "3 million" years ago. Much later in the movie a character states an entity is "4 million" years old. How does one jump from a fact an entity is 4 million years old to an assertion that a scene--possibly with the entity and possibly NOT!--takes place 3 million years ago? Is my math that bad? It is a confusion. The "4 million years" refers to the age of the Moon monolith and not to the date of the early scenes set on Earth. Is my geography that bad--is the Moon the Earth? Of course one might profitably interpret that they are somehow related. Fine, very good. Do so. But doubtless David J Johnson would contend I am POV editing again--but that conclusion I will not draw. I do not understand how others can. It is not I who inserts my belief--my opinion, my interpretation, my POV--that a screenplay which includes the written phrase "3 million years" is relevant to--even trumps--a clearly enunciated phrase of "4 million years" in a movie in a webpage which is ostensibly about the movie. Ianmacm writes "Since 2001 is a work of fiction, it is not profitable to get into long arguments about how accurate it is"--is that a way of asserting his short argument for "hominid" must stand? His way or the highway? Prolix? Yes. My nature.173.15.103.65 (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a whole range of discrepancies between the 1965 screenplay, the 1968 film and the 1968 book.

• The 1965 screenplay says that the man-ape sequence is set in Africa 3 million years ago. Later on, it is stated that the moon monolith "was deliberately buried about four million years ago."
• The 1968 film does not say when the Dawn of Man sequence is set. During the trip in the lunar shuttle, it is stated about the moon monolith that "The only thing we're sure of is it was buried four million years ago."
• The 1968 book implies that the African scenes are three million years ago. It says of the moon monolith "You see, it is approximately three million years old."

Since the 1965 screenplay is generally regarded as a draft version rather than the shooting script, I removed the part saying that the African scenes are set three million years ago. It doesn't necessarily follow that the moon monolith was buried at the same time as the man-apes meet the monolith in Africa; this is never stated directly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment Let us look more closely at the alteration you made (and which I subsequently reverted):

Original: The film follows a voyage to Jupiter with the sentient computer Hal after the discovery of a mysterious black monolith affecting human evolution.

Revision: The film follows a expedition to Moon after the discovery of a mysterious unnatural structure is found.

Several observations:

1. The original version seems to be a more accurate summary of what occurs in the film. After the extended prologue the Jupiter mission comprises the bulk of the film's running time, so I would say it misrepresents the plot to state it follows an "expedition to the moon".
2. It is not my interpretation of the plot; it is the interpretation of whoever wrote the lead. It is my interpretation that their interpretation is more accurate than your interpretation, so I exercised my right to revert your edit. I acted as a "third opinion" in this capacity.
3. The film itself serves as a primary source (per WP:FILMPLOT) for relaying the events of the plot and leads do not need to be sourced if they are simply summarising the rest of the article.

That's not to say the current lead is perfect, or that you don't have a valid point, but rather the changes you made were not an improvement. If editors have a particular problem with an article and their changes are not accepted they generally start a discussion on the talk page to negotiate a solution; they don't generally post an essay berating other editors. If you wish to be involved with improving the article then I suggest you start a discussion to articulate your specific concerns and see where it gets us. Betty Logan (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment My alteration? Not is, madame, but seems. I am not an editor who submitted ANY of this content to the 2001 page. I have NEVER reverted another editor's comments. "... voyage to Jupiter with the sentient computer Hal..." I did not submit. You labor under a misapprehension. But again, would it matter had I done so? I disagree with your version AND the previous version. And "expedition" in my dictionary means "a journey or voyage undertaken by a group of people with a particular purpose". Does not a character (later joined by five more people) do that as he travels to the moon and to the site of the whatsit--or is he just bumming around, hoping something interesting might happen? (Does the length or duration matter?) In your second point, you forthrightly state what is on the page is a string of POV editing. (But again, as I did not submit text to the main page, your interpretation is not more accurate mine (you probably do not know what my interpretation is), you did not revert my edit but another person's.) Yes, of course you have the right to revert an edit. You acted as a "third opinion"--is it three opinions and we're out or is a fourth opinion possible? Ah, your third point: that was the exact point of my original comment. You and others see the movie and interpret it differently. It acts as an unimpeachable source for very, uh, peachable interpretations, some of which I strongly disagree with and think are if not utterly wrong than at least non-optimal. (The lead is inaccurate in so many ways.) Well, I end because I see I am getting nowhere. It's your page. David J Johnson will not tolerate my comments and I wouldn't want him to get carpal tunnel by deleting them. With editors as he editing the page I see no possibility my articulation of concerns would get anyone anywhere. It obviously hasn't done so here.173.15.103.65 (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

CNN photos and new book

On the CNN website there are some excellent photos showing the making of 2001.[1] They are taken from a new book, The Making of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey [2] which is published in August 2015. The article could use this, but without acting as a plug for the book. Possibly the CNN article could be added to the external links.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Material

Some possible extra material might be gleaned from this, just trimming the main Kubrick article that's all and don't want to waste anything.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Kubrick spent five years developing his next film, 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), having been highly impressed with science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke's novel Childhood's End, about a superior race of alien beings who assist mankind in eliminating their old selves. After meeting Clarke in New York City in April 1964, Kubrick made the suggestion to work on his 1948 short story The Sentinel, about a tetrahedron which is found on the Moon which alerts aliens of mankind. That year, Clarke began writing the novel 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the screenplay was written by Kubrick and Clarke in collaboration. The film's theme, the birthing of one intelligence by another, is developed in two parallel intersecting stories on two very different times scales. One depicts transitions between various stages of man, from ape to "star child", as man is reborn into a new existence, each step shepherded by an enigmatic alien intelligence seen only in its artifacts: a series of seemingly indestructible eons-old black monoliths. It also depicts human interaction with our own more directly created and controlled offspring intelligence. In space, the enemy is a supercomputer known as HAL who runs the spaceship, a character which novelist Clancy Sigal described as being "far, far more human, more humorous and conceivably decent than anything else that may emerge from this far-seeing enterprise".

Kubrick spent a great deal of time researching the film, paying particular attention to accuracy and detail in what the future may look like. He was granted permission by NASA to observe the spacecraft being used in the Ranger 9 mission for accuracy. He later told journalist Jerome Agel: "I don't like to talk about 2001 much, because it's essentially a nonverbal experience. It attempts to communicate more to the subconscious and to the feelings than it does to the intellect". He further said of the concept of the film in an interview with Rolling Stone: "On the deepest psychological level, the film's plot symbolized the search for God, and finally postulates what is little less than a scientific definition of God. The film revolves around this metaphysical conception, and the realistic hardware and the documentary feelings about everything were necessary in order to undermine your built-in resistance to the poetical concept". Filming commenced on 29 December 1965 with the excavation of the monolith on the moon, and footage was shot in Namib Desert in early 1967, with the ape scenes completed in the summer of that year. The special effects team continued working diligently until the end of the year to complete the film, taking the cost to $10.5 million. 2001: A Space Odyssey was conceived as a Cinerama spectacle and was photographed in Super Panavision 70, giving the viewer a "dazzling mix of imagination and science" through ground-breaking effects, which earned Kubrick his only personal Oscar, an Academy Award for Visual Effects. One of the scenes is so striking in film in which the viewer moves through space, with a vibrant mix of lighting, color and patterns, that Louise Sweeney of the Christian Science Monitor called the film the "ultimate trip". Its association with psychedelia further derives from the fact that this label later featured prominently in several posters advertising the film, though Kubrick had repudiated claims that he used LSD himself.

Ape suit from 2001: A Space Odyssey

Upon release in 1968, 2001: A Space Odyssey was not an immediate hit among many critics, who faulted its lack of dialogue, slow pacing, and seemingly impenetrable storyline. The film appeared to defy genre convention, much unlike any science-fiction movie before it, and clearly different from any of Kubrick's earlier films or stories. Charles Champlin of The Los Angeles Times found the ending of the film to be "deliberate obscurantism", while Renata Adler of The New York Times, like a number of others, felt that the intellectual content of the film didn't match its effects. She wrote: "The movie is so completely absorbed in its own problems. Its use of color and space, its fanatical devotion to science-fiction detail, that is somewhere between hypnotic and immensely boring". Kubrick was particularly outraged by a scathing review from Pauline Kael, who called it "the biggest amateur movie of them all", with Kubrick doing "really every dumb thing he ever wanted to do". She concluded that it was a "monumentally unimaginative movie". Despite the initial poor critical response, 2001: A Space Odyssey gradually gained popularity and earned $31 million worldwide by the end of 1972, making it one of the five most successful MGM films at the time along with Gone With the Wind (1939), The Wizard of Oz (1939), Lawrence of Arabia (1962) and Doctor Zhivago (1965). Today it is widely considered to be one of the greatest and most influential films ever made, and is a staple on All Time Top 10 lists. Baxter describes the film as "one of the most admired and discussed creations in the history of cinema", and Steven Spielberg has referred to it as "the big bang of his film making generation". For LoBrutto it "positioned Stanley Kubrick as a pure artist ranked among the masters of cinema".

References

"Influence on Science" section

A new section has been recently added detailing the so-called impact of the film on science. I am concerned that the editor has introduced WP:SYNTHESIS into the article. First of all, the section doesn't actually explain what impact the film had, and in reality just corrects the "killer ape" myth that the film subscribes to. In general I don't really agree with editors issuing "corrections" to the science presented in science-fiction films since they do not purport to faithfully represent scientific theory anyway. This is even more pronounced in this film, since the apes did not become "killer apes" until the alien monolith effectively reprogrammed their DNA, so from the outset this is a highly fictionalised account of human evolution. Secondly, neither source directly cited in the section ([3] and [4]) discuss the film in any detail; in fact, the second source does not mention it at all while the first simply mentions that Dart's "killer ape" theory is present 2001. This does not provide adequate context for claiming the film had any impact on the theory; if the film popularised the theory or legitimised the theory within science then further exposition and better sourcing is required. Betty Logan (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: FWIW - re your recent edit reversion - Seems there's a substantial amount of material in the complete film documentary, "Dawn of Humanity (2015 PBS film)", that *directly* relates "2001: A Space Odyssey" to the recent discoveries of "Homo naledi" fossils in South Africa - the film documentary can be viewed, as a trailer (00:30), at => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPpMIhmNRsA - or - as the complete film (113:07), at => http://video.pbs.org/video/2365559270/

Copied from ""2001: A Space Odyssey (film)" article - version 13:49, 13 September 2015":

Influence on science

The behavior of apes in the "Dawn of Man" sequence of 2001, largely influenced by the notions of Raymond Dart and dramatist Robert Ardrey, have been "proven false", since such violent apes have now been shown to be "vegetarians" instead, according to archeology expert K. Kris Hirst, reviewing the Dawn of Humanity (2015 PBS film) documentary which describes, directly in the context of 2001, the 2015 studies of fossils of Homo naledi.

References

Comments by other editors are welcome of course - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Betty Logan and I would go further. Perhaps the movie suggests ideas outside itself but to claim something outside of it has "proven false" something inside it is illogical, childish and silly and proves that the people who make the generic argument that anything can prove a fictional movie false are not actually paying attention to the movie and do not understand the nature of fiction.

I provide details: to be consistent, the movie is definitively "proven false" because in or around the year 2001 there was no IAS convention! Oh, and of course no rotating space station was in operation in Earth orbit in or around 2001; humanity did not find a monolith on the moon in or around the year 2001; humanity did not send a ship named Discovery to Jupiter 18 months or so after that non-discovery; Floyd, Smyslov, Squirt, Bowman, Poole, Hunter, Kimball, Kaminsky and HAL have never existed; and so on. It's all a bunch of lies, isn't it? Congratulations: you have proven the movie is a work of fiction. Did you think it was a didactic documentary? I could go through the records at Ellis Island and prove no one named Vito Corleone immigrated from Sicily to the U.S. on a specific date, prove no one named Michael Corleone gave public testimony in front of a subcommittee and so on--"proving" The Godfather movies are false! And yes, prove they are works of fiction. So what? I have just demonstrated the generic argument has wide applicability within discussion of film but only because the argument ignores what fictional movies are. After one gives the generic argument a tiny amount of thought, one should see it is fundamentally childish and silly. But then again my arguments above are SYNTH and OR. I defer to Betty Logan.

The specific Dart idea might be an interesting interpretation today. It was thoroughly discussed when the movie opened in 1968. And it was better discussed then because the writers then generally stated they were aware the movie presented a fiction about the beginning of humanity and were aware the movie and Kubrick were not attempting to get its ideas taught in anthropology courses. Is this not clear to Drbogdan? (See Jerome Agel's The Making of 2001; see many of the newspaper stories of the time on the movie; see many of the books written about the movie.) Do Drbogdan's "Dart" comments belong in that location on the main page? I do not think so. Do they belong on the main page at all? I do not think so. They may well belong on a 2001 interpretation page, Wikipedia's or his own.

Claiming the movie has been "proven wrong" in an idea it supposedly "subscribes to" (a topic for debate) is fundamentally different from claiming one has found a continuity error in the film making.

(And concerning another idea the movie "subscribes to": I understand how Betty Logan might accept the interpretation the monolith more or less reprogrammed their DNA but there are other interpretations too, some of which are far simpler and more powerful. But this is not the place.) ConfusedButNotDazed (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@ConfusedButNotDazed and Betty Logan: Thank you *very much* for your comments - they're *greatly* appreciated - please understand that the quoted comments were not made by me - but by the cited author (ie, archeologist, K. Kris Hirst) instead - afaik atm, media influences the way many in the public may think about "archaic humans" and/or "apes" - true or fiction - such supported text (as well as the "Dawn of Humanity" video (113:07) at => http://video.pbs.org/video/2365559270/ ), regarding "2001: A Space Odyssey (film)", may help clarify possible misconceptions I would think - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

References

@Drbogdan: I thank you for your response. I amend my remarks--I obviously did not write clearly enough. In my opinion the quoted comment does not belong on the page, even had Kubrick himself made it. It does not matter to me if you are quoting experts (actual or so-called); I do not think their opinions and interpretations belong on the main 2001 page. Nor do yours; nor do mine. As much as possible, and in keeping with Wiki's purpose, I think the main page should present only facts. The page's readers can take it from there. The page is about the movie, not about opinions about the movie. ConfusedButNotDazed (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@ConfusedButNotDazed: Thank you for your reply - yes - *entirely* agree re WP:NOR of course - seems the relevant text (see above) is supported by reliable sources WP:RS (including the PBS film documentary) and seems relevant imo atm to the main article in some appropriate form - after all, sections of "Scientific accuracy" (per "WP:FILMSCI") are incorporated in other film articles, including "The Martian (film)#Scientific accuracy" - in any case - comments by other editors are also welcome of course - Thanks again for your own reply - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Visual influence of 1960 animated doc Universe

Canada's Globe and Mail recently published an obit on Colin Low that went into some detail about the impact of Universe on the film, citing a biography by Vincent Lobrutto. Here's the salient passage:

Later, when Stanley Kubrick began research for his film 2001: A Space Odyssey, he was inspired by the film. According to biographer Vincent Lobrutto: “As the film unspooled, Kubrick watched the screen with rapt attention while a panorama of the galaxies swirled by, achieving the standard of dynamic visionary realism that he was looking for. These images were not flawed by the shoddy matte work, obvious animation and poor miniatures typically found in science fiction films. Universe proved that the camera could be a telescope to the heavens. As the credits rolled, Kubrick studied the names of the magicians who created the images: Colin Low, Sidney Goldsmith, and Wally Gentleman.” Mr. Gentleman, a special effects artist, went to work briefly with Mr. Kubrick, and Canadian actor Douglas Rain, who had narrated Universe, served as the voice of the computer HAL 9000 in Mr. Kubrick’s film.

Keeping in mind WP:UNDUE, I'd like to make brief mention of this somewhere, perhaps as a brief subsection of its own in "Development." What do people think? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Kubrick drew on numerous influences for the film. The most notable thing about Universe is that it is how Kubrick found Douglas Rain, who was not a well known actor. This would be worth mentioning. Universe is on YouTube here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, as the Wally Gentleman thing doesn't seem to be as noteworthy. I'd keep it brief. BTW, an ad-free official streaming link is here. The YouTube looks like it's a ripped, pirated link (if that's the right word). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Everything is on YouTube and this was the first result that came up in a search:) Strictly speaking, Rain is a well known actor in Canada for his stage work, but has never had an on screen cinema role. There is a very good article about Rain and HAL here, but some people might complain due to the blog sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That is a very interesting blog article. We can make do with the WP:RS we have, if need be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added something, using only The Globe and Mail reliable source -- which itself cites Lobrutto's biography, cited else where in the wiki article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Claimed influences

The Road to the Stars influence claim seems to be opinion of a anonymous personal website with no supporting material so I have removed it. Universe influence is cited but the more dramatic claims were a little thinly referenced. The 1964 World's Fair movie To the Moon and Beyond has been totally missed. Rewording all of this. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2001: A Space Odyssey (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100903025953/http://kubrickfilms.warnerbros.com/ to http://kubrickfilms.warnerbros.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/preview/1808402810

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 08:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggested edits to the plot summary

I added some detail to the plot summary and it was promptly deleted as being "too detailed." Anyone who wishes can look at the revision history to see what I added (and in a couple instances, corrected).

Needless to say, I disagree strongly with the reversion, and see nothing on the talk page about "recent plot discussions" germane to the edits I made.

Nsayer (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I agree that your "detail" is unnecessary and the reversion should stand. We risk being bogged down in detail. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nsayer I agree that the additions are (at least mostly) unnecessary; the section is already on the longish side, as the hidden note mentions. I'm not sure your edit corrected any important errors; plot sections necessarily omit, simplify and gloss details in order to accomodate length constraints. (FWIW, this tradeoff bothered me for a long time; my natural preference is to err on the side of detail, and I still find it harder to prune than to add stuff, even though both are necessary skills.) Given that caveat, do you still feel there are errors that need fixing? Note that there's an article "Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey" that delves much deeper into detail; some of your points may be useful there, or may already be there. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 18:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. This imo is a good example of an edit that prunes/simplifies, and in fact improves accuracy. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 18:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning Match Cut in Plot Section

I believe that the match cut (the scene where an ape throws a bone into the air, which is then matched visually with a scene of an orbiting space station millions of years later) is important enough from a narrative perspective to warrant mention outside of editing techniques or whether the satellite was military in nature in the movie.

The match cut from this specific movie is currently discussed more in depth in Match cut#Notable examples than it is in this article, despite this article being about the movie. Even if this brief mention in the plot section is unwarranted, shouldn't this iconic (and, indeed, notable on its own) match cut be talked about in greater detail in this article?

So, my question is, does the match cut deserve a brief mention in the plot section, or should it not be even briefly mentioned until later during the development section? BearGlyph (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not particularly relevant within the context of conveying the plot, which is the purpose of the plot summary. I am not aware of any other film articles that commentate on shot composition and the editing in the plot summary. For instance, the Citizen Kane article doesn't discuss its deep focus photography in its plot summary. I'm not saying it shouldn't be in the article just that the plot summary isn't really the place for it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Betty. The match cut itself should not be mentioned as part of the plot. But the transformation of a primitive bone weapon to a modern machine (which could potentially be a weapon) is part of the plot narrative. —EncMstr (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That being the case, where would be a good place to explicitly mention the match cut? It is currently not discussed until the "Parodies and Homages" section. Even then, it isn't really talked about. Perhaps in the editing section? I'm certain that sources exist that could be cited in this.BearGlyph (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It really depends on how the sources discuss it. The editing section would be the obvious location, but if it has been influential on subsequent films then perhaps it should be discussed in the "Influence" section? Maybe there is enough material for both sections. There is a never-ending array of books discussing it: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22match+cut%22+space+odyssey&tbm=bks. Betty Logan (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The match cut was in the plot section when the article was promoted to GA status, which means that all who reviewed it didn't consider it a problem.[5] That brief mention gave the reader all the context they needed to understand the technical, cultural, etc. references that follow. Without that, all we have are sporadic mentions that make little sense. I'm going to be bold and put it back, and if necessary we can do the BRD thing. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 18:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

We have done the "BRD thing" as you can see above; three editors discussed the placement of the information and determined that the plot summary is not the best location in the article to discuss the match cut. As it has been pointed out the match cut is a filming technique, and not part of the story itself. Readers do not need to know about the match cut to understand the plot of the film. The film could have followed the exact same story with or without the match cut. You can also see that the plot summary had a highly irregular structure when it was passed as a GA, and it has since been overhauled—and vastly improved IMO—by Popcornduff to conform to the more regular style, which also included removing the editorial commentary and bringing the word count closer to the recommendation. Betty Logan (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Betty Logan asked me to take a look at this discussion. I have to confess I forgot ever working on this article and I had to look through some old edits and archives to refresh myself. I'm getting old.

Thoughts:

• The version of the article that passed the GA review was, in my opinion, not great. (No offence to the editors who worked on it or the editor who passed it.) As Betty mentioned, the plot summary was drastically overlong, which should have made it an automatic fail. Aside from that, the prose in the article generally was flowery and overdetailed; for example, the entire plot was summarised in the lead, which is overkill. I discussed some of my problems with the prose here. We shouldn't be using the version of the article that passed GA as a benchmark for quality.
• The match cut doesn't belong in the plot summary. It's an editing detail, not a plot event. WP:FILMPLOT: "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail." The reader's understanding of the events of the plot is not improved by including the match cut.
• It's a notable cut, though, so worth mentioning in the article elsewhere.
• It doesn't seem necessarily crazy that the match cut might be discussed in more detail in an article about match cuts than in 2001 article itself. Match cuts are not the focus of this article. Popcornduff (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

(Thanks Betty for initiating the "D" part of the BRD thing. :-) ) Agreed that the plot summary doesn't need the match cut, but the reader needs to understand what's special about it, and a quick mention in the plot section is plausibly the most efficient way to do that. It's certainly better than the current situation; read through and you'll probably see what I mean. Think of it as increasing the article's net goodness at the expense of one section's perfection -- and realistically, it does the section no harm; editors are the only people who are fussy about such things (cf. the essay WP:Readers first). Sure there are other ways to do it, but do they have the same impact and pith? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 11:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

But that has no impact or pith - It doesn't explain to the reader why the match cut (or the event of throwing the bone, for that matter) is at all significant. To the uninitiated reader, it's like "huh, why have you suddenly mentioned this editing detail in the plot summary?" If you want to talk about why it's notable and what it means, put it in a section about editing, cinematography, or theme, or something. If there's no good place for it to fit right now, create one. Popcornduff (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Popcornduff sums up the situation well. Nobody disputes that the match cut should be mentioned in the article but its thematic context and cinematic influence needs to be contextualised and its cursory mention in the plot does not do that. Betty Logan (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, there are several places (interpretation also comes to mind) where the match cut could be discussed, and it'd be great to do that. What I propose is different: not to discuss it, but merely to say what it is, early on, and thereby ease the reader into discussions that ensue. There's nothing like that now, and the current three mentions (Kubrick's planned caption, The Simpsons, and MST3K) almost come out of left field. The usual way to handle such cases is the lede, and that would actually be better than the plot, and maybe more comfortable for some of you too. (Usually putting stuff in the lede requires significant coverage in the body, but WP:LEDE makes an exception for "basic facts", which the simple occurrence of the match cut, and the fact of its fame, are.)

That said, it wouldn't hurt in the plot section too, and might help:

• The match cut actually is plot-germaine, linking the stone- and space-age scenes (cf. note 7 and the text it supports at the match cut article).
• Putting it under plot is elegant, because it shows exactly how and where it fits into the narrative. It's an unforgettable moment, and I think this text conveys that pretty well: "Triumphant, the tribe's leader throws his weapon-tool into the air as the scene shifts (via match cut) from the falling bone to an orbital satellite. ¶ In the space age..."

The lede allows us to add the important information that the cut is regarded as famous/iconic, so that's what I suggest, with the plot optional. Anyway, a basic need and an easy fix. Thanks for listening. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 20:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC) (pinging BearGlyph and EncMstr if they want to weigh in)

The match cut is not plot-germaine. It ties into themes, it's visually striking, creates an emotional effect, etc, but it's not part of the plot. A plot is a series of events, and an event is someone or something doing something. A cut is not a plot event. It is an editing device. The reader's understanding of the overall plot is not improved at all by mentioning the edit. Where it occurs in the film can be explained very simply when the edit is discussed elsewhere, wherever that ends up being. Popcornduff (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I would mention the match cut in the plot section. 2001 is a film told in visuals and visuals are described (but not commented on) in the plot section - read the last paragraph. Other films that are visual (such as Koyaanisqatsi) are described by their visuals. Trying to discern a plot from a series of visuals means the editor is interpreting the film and I would tend to replace that with what is actually seen on the screen. For example I would remove "the tribe learns to hunt for food, and kills the leader of their rivals, reclaiming the water hole" since it is an interpretation of the film, and simply mention the match cut. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused by this. Of course the film is told in visuals; it's a movie. Personal interpretation only becomes an issue when (as in the final scenes of the movie) the film becomes abstract to the point that the "plot" in the conventional sense is obscure. I haven't seen the movie in a while, so I could be misremembering, but saying that the apes fend off a rival tribe is a pretty safe, uncontroversial description, isn't it?

Anyway, looking at the article again, I still think it has structural problems. I think the fact that there's no obvious place to put the match cut information is what is tempting some editors to put it in the plot section. Putting it in the lead solves nothing as there should be nothing discussed in the lead - like the fact that there is a notable match cut - that isn't in the article body too. (Surely no one's suggesting we explain the notability and significance of the match cut in the plot section too?!) I'm also unconvinced that this particular match cut is so famous it deserves being singled out in the lead at all. When I have time in the next few days I'll look at the article in more detail and see if I can come up with a better solution. Popcornduff (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I am just pointing out that there are films where you can simple give the plot and films where all you can do is describe the visuals; 2001 falls somewhere in the middle, so it would not be odd to describe some visuals in the plot section, instead of trying to interpret them. Re: first paragraph - "learns to hunt for food" seems to be incorrect, they already know how to get food, "kills the leader of their rivals" - he's a leader? - "reclaiming the water hole"? we can only assume that. I would shorten it down to "one man-ape realizes how to use a bone as a tool and uses it as a weapon to drive their rivals from the water hole. The films story line shifts at that point (via a match cut) from a closeup of the bone being thrown into the air to an orbital satellite".

After adding some well known aspects of pre-production that had been missed I also noticed the odd layout of this article, namely it had no pre-production details, the section that exists is almost all about writing, which should be in a "development" section. That section should describe other aspects, and not just be 19 paragraphs devoted solely to writing. There seems to be allot of paragraph space devoted to minutia in the writing section such as an aspect described from Carl Sagan's POV, things that did not appear in the film (script changes in "HAL's breakdown", "Military nature of orbiting satellites"), and "Dialogue" - something that probably belongs in the plot section. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Script changes and dialogue do not belong in the plot section. If there is something to say about these particular aspects then it is better to devote appropriate sections to them. Another film which springs to mind is Don't Look Now which is also heavily dependent on its cross-cutting and visual motifs and these are all dealt with in "analysis" and "themes" sections. The plot summary should not concern itself with how the story was filmed. If the story is ambiguous then obviously the summary should be careful to not interpret it, or if there is a readily accepted non-disputed interpretation then it should be cited to a secondary source. But back to the subject at hand, I don't think "The films story line shifts at that point (via a match cut) from a closeup of the bone being thrown into the air to an orbital satellite" is as eloquent as simplying saying "Millions of years later...". I think you are conflating understanding the plot with the understanding the film. WP:PLOTSUMNOT advises the "point of a summary is not to reproduce the experience—it's to explain the story." We see the early stages of human evolution in which a neolithic man fashions a weapon, and then the story simply picks up again a few million years later in the space age. The story would be exactly the same if the scene had simply dissolved to the future, with or without the bone being thrown into the air. Obviously the match-cut has huge thematic significance in how it is composed, but I don't think describing a visual cinematic technique adds to the reader's understanding of the actual story. Betty Logan (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be some confusion here since I did not propose putting script changes and dialogue in the plot section. I don't think the reader has to understand either the plot or the film, the film just has to be described. WP:FILMPLOT specifically says "describe the events on screen as basically as possible" and we should not "make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" about who we think did what. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@ Popcornduff: WP:LEAD doesn't say that "there should be nothing discussed in the lead...that isn't in the article body too", it says "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." So yes, we could -- assuming sources identify it as highly famous -- mention a the match cut in order to prepare the reader for subsequent mentions, especially if those mentions aren't very clear about the cut itself and its significance. "Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it." I agree that doesn't have to be done in the lede, but it would be nice to do so before the reader gets to the three existing references, don't you think? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 06:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC) copy-edit 10:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I've attempted to be constructive and add information about the match cut to the Editing section, using information and references, slightly rewritten, from the match cut article. I've also added the image. The article still has structural problems so it doesn't flow super-well with the existing text, but that's a separate issue, and the existing text didn't flow that well to begin with. I'll attempt to fix that next, but it's a bigger job. Popcornduff (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course that was constructive! It makes a big difference, and I appreciate your tweak right at the top of the diff, which ensures that readers will encounter the explanation first, and then the cultural references. That's a very good thing whether or not we decide to mention the cut under Plot, and I hope that order is preserved in future versions (speaking of which, kudos on your intention to fix the larger structural problems). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 10:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for introducing match cut

Image:MatchCut.JPG A bone-club and an orbital platform: the two subjects of the iconic match cut in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

In order to introduce the reader to the iconic match cut from bone to satellite, I propose changing the start of the Plot section from this:

In an African desert millions of years ago, a tribe of man-apes face competition for a water hole from a rival tribe. They awaken to find a featureless black monolith has appeared before them. Guided in some fashion by the monolith, one man-ape realizes how to use a bone as a tool and weapon; the tribe learns to hunt for food, and kills one of their rivals, reclaiming the water hole.

Millions of years later, a Pan Am space plane carries Dr. Heywood Floyd ...

to this (changes highlighted):

In an African desert millions of years ago, a tribe of man-apes face competition for a water hole from a rival tribe. They awaken to find a featureless black monolith has appeared before them. Guided in some fashion by the monolith, one man-ape realizes how to use a bone as a tool and weapon; the tribe learns to hunt for food, and kills one of their rivals, reclaiming the water hole. Triumphant, a member of the victorious tribe throws his weapon-tool into the air as the scene shifts (via match cut) from the falling bone to an orbital satellite.

Millions of years later, In the space age, a Pan Am space plane carries Dr. Heywood Floyd ...

Rationale:

• The reader instantly understands what the match cut is/does.

IOW, the reader gets its impact "as it happens", as the plot unfolds, just as the viewer does. Which is good for such an iconic moment.

• Simplicity/efficiency. If it's introduced a later section, we'd have to recapitulate part of the plot to do so.

(Effectively: "Reader, remember that part in the plot when the cave-man threw the bone in the air? And then millions of years later, when the guy was on the moon shuttle? Well, in that transition, the bone turned into a satellite via a match cut.") struck in light of recent changes [6]

• On objections that edits or scenes don't belong in the plot summary: occasionally, they do, if it benefits the reader.

FWIW, the version of the article that reached GA status included this proposed change.[7]

• While the match cut indeed may needs more discussion (its significance, influence etc.), this proposal is only about where to introduce it.

Thanks for considering. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 07:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC) strike/edit last bullet point in light of recent changes 10:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC); also strike 2nd bullet point for same reason 14:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Additional point: As Fountains of Bryn Mawr noted above, edits and images are discussed in synopses of impressionistic, dialog-less films, e.g. Koyaanisqatsi, and 2001 lies somewhere on a continuum between such films and conventional films with dialog. (Would changing the section name from "Plot" to "Synopsis" alleviate some concerns?)
  

--Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 15:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Responses

• Oppose, for reasons given above, but to recap: 1) This is a drastic departure from what plot summaries are supposed to be for, and might actually be confusing ("Why are you suddenly telling me about editing in the plot summary?"). 2) There is no advantage to introducing the match cut here; it can be introduced - and what's more explained! - elsewhere in the article, under a relevant section (like Editing or Cinematography or something). Popcornduff (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Extra comment: I hate to labour the point, but now that this is covered in the editing section, I think mentioning it in the plot section is not only inappropriate but completely unnecessary. Popcornduff (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, obviously per my comments above. Relocating the image to the plot section would exacerbate the problem rather than resolve it IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support, plot sections specifically "describe the events on screen" and interpretations, such as what the action on the screen means and when we think things took place, do not need to be made at all. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not dead set against this sort of thing, but I think production notes should generally be restricted to making the plot easier to understand. If you're just describing scene transitions, especially to highlight them as iconic, you're better off doing so elsewhere. One compromise I've used in the past is to include footnotes, such as <ref group=notes>The scene uses a [[match cut]] to transform the bone tool into a bone-shaped satellite.</ref> or whatever you want to say. That keeps the plot summary clean while including information that may be useful. Or don't do that. I don't care so much. If you think it's a stupid idea, you don't have to ping me when saying so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: After reviewing WP:MOSFILM, it seems that, while the match cut in question may be notable, it falls into the category of "technical detail" and probably shouldn't belong in the plot summary. It could, of course, be included elsewhere in the article. –Matthew - (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Discuss !votes and comments on proposal here.

• @ Betty Logan - The proposal is only to add the indicated text, not the image. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 13:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
• @ Popcornduff - You commented that the proposal is a "drastic departure from what plot summaries are supposed to be for" -- I don't see that echoed in WP:FILMPLOT, and at any rate it's appropriate to IAR with guidelines if it helps the reader and otherwise does no harm. (I seriously doubt anyone is going to get confused and wonder "Why are you suddenly telling me about editing in the plot summary?" other than a subsample of Wikipedia editors!) :-) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 13:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe WP:PLOT rather plainly disagrees with you: "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail." A match cut is not a plot event, it is technical detail. Popcornduff (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

An iconic detail, yes, hence "common sense and the occasional exception". --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 15:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

A match cut actual is a plot event, that's how films build plots. But I don't think even that is important here. I favor description of the film over interpretation of whats going on on the screen. I see WP:PLOTSUMNOT being cited here but the next sentence is being skipped re: "If the original is non-linear or experimental in its structure, the article should state that fact in prose, not through regurgitation of the plot. For a confusing story, assume that some readers will look the story up because they didn't understand it. Just repeating what they saw isn't going to help." Mentioning the match cut where it occurs in the film plot helps a reader to understand the later analysis section and clues in a confused viewer who is looking up the film "what just happened after the monkey threw a bone in the air?.... oh.... its called a match cut.... oh.... here's more on it". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• @ NinjaRobotPirate - ping :-) for the decidedly non-stupid idea to use footnotes as a compromise. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 04:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I know being the guy who pisses on the compromise makes me even more of a dick, but... I don't see the need for a footnote either. The cut is now well-covered in the editing section. Why do we need any more?

I am frankly confused about why this one cut is deemed so worthy of special attention in the first place. Lots of things are notable and much-discussed about this film, such as the star gate sequence, the special effects, the music. These are all covered in detail in the article. There is no need to also mention them in the plot section, in a footnote or otherwise. So why are we all so fixated on this one cut? I'm baffled. Popcornduff (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

IMHO it would be a tendency towards common sense over blind adherence to what some editors think a guideline says. The job of this article is to inform the reader by describing the film, not read like a chat room full of film fans who have seen the movie. For example, reading the current version of the article, does the reader even get a clue as to where a match cut took place or what or where a "Star Gate" sequence is? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

But what common sense? In what universe is it "common sense" to single out an editing detail in a plot section? Isn't it actually "common sense" to describe editing in the Editing section? I am honestly baffled by this entire proposal. I cannot fathom what problem it is trying to solve, and why, if it is a problem, there isn't also a problem with us not mentioning everything else in the Plot section, too.

Though I don't think it's particularly important, I have now edited the existing match cut information to indicate the point at which it comes in the film; does that solve the problem? Popcornduff (talk)

I'm with Popcornduff (pls correct me if I misinterpret you!): leave it out of the plot summary, no footnote, and discuss in the editing section -- it looks fine there, we even have the still shots to highlight it further. Time to put this one to bed I think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think there are some good arguments both pro and con, which implies a compromise. A footnote respects both sides: it's likely to help some readers, but does no harm.

Why highlight this "editing detail"?

• "cinema's most famous jump-cut" [sic] (The National Society of Film Critics’ 100 Essential Films) [8]
• "the greatest shot transition in movie history" (Salon) [9]
• "one of the most famous transitions in film history" (Space.com) [10]
• etc. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
• Roger Ebert: "The opening sequence is brilliant. If it could be shown as an educational film, it would explain man's development as a tool-using animal more clearly than any number of textbooks. ... Kubrick cuts from this most simple tool, a club, to a most complex one, a space ship. The prehistoric bone is thrown up into the air and becomes a shuttle rocket on its way to a space station. Could anything be clearer? Here are both extremes of man's tool-using stage." [16]

If that's not worth highlighting, I don't know what is! :-)

Finally, remember Fountains of Bryn Mawr's point that that this film lies on a spectrum between typical plot-driven films and purely imagery-based ones such as Koyaanisqatsi and Un Chien Andalou. The latter are summarized not with "Plot" but with "Synopsis" sections (e.g. [17][18]), which routinely include descriptions of scenes and edits. Roger Ebert makes the same point, essentially saying that the film's story exists "apart from dialog and plot", [19], and that it "makes its statement almost completely in visual terms" [20] and that it's "in many respects a silent film" that "creates its effects essentially out of visuals and music." [21] Ebert's take IMO is strong enough to justify changing the section name to "Synopsis", which would moot objections about the match cut belonging there. That's worth considering, but OTOH, what's in a name? It still should be mentioned, and a footnote is OK imo, if only just. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 18:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. @ Popcornduff This doesn't imo have the same impact but certainly helps --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 18:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Cool, but 1) all that information can be covered in the editing section 2) you could dig up a bunch of equivalent sources and quotes for all kinds of notable things about this movie - it's a landmark of cinema - and you're not arguing for those to be in the plot section too. Popcornduff (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Because, per above, it should be a Synopsis section. "The bone is thrown into the air and dissolves into a space shuttle" (Ebert) [22] - that image, that flash-forward, belongs up front in any short synopsis of the film. Bold edit: change section name to "Synopsis" and change text per proposal above, but wikilinking, fwiw: "as the scene shifts from the falling bone..." [23] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 13:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Space Odyssey is not some abstract nightmare that makes plot summarising impossible; it's got a psychedelic ending and that's it. The overwhelming majority of the film adheres to pretty basic cinematic storytelling convention. There is no need to repurpose the entire thing as a synopsis just so you can get this one match cut detail in there. Popcornduff (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I've had a look around at how other websites do it, and the American Film Institute doesn't feel compelled to get into explaining match cuts in their summary of the plot: "After tentatively reaching out to touch the mysterious object, the apes become carnivores, with enough intelligence to employ bones for weapons and tools. Four million years later, in the year 2001, Dr. Heywood Floyd, an American scientist, travels to the moon to investigate a monolith that has been discovered below the lunar surface." There is nothing about the story that precipates getting into technical details about the match cut while summarising the plot. Besides, wiki-linking "shifts" to match cut violated WP:EGG; if "match-cut" is going to be linked in the plot summary then it should be transparent so readers know which article they are going to. Betty Logan (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Who said 2001 is purely abstract? It needs a synopsis section because, again, it's on a spectrum between abstract and conventional plot-driven -- but don't believe me or Fountains of Bryn Mawr, believe Roger Ebert, who says dialog and plot are secondary to the film's story, [24] and that it lacks a conventionally clear narrative. [25] From a plot standpoint, maybe the bone-to-satellite cut isn't important; from an abstract standpoint, it's key. I'm pretty sure Ebert's not alone in his characterization of the film as being largely abstract and lacking a conventional plot, and am certain he's not alone in his valuation of the match cut. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 02:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If the transition the match cut covers was some impossibly abstract transition that couldn't be explained without resorting to a technical description of the editing itself, you might have 10% of a point. But it isn't. I'm not sure why you're so fixated on this when, say, the highly abstract star gate sequence is more deserving of a technical description, by your argument. (Which, by the way, I would also disagree with...) Popcornduff (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't logically follow that only impossibly abstract material justifies a Synopsis section or a segment's inclusion therein. Where is such a thing stipulated? I'm seeing the "it needs to be impossibly abstract" straw-man argument repeated and the "spectrum" argument, with its good RS backing, ignored. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 04:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, film articles - at least for fiction films - almost always have a plot section, and the MOS is pretty clear about what the plot section should and should not include, as I think has been established now. So now your strategy is to argue that this film is so unusual that a standard plot section isn't appropriate, thereby dodging the plot section rules, right? In which case my response is that no, this film is not sufficiently unusual. I have written coherent plot summaries for far stranger films than this one. It may be on "the spectrum" of weirdness, but there very much still is a plot here. Popcornduff (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

(a) Don't accuse me of gaming the system (strategically dodging "rules") when I've offered a coherent rationale for my position. (b) I didn't say there wasn't a plot, only that there's more than just a conventional plot, and I offered a good RS. In light of that fact, your response amounts to little more than a contradiction, which (cf. Graham's hierarchy) isn't a useful form of argument. This exchange has stopped being productive, so it's time for more editorial eyes, I think. I suggest an RfC/A, and ask we first agree that its wording is neutral before publishing it. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 17:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, considering you've already made an admirably comprehensive proposal here, and had it supported by one editor and opposed by five (I'm including Ian Rose here), I'd say that a further request for editors would be flogging a dead horse. But then I would say that. If you're set on it, go ahead. Popcornduff (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

For the second section

What should we title the section of 2001 between the Dawn of Man and Jupiter Mission segments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWhistleGag (talk • contribs) 05:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Why do we have chapter titles at all? They're not useful for understanding the film plot. Popcornduff (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree they are not strictly necessary. I would support removing them. However, if they are to be retained they should reflect the internal titling system used by the film. Betty Logan (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, as I stated in a couple of edit summaries removing the second title, I don't mind if we have them or not, but if we have them they should reflect Kubrick's titles and nothing extra. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I see...I see. TheWhistleGag —Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Just saying: Wouldn't (On) Clavius Moon base be a good title for the second act? --79.242.219.119 (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The film is divided into three acts, each with a sub-title. As I stated above I don't agree they are necessary to summarise the plot, but if the plot summary is to reflect the three-act nature of the film then it should reflect the structure of the plot as it is and use the sub-titles that the film uses. It is not for Wikipedia editors to overrule the makers of the film and "insert" a fourth act. Betty Logan (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that the second section could be called TMA-1. The scene at Clavius is brief in relation to the overall action of the segment. This is used in the book though I know that isn't necessarily a reason for its use here. Just a suggestion to add to the other one mentioned. MarnetteD|Talk 18:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

My whole problem with inserting an imaginary "act" (aside from the fact the plot summary doesn't require it) is that Kubrick had this option himself but decided against it. He clearly intended the whole sequence to be interpreted as the "Dawn of Man", from encountering the first monolith up to encountering the second on the moon. We may look upon the neolithic sequence as being the "dawn of man" because we don't regard the 21st century as "primitive", but perhaps it is in terms of evolutionary epochs. I just think breaking the summary into four parts and adding an imaginary sub-title (or dragging them in from the book) perhaps contradicts the thematic interpretation of the first act. Betty Logan (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Your reasoning is sound Betty Logan. I had missed the fact that subheaders are not currently in the plot section. I agree that it is better off without them. MarnetteD|Talk 19:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:MatchCut.JPG

Resolved

File:MatchCut.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: While I appreciate you adding the rationale, it would be better if you could go into more detail in explaining how non-free use is justified as explained in WP:FUR. Perhaps even a link to the above discussion would be a good idea. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I have buffed it out a bit. I am not particularly experienced with FURs so if it's still not hitting the mark it might be better to post a request at WT:FILM. Betty Logan (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on 2001: A Space Odyssey (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130328133050/http://www.loc.gov/film/registry_titles.php to http://www.loc.gov/film/registry_titles.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061216054527/http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/critics.html to http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/critics.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110223192348/http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-moral-life-of-cubicles to http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-moral-life-of-cubicles
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/books/film/new/facts/00301.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116194825/http://www.moscowfilmfestival.ru/miff34/eng/archives/?year=1969 to http://www.moscowfilmfestival.ru/miff34/eng/archives/?year=1969
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/voter.php?forename=Roger&surname=Ebert
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125221611/http://nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=1968 to http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=1968
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130328133050/http://www.loc.gov/film/registry_titles.php to http://www.loc.gov/film/registry_titles.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061216054527/http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/critics.html to http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/critics.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110321104428/http://www.chrissheridan.com/kubrick/2001.html to http://www.chrissheridan.com/kubrick/2001.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160128231433/http://www.gamesradar.com/20-funniest-futurama-film-parodies/ to http://www.gamesradar.com/20-funniest-futurama-film-parodies/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/05mv579.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 04:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2001: A Space Odyssey (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429031145/http://events.charlotteobserver.com/reviews/show/30882-review-eagle-eye to http://events.charlotteobserver.com/reviews/show/30882-review-eagle-eye
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110425225048/http://scificolony.canaryzoo.com/Fanzine%20Comedies/fanzine%20movie%20airplane%202.htm to http://scificolony.canaryzoo.com/Fanzine%20Comedies/fanzine%20movie%20airplane%202.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110425171038/http://www.dvdverdict.com/printer/airplane2.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/printer/airplane2.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110425130710/http://www.theboxset.com/review.php?id=126 to http://www.theboxset.com/review.php?id=126

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 01:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2001: A Space Odyssey (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131030140339/http://www.underview.com/asocast.html to http://www.underview.com/asocast.html
• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090705235016/http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/books/film/new/facts/00301.htm to http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/books/film/new/facts/00301.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130619040939/http://www.thsh.co.uk/event/2001-a-space-odyssey-13/ to http://www.thsh.co.uk/event/2001-a-space-odyssey-13/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.daviddidonatello.it/english/cercavincitori3.php?idsoggetto=329&annovinci=1969
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061126071451/http://ofcs.rottentomatoes.com/pages/pr/top100scifi to http://ofcs.rottentomatoes.com/pages/pr/top100scifi
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101225182939/http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/melbrooksbluray.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/melbrooksbluray.php
• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20101007210947/http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/05mv579.htm to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/05mv579.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110107170720/http://movies.sky.com/airplane/leslie-nielsen-dies-aged-84 to http://movies.sky.com/airplane/leslie-nielsen-dies-aged-84

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 02:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

categorisation

I have added the category "Films about apes", based on the first section of the movie, but if anyone feels this is inappropriate, feel free to either remove that categorisation or argue the case here. (There should probably be a category "Films about hominids" or "films about human evolution", which would better cover cases like this.) Grutness...wha? 06:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The 1965 screenplay describes the creatures in the film as "man-apes", so I'm not sure if this entirely accurate. The storyline suggests that they are intended to be seen as early man rather than apes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Added to that the Category:Films about apes is actually for "films that are primarily about non-human Apes". Doesn't really seem consistent with what we see in the film. Betty Logan (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm beginning to think that one of the categories I mentioned in parentheses may be worth making though. Grutness...wha? 14:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Technically, humans are in the clade of apes, so are still "apes" (just as humans are also primates, mammals, and animals). So half-man-half-apes would also be "apes". Using such taxonomic definitions would tend to make the category useless, however. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Moon, Sun and Monolith alignment

Re this edit: various people have noted that the alignment of the Moon, Sun and monolith shown here could not happen in real life. If the Moon was this close to the Sun, it would be a new moon and therefore invisible, similar to what happens during a solar eclipse. The moon in the monolith shot is a crescent moon several days before or after a new moon, and a typical crescent moon is up to several hours away from the Sun.[26] Given the amount of time that Kubrick and Clarke put into making the film scientifically accurate, it's interesting that this type of alignment could never occur in real life. However, I couldn't find any reliable sources that mention this, so it has problems with article notability.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Eh. Even if we had sources, it's still trivial. It would be like complaining the skull sizes of the apes are too big. There must be hundreds of inaccuracies in the movie that are not significant to its impact. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I've read in various reviews that Kubrick wanted to show the Sun, Moon and monolith in alignment because it makes a striking shot and is key to the film's meaning. It does make a striking shot, but it could never occur in real life. Try it with an orange and a flashlight; you can't get a crescent illumination if the source of light is directly aligned with the orange.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless you can find sources showing this is notable, it seems trivial and not worth mentioning. Popcornduff (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Re this edit: sources are not infallible, and the event depicted in the film simply could not happen in real life. Although the source here uses the word "eclipse", it's misleading because it's physically impossible to have a crescent moon right next to the sun. This is science fiction, not science fact. I'm not happy about including a category which isn't clearly supported in the article. This seems to have been written by a film critic, not an astronomer or similar expert who would have spotted the inconsistency, as other people have.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, the opening scene of the film is a lunar eclipse as viewed from space.[27] The one that couldn't happen real life is the scene where the monolith on the plains of Africa has the sun and crescent moon right above it.[28] This seems to have been done to provide an ongoing visual theme for the film, but the scene in Africa isn't scientific fact and has been invented for the film using special effects.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed the link to the cat "List of films featuring eclipses". What is depicted is a conjunction, the Moon is to one side in "Dawn of Man", Earth is to one side in Moon monolith scene. We can not roll the film WP:CRYSTALBALL forward and predict it will be an eclipse - the Earth or the Moon could be on a plane cutting "north" or "south" of the Sun. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Self reverted, missed the one in the opening credits, a (somewhat fanciful) triple. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Some more sourcing: [29][30]. As they say, it's something of a hybrid of an alignment and an eclipse in the opening credits sequence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Revise list of themes

Suggest the list of themes in the first paragraph of the article be revised. Currently it is "existentialism, human evolution, technology, artificial intelligence, and extraterrestrial life". Better would be "extraterrestrial life, existentialism, and human evolution."

Argument for changes: Kubrick wanted to do a film about extraterrestrial life. Sean Hutchingson in April 2016 wrote "2001: A Space Odyssey sprang from a February 1964 lunch between director Stanley Kubrick and Roger Caras, the publicist for Kubrick’s previous film Dr. Strangelove. Kubrick told Caras that for his next movie he wanted to do a movie about extraterrestrial life, which prompted Caras to suggest he get in touch with his friend, collaborator, and science fiction author, Arthur C. Clarke. "

Technology, though present, is hardly a primary focus of the plot. Though "using tools", which is more solidly present as a theme, might be an appropriate substitution, better to not dilute the list of themes with something addressed so obliquely.

"Human evolution" is present only in the form "Extraterrestrial interference in human evolution". Evolution is not dealt with in general. If we put "extraterrestrial life" first, then "influence of ETs on human evolution" is covered.

The HAL sequence does show us lots of artificial intelligence, but overall it is hardly a minor theme, and certainly not a major concern of _2001_. Tomday (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Utah location

Re this edit: It's very unreliable sourcing if it says that the opening scenes were shot in Utah. Virtually all of the film was shot in the studio and the backgrounds in the "Dawn of Man" ape sequence are 10 X 8 inch transparencies taken in the Namib desert in Africa.[31] The only use of Utah as a location is a brief appearance of Monument Valley in the "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite" sequence at the end of the film.[32]-♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The Orion-III spaceplane

Re this edit: although the spaceplane is described as an Orion-III in various sources [33], I can't think of any scene in the film where the audience would know this without being told. The name Orion-III does appear in the 1965 screenplay.[34] It's obviously registered to Pan American World Airways, although this wouldn't have been possible in the real 2001 as the company ceased operations in 1991.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how it is relevant to the summary. If the craft were referred to at other points in the article then a more specific identification may serve a purpose, but in its current form I don't see what there is to gain from such an exact identification. Betty Logan (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that its name isn't significant, even less so since it isn't named in the movie itself. However, some mention of the year 2001 in the plot would be good, as it's in the name of the subject. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Obviously the date is in the title, but is it given at any point in the film? Is there anything in the film to indicate that the events take place in 2001, and not 1997 or 2005? We know that HAL becomes operational in 1992 so the film is obviously set on the cusp of the 21st century, but other than HAL's activation date I don't recall any specific dates. I do agree with the sentiment that a general timeframe would be beneficial to the summary though: "Millions of years later" is pretty vague. Betty Logan (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the scene on board Discovery where HAL says that he became operational in 1992 is the only one where a specific date is given for an event in the film. Per previous discussions, we don't know exactly when the Dawn of Man sequence is set; the 1965 screenplay says "3,000,000 years ago" but the film doesn't. The scenes with Dr Heywood Floyd are presumably set some time earlier than the ones on board Discovery going to Jupiter; the 1965 screenplay says "14 months later" for the Discovery scenes but again the film doesn't. As a parallel, some people have assumed that the Durango 95 car in A Clockwork Orange means that the film is set in 1995 or thereabouts, but the film doesn't say when it is set other than in some dystopian version of Britain.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Just saying: The original book A Clockwork Orange specifies that it takes place in the early 1980s. Some people have speculated from the license plate on the police car driven by Alex's former droogs Dim and Georgie that at least this part of the film takes place in 1976 or 1977. (BTW: When Georgie and Dim drag Alex out of the car with them, Georgie has a police ID number of 665 on his uniform and Dim has one of 667, which would render Alex walking between them as 666, identifying him as the Beast.) --2003:71:4E07:BB74:B9E2:5C93:5DD6:6F14 (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Kubrick was careful to not fall into the "flying cars in 2015" trap. The Cassini mission was still using 1990s hardware and software up to its demise this year, so I guess 2001 fits into a similar fuzzy timeframe. I think it is helpful for uninitiated readers to know that the film's events are essentially a generational extension of the 60s space age, because there is a technological gulf between the speculative space travel of the late 20th/early 21st century and the space travel of the Star Trek era, but the title probably gets the message through anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I thought the year was mentioned in the film -- false memory, I guess. Delete any mention of specific year, per SYNTH. Perhaps "modern" or such other vague 21st century-ish mention, but even that gets a little tricky for a film made deep in the 20th. And that would need some kind of source, or also fall into SYNTH. Otherwise, we'll have to fall back on just emphasizing "modern humans in space" being depicted. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 14:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There's another year besides HAL's date of initial operation mentioned in the film, and it's the year 1999, which was when TMA-1 was found on the moon. That year is given in Heywood Floyd's pre-recorded message that begins playing just after Dave has de-activated HAL, and it's definitely mentioned up-front as the date of the find in the book. 1999 plus "18 months later" gives us 2001 as the year when the scenes on the Discovery take place. --2003:71:4E07:BB74:B9E2:5C93:5DD6:6F14 (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Article split

Gnereally I welcome the split carried out by JohnWickTwo which resulted in moving the popular culture stuff to its own dedicated article. I have made one or two alterations though, and I hope you don't interpret my edits as interference. They broadly break down into two edits: I have moved the "awards" stuff to the "reception" section. I think it works better here because the awards were part of the overall contemporary reception. The second change I made was to rename the "Influence" section to "Legacy". I don't regard the "best film" lists and sequels as part of the film's "influence", they are part of the film's legacy, and the influence is only a part of that so I have taken the liberty of renaming the reception. I was originally going to break it down into different sections but I think a substantial "Legacy" section works better. If anyone disagrees with me or is unhappy with the alterations by all means feel free to raise any issues here.

On a sidenote, if editors move images and files from one article to another can they please make sure they correct the fair use rationales at the file description pages. I have corrected the FURs at File:2001interview.png and File:2001 A Space Odyssey (1968) theatrical poster variant.jpg so these are sorted now, but ideally it should be done at the same time they are copied. Betty Logan (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sculpture in Qatar

This is on CNN today, and shows a sculpture in Qatar by Richard Serra. The text of the CNN article doesn't say that they are deliberately meant to look like the 2001 monoliths, but does mention them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Since your CNN article does mention 2001, it might be placed in the new article for 2001: A Space Odyssey in popular culture if you can figure out a good place for it in that article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is another source with a clear 2001 reference. The 2001 monoliths have a proportion of 1, 4, 9 in the depth, width and height, corresponding to the squares of the numbers 1, 2 and 3.[35] The Quatar sculptures look somewhat taller and thinner than this. Should be worth a mention at 2001: A Space Odyssey in popular culture.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If sources quote the sculptor stating he created it as a homage to 2001 it may be an IPC addition. But writers mentioning in passing that it looks kinda like 2001 seems to make this mere mention/trivia - falling below encyclopedic content per WP:IPCEXAMPLES. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The sculptor may not care to say in public "Yeah, I ripped off this idea from 2001." However, it's unsurprising that people have spotted the similarity.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments on the article

Per JohnWick's suggestions about getting this to FA, I went through the article and have some suggestions and thoughts:

• The breakup of production into filming/post production and then design/effects seems a bit weird to me. On the articles I've written, even ones of comparable length to this, have followed a more sequential form, and I think given how the article discusses certain topics that's a better idea here.
• There's some reconciliation I believe needs to be done on the remaining fair use media in the article (for example there's a still of the star gate sequence and then a video clip, so that's duplicative.)
• In general, I think the article scope and length is mostly fine, but there are areas I think could use trims, specifically in the writing section (paragraph digressions into Hal's motivations that don't make it into the film seem unnecessary, for instance) and I think the article would be better served by focusing each section—there's post-production and effects details in the cinematography section, thematic critiques scattered throughout, and editing information in both the post section and the premiere section. If there's an interpretation sub article, than the critical analysis section can be substantially shorter as well.

More importantly, if this is going to get to FA we need to verify a lot of these citations to dead tree sources. There's a bunch of unreferenced stuff that I'll go ahead and tag later on this week. I haven't done a mop-up on scholarly and production books and articles on the film, so I'll check with my libraries and see if there seems like any good sources that might be missing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

User:David brings up some useful points at the time of the 50 year anniversary for this film taking place in 2018. If I number his 3 main points as a, b, and c then the following seems to make sense:

(a) Another useful example to help decide on the best approach for the 50th anniversary upgrade effort for 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968-2018) would be the sci fi FA article for Prometheus (film) which does a peer reviewed version of dividing the Production section and the Design section. Which version is best for 2001 may be up to comments from editors who wish to participate in the upgrade effort here.

(b) The sequential "Star Gate" images David mention above I have trimmed now to include only the video clip version.

(c) Further trims to the article are possible and can be useful. The reference section, I agree with David above, has gone through some over-edits since the last GA peer review and deserves to be examined more closely for updating dead links, etc. The short useful book I have found recently is the short BFI monograph about this film by Kramer. All comments and edits for improvements are good for mop-up and added notes can be added here in this section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Guardian article

There is a piece in The Guardian today about the making of 2001.[36] Possibly some useful material for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick 'risked stuntman's life' making 2001: A Space Oydssey

This has been receiving a good deal of media coverage, eg here. The book is Space Odyssey: Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, and the Making of a Masterpiece. May be worth adding to the article. We are now at the 50th anniversary of the film's release.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)