Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Accuracy of first paragraph

I have to question the accuracy of the brief first paragraph of the article, as it currently stands.

I've read about the relationship between Clarke and Kubrick. They didn't get along for multiple reasons. Also Clarke's brilliant short story "The Sentinel" was only reflected in one brief scene of the film — although it clearly inspired the film. The book that Clarke wrote afterwards was really not very like the film at all.

Basically where I question the first paragraph of the article is: I doubt that Clarke worked much on the screenplay -- I don't think Kubrick would let him, and Clarke seems to have disliked the film in general, regarding it as what we might call "woo woo", a lot of spiritualistic atmosphere with little substance. (I liked the film myself, I'm just suggesting that Clarke had little to do with it, despite being hired as a consultant by Kubrick, so I think the Wikipedia article is kind of wrong.)

Also I doubt that Clarke wrote the novel "concurrently" with the film. Its tone and detail are completely different. My guess is that Kubrick had to let him write it aftewards, because of their contract, but that it's really a novelization of how Kubrick thought the film ought to have been, not really parallel to how it was.

I loved all three stages -- the short story, the film, and the novel -- but I'm suggesting that the relationship between them, like the relationship between Clarke and Kubrick, was much more tenuous than this article suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.189.158 (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

First all of the items that you mention are sourced later in the article. Your points seem to be inaccurate. From the books I've read (and there are several) Clarke and Kubrick got along just fine. There was some resentment on Clarke's part in later years but not at the time. Next, the book was written while the film was being made with many of the differences coming down to Kubrick finding that the F/X available at the time not being able to match what Clarke was writing. The best example is that SK had to change the planet that the Discovery was travelling to from Saturn to Jupiter because he couldn't find a way to satisfactorily visualise Saturn's rings. Two books that will help clear up your misconceptions are The Lost Worlds of 2001 and Space Odyssey: Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, and the Making of a Masterpiece. MarnetteD|Talk 01:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, there is little evidence in the sources that Kubrick and Clarke had a poor relationship, and it seems that they got along reasonably well.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

There is much documentation created in the last 50 years about the making of Kubrick's movie (e.g. Agel's The Making of Kubrick's 2001, Benson's Space Odyssey, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.), about the writing of Clarke's book, about the relationship of the two men, about the relationship of the two works. The "I doubt this" and "I doubt that" are often personally fascinating and personally relevant but irrelevant to a public encyclopedia when facts are available.

The old canard "with many of the differences coming down to Kubrick finding that the F/X available at the time not being able to match what Clarke was writing," which typically goes along with the similar statements that the movie and book differ because Kubrick didn't have enough money, or Kubrick didn't have enough time, are, as usual, rarely true (as with the Saturn rings) and mostly false as many facts demonstrate.

For example, we all read in the book Floyd travels in a space plane whose passenger area has 20 seats. ("'Takeoff's in five minutes,' she said, gesturing into the empty twenty-passenger cabin" chapter 7 "Special Flight.") We all see about 22 minutes into the movie 9 rows of 4 seats each, or 36 seats total.

The statement about "the F/X available at the time not being able to match what Clarke was writing" becomes evidence the one who makes such a statement does not know either work well.

The statement reveals its own absurdity for one would have to conclude filming seats is a special effect.

The statement also implies, whether or not filming seats is a special effect, that filming 20 seats is more difficult and requires more time and requires more money than filming 36.

The statement also implies Kubrick was even attempting to film Clarke's words to begin with and I see no reason to conclude that and many reasons to conclude the opposite.

To me the statement is false and worthless. From facts, I conclude Kubrick is not simplifying Clarke's words or ideas but more or less often ignoring them and filming the same rough plot (which the two men created together) in his own way. To me the statement fails in multiple ways when applied to that one example and fails more generally in hundreds if not thousands of other instances. (Shall I import the list of all the ones I know of? In the same scene in the movie, a stewardess captures a floating pen. There is no such moment in Clarke's book. Are we to conclude it took too much money, too much time, and too much effort to film what is not in Clarke's book? Etc.) Let us lay the statement to rest. Please.ConfusedButNotDazed (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

So what is your point? All of your statements are WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. My statements are from the books listed. It is a fact that the book and the film were being developed at the same time. Feel free to start a WP:RFC if you feel the need. Otherwise please be aware that WP:NOTASOAPBOX applies to article talk pages as well. MarnetteD|Talk 19:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes indeed I cited my interpretation and opinion. So have you. I followed your lead. But I cited facts which repudiate your interpretation. WP:NOTASOAPBOX applies to you as well. So, let's agree to stop posting interpretations. "[w]ith many of the differences coming down to Kubrick finding that the F/X available at the time not being able to match what Clarke was writing" is your opinion and facts repudiate it. Let's stick to facts, OK? Thanks. ConfusedButNotDazed (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

My statements are from secondary sources including the books mentioned earlier and are not interpretations so - no - you did not follow my lead. By the way you may want to read up on WP:SPA as well. MarnetteD|Talk 21:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The lead accurately summarizes the sourced content in the article IMO. If there is a problem in the description of the authorship or the nature of Clarke's and Kubrick's relationship then ConfusedButNotDazed should propose fixes for the body along with appropriate sources, as opposed to editorial speculation. Betty Logan (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Fact: in Clarke's book Floyd sits in a window seat. Fact: in Kubrick's movie Floyd sits in an aisle seat. Fact: in Clarke's book Floyd sits in the front row of the passenger section. Fact: in Kubrick's movie Floyd sits in the fifth of nine rows. You may think of these facts anyway you please--you may even think "many of the differences [between the book and movie] coming down to Kubrick finding that the F/X available at the time not being able to match what Clarke was writing." Cited opinion cannot be the foundation of the article as the article is about a movie and not opinion about the movie. To ignore facts, which must be the foundation of the article, and which are plainly inconsistent with specific and accurately cited opinion, seems counter productive. You see, I have accurately cited facts. No one disputes that.

That any editor accurately quotes a sourced opinion is beside the point. We should not be citing opinions in the article. Opinions may or may not be of value; but facts? There are many opinions we might choose to cite among the many available; but the only one an editor cites is necessarily one he agrees with. (By contrast, one neither agrees nor disagrees with facts.) He sneaks in his opinion through the back door. I fully understand this is accepted practice on wikipedia. But it is still counter productive to the goal of the article. As an editor's opinion is always the force behind the selection of any cited source (and his tacit rejection of opinions he chooses to not cite), "editorial speculation" is also beside the point. All citation of sources is speculative and biased. I do not understand why you pretend otherwise. There are many sources in books, journals, and magazines which I could have cited to bolster my position but then I would be doing what you do: I would be pretending an opinion I cite is somehow correct, more important than the facts I also cite, and simply because it is not my opinion, even as it clearly would be--as after all, I choose to cite it and not cite others I disagree with. I offered my opinion directly because it is my opinion and I did not wish to trick anyone. Unlike others, I did not hide behind the opinion of others and pretend--falsely--that it was a neutral opinion neutrally arrived at and thus appropriate. Apparently many of you have missed the purpose of "Let us lay the statement to rest. Please." It was that which was the substance of my comment. I made no attempt to edit the article. I thought calm and reasoned discussion on this talk page about the relationship of shared objective facts to an accurately quoted biased opinion inconsistent with those facts would suffice. You criticize the form of my comment but not its content. None of you argue the accurately quoted statement is correct and consistent with facts. You support it yet you do not support it. You argue merely that it is accurately quoted. (Accurately quoted mistakes are of value but not facts?) Not one of you seems interested in facts. To me this is one reason the article is a mess. It is also a reason I choose to not contribute to the article and seldom even comment on this talk page. You seem unaware you focus upon the wrong thing. ConfusedButNotDazed (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Fact: The seating arrangements and Floyd's place in them does not constitute a significant difference between film and book.

Fact: Statements from witnesses and experts can constitute legitimate evidence.

If you can find a reason as to why a seating arrangement of 20 or 36 seats is significant to the narrative of either the book or film, feel free to. You claim there is a sea of contradicting statements as to the relationship between Kubrick and Clarke, but even ignoring the fact that not all persons or their statement have equal reputability, you have failed to provide any of these "many opinions we might choose to cite". Hiding behind some sort of bizarre, virtue-signalling unwillingness to provide evidence of a supposed mountain of contradictory beliefs. If you have reason to believe that a single opinion that does not reflect the general expert consensus has cherry-picked to create a misleading article, then you have an obligation to use the legitimate sources at your disposal to reveal the truth. This hiding behind a lack of objectivity and a veneer of staying neutral is all addressed in (NPOV). 2600:1702:5B0:1520:4D8D:B1A9:F6B4:9369 (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

National Society of Film Critics Ranking

Currently the page reads : "In January 2002, the film was voted no. 1 on the list of the "Top 100 Essential Films of All Time" by the National Society of Film Critics.[217][218]"

However, both of the citations show this movie as the first film on an alphabetical list. I do not believe that this film was voted number one, it is just the first alphabetically on an unranked list of the top 100 films of all time. 2600:1700:830:99C0:C5FA:3DC0:63BD:4CAC (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The list is here and I think you're right about this, as it says "(alphabetical, unranked)". The list does not state or imply that 2001 is #1, it is simply a list of 100 films.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Google search

Could someone explain why the release date is noted as February 5. 2010 in the google search result (what is displayed for the Wikipedia article before one clicks on the link) ? Louister41 (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I can't see this, maybe you could give a screenshot. Anyway, Wikipedia cannot control what external websites do, and as long as it says 2 April 1968 here, that is what matters.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the reply, it only shows up on Yahoo! So maybe that’s the issue. Louister41 (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I cant seem to attach the image, but I doubt it matters. Louister41 (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe just cut and paste the link? There is nothing we can do about a third party site, but it could be a wikidata issue of some kind. Betty Logan (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You don't live in Canada by any chance, do you? Betty Logan (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is a shot in the dark guess - the sequel film 2010: The Year We Make Contact and book 2010: Odyssey Two are set in 2010. I don't know if either give an exact date for the mission but it might be worth checking. I know it is unlikely to be the answer to this question but I'm mentioning it anyway. MarnetteD|Talk 03:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Obelisk signal from moon

The film doesn't show sunlight or any alignment of sun/earth/moon or any other trigger for the signal. I edited article but someone reversed the edit. Timmytimtimmy (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Re this edit: In the 1965 screenplay of 2001, the scene originally had dialogue:

SIMPSON: The first surface was exposed at 0843 on the 12th April... Let me see... that would have been forty-five minutes after Lunar sun-set. I see here that special lighting equipment had to be brought up before any further work could be done.
FLOYD: And so this is the first sun that it's had in four million years.

By the time that the film was released, the scene had no words spoken at all, which is in line with the sparse use of dialogue in the finished film. It is to a certain extent left to the imagination of the audience, but it appears to be the sun falling on the monolith (a bit like a sunrise at Stonehenge) that sets off the radio signal. In a 1969 interview, Kubrick said "Then you have a second artifact buried deep on the lunar surface and programmed to signal word of man's first baby steps into the universe -- a kind of cosmic burglar alarm." The monolith on the Moon knows when it has been dug up, and signals this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• In Chapter 13 of Clarke's novel based on the film, it says "So it's nothing wrong with my gear, Floyd told himself; everyone heard those piercing electronic screams. After three million years of darkness, TMA-1 had greeted the lunar dawn." The book isn't an exact guide to the film and there is a discrepancy here, because the book says three million years and the film says four million years. However, the novel does suggest that the radio signal of the monolith is triggered by the lunar sunrise.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Worth remembering also that because the Moon has no atmosphere, sunrise is very abrupt, unlike on Earth where the atmosphere and scattering of light menas that there is light at any one point before sunrise. Sbishop (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts: a) the novel doesn't matter; this article is about the film and per WP:FILMPLOT we describe the contents of the film without interpretation. b) Kubrick's quote says nothing about the sun, he just says that the monolith "knows". Another valid interpretation is that five humans moving so close to the monolith at once triggered it somehow. c) the frame given above shows the sun already directly over the monolith; if the monolith were triggered by the sun it would have been triggered long before that. There isn't enough direct evidence to claim that the sun had anything to do with it, at least not in the plot section. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Orange Suede Sofa. Whats depicted in the film has nothing to do with the book or the shooting script or even common sense (i.e. they are not at Tycho crater but at the Moons north or south pole - gibbous Earth sitting upright on horizon - and near its equator and 12 days back in time with Sun and a crescent Earth right over head in later shot).

Astronomy fun fact: Earth / Moon have opposite phases, so the art director and the people lighting the Moon landscape model got clear instructions --->its all consistent with crescent Moon, low angle light, just at sunrise with the sunlight about to hit the monolith -- but that seems to have gone to crap with fancy editing.

After all the editing the only thing depicted that seems to "trigger" the monolith is a Moon/Sun conjunction in the Dawn Of Time segment and an Earth/Sun conjunction in the lunar pit scene. We gotta go with whats in the film alone. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The key purpose of the monolith scene on the Moon is to parallel its appearance to the apes earlier on in the film.[1] I removed the part about sunlight triggering the radio signal, because this isn't clearly stated or implied by the finished version of the film. The astronomy purists will say that you can't have a crescent Moon or Earth right next to the Sun, so this is an area of the film where there is science fiction rather than science fact.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually astronomy purists would say you can't have a 12 day old Earth sitting on the horizon in one scene and a 1 day old Earth over head in the next, those scientists were already trippin in time and space. ; ) Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, when the astronauts are walking down the ramp to the monolith, the Earth appears to be around 10 days old [2], but it is only a thin crescent after the radio signal is triggered. But we know that the monolith has special powers, and maybe it bends space and time (or something like that).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Length of film: include overture and whatnot?

I missed the discussion above and will continue there. —OSS

I've reverted this good faith edit which changed the film running time to include the overture and intermission. The main issue is that the statement is now cited to a source which doesn't support it. Having said that, I do think that including the additional material is appropriate. I know this is just an anecdote, but this material has been included every time I have seen the film since the VHS days, including recently both at the Seattle Cinerama and on streaming services. So I believe a discussion is warranted; a quick search of the archives didn't immediately reveal any prior consensus but maybe I missed something. I'm sure an equivalently reliable source for the longer time can be found if there's no objection. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC) The best solution would be for the article to point out that the run time is 143 minutes without the overture, intermission and exit music included, and 149 minutes when they are included. I couldn't find any good quality source stating this clearly, the challenge is to find one.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC) I'm happy to take a look tomorrow and see what the reliable sources say. As a side note, it feels to me like a lot of films from this period would encounter the same issue; for example, Lawrence of Arabia (which I've also seen in 70mm at the Cinerama; please forgive my nerdiness) has the same structure. Yet this structure is not directly addressed in the article itself, but in tertiary topics like Superbit, where the intermission comes up as a technical matter. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC) As per my comment in the "Length of film" section above, I don't agree with including the music sections in the running time of the film. The music wasn't included in most of the wide release 35mm prints. Barry Wom (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Facepalm I can't believe I missed that discussion immediately above; I searched the archives but didn't even think to look right here. I am going to collapse this section and continue above. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Length of film

Re this edit: The Blu-ray/4K versions of the film are 148 minutes and 51 seconds long. This includes two sequences where there is music heard but no action seen on the screen. The first one is before the main title sequence at the start of the film, and the second one is labelled "INTERMISSION" after Dave and Frank have been discussing disconnecting HAL in the pod, not knowing that HAL is lip reading them. Some versions of the film have excluded these musical intermissions, but when they are included, the running time is around 149 minutes. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Very possibly. But you need to find a published and reliable source for this (maybe the website of a supplier of the blu-ray) to replace the current cited source, which specifies 143 minutes. Owning a different length version yourself isn't enough in WP terms. I could change the stated length of many films based on my own DVDs, but shouldn't.Sbishop (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The first time that I saw these two musical intermissions was on the Blu-ray/4K versions. It was quite a surprise, because they seem to have been omitted in most previous versions. We know that Kubrick wanted to make the film shorter after the US premiere, and this has removed six minutes at a stroke. The pre-main title musical intermission is around four minutes long, and the post lip reading intermission around two minutes. This is why the Blu-ray/4K versions are six minutes longer. The interesting thing is how these intermissions came to be restored, and whether Kubrick would have approved of doing it; he died in 1999 and was very keen on the idea of his films not being edited without his direct personal consent. The next task is to look for some sourcing that mentions this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Hiya ianmacm, In the box set for How the West Was Won it is mentioned (either in the commentary for the film or one if the "making of" documentaries - sorry I can't remember which) that, for Cinerama film, the intro - intermission and end music had to be a certain length to allow for how slowly the curtains had to be opened and closed in Cinerama theaters. Cinerama screens were a bit complex compared to regular screens and yes it took a couple minutes at least. I do remember these longer music sections happening at the Cooper Cinerama here in Denver. Other films that had longer music at the breaks include Grand Prix, Ice Station Zebra and (one of the last ones I can remember this happening in) Paint Your Wagon. Some subsequent theatrical showings of 2001 that I saw included these music sequences while others did not. I haven't seen the 4k but my bluray does include them. The books I've read about the making of the film (including this one) discuss the edits SK made after the initial showing but none of them mention any trimming to these music only sections. In spite of all this you could be right and I could have missed some details (missing details is my middle name after all) I am only writing all of this in case it might be of help in your efforts to uncover information about this. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 20:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMRUNTIME, "Use a reliable secondary source, such as the BBFC classification site", which I did. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I've been looking into this, and the two pieces of music are known as the overture and the intermission. Various sources mention them, and it appears that some cinema screenings may have included them and some may not. The 143 minute run time is based on the assumption that the overture and intermission are not included. They are somewhat redundant in a home video version, but the Blu-ray/4K version has included them anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

That was a not uncommon feature of long films at the time (cf Doctor Zhivago); they are part of the director's overall artistic intention and I myself see no reason not to include them in the overall length, provided you can find a proper source to cite.Sbishop (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with the director's artistic intention. Overture, entr'acte and exit music were a standard feature of roadshow presentations at the time. Every 70mm print of the film has had this music attached, but many 35mm prints produced later for general release did not. It's just music playing with no associated images and shouldn't be considered part of the runtime. Barry Wom (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak for other films, nor do I need to, but for this film the extended music is absolutely part of the director's artistic intention. Kubrick selected the music quite carefully, as documented by the multiple works written solely about the music of 2001. I have in my hand a journal article which treats this music as an integral part of the complete film; for those that don't have JSTOR, one relevant quote is:

Recurring at two of the most dramatically uncertain moments of the film— as the music for the Entr'acte and in the second half of the star-chamber scene, [Ligeti's Atmosphères] comes to serve as the narrative's question mark.

Whether or not this music was some stylistic or technical practice of the day is also not relevant; directors have to adhere to these kinds of practices all the time, like having to create a visual composition that meets the 2.2:1 aspect ratio. Along those same lines, it doesn't matter if 35mm versions didn't have the music; this is originally a 70mm film and films get modified all the time for formatting reasons, much like how we don't say that the film has a 4:3 aspect ratio just because that's how it was on VHS. And as mentioned several times, it's hard not to find a printing these days without the music, so that's how we should treat it. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The original roadshow version with added music played in fewer than 100 cinemas worldwide before the general release, which commenced only a few months after the premiere. Many (most?) people would only have seen the shorter version.

Anyway, there's no reason why we can't list both running times. The issue is that the running time of "approximately 143 minutes", sourced from the BBFC site, appears to be incorrect no matter which version is being referred to. The BBFC doesn't supply a runtime for the 1968 release, but it does include a runtime of 149 minutes for the 2001 (year) re-release, which would tally with another source I found which states 149 minutes as the runtime of the roadshow version and 139 minutes for the general release version. I've updated the article to reflect this. Barry Wom (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The BBFC source does state 143, so what are you talking about? Also reach a consensus first. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The BBFC source also states 149 minutes (under the "Cinema" section) for the 2001 roadshow re-release, which tallies with the second source I've supplied. Barry Wom (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

That would be fine if this article was about the 2001 re-release. Since it isn't, it's irrelevant. Also, a parenthetical aside from Michael Coate cannot hold as much weight as the BBFC. I repeat, do not act unilaterally. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The 2001 re-release was exactly the same as the 1968 roadshow version, so in what way is the runtime for the re-release irrelevant?

There are five different runtimes listed on the BBFC site. The only one matching the "approx. 143m" in the sidebar is a DVD release from 2001. It's highly likely that this refers to the 149m roadshow version with 4% PAL speedup. Barry Wom (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I see the latest reversion has been made without any attempt to discuss the points I've made above.

Edit summary is unclear what Michael Coate credentials are, certainly not stronger than the BBFC.

Firstly, Coate is a an expert on film history who currently has his own section on The Digital Bits and who has in the past contributed to several noteworthy publications such as Sight and Sound and American Cinematographer. In particular, he has published many articles on the roadshow presentations of the 1950s and 1960s.

Secondly, to repeat, the runtime of 143 minutes noted at the BBFC site refers to a DVD version. This would indicate 4% PAL speedup of the 149m roadshow version (149m x 4% = ~6m) Similarly, the other DVD runtimes listed of 133m-136m would refer to the 139m general release version minus the speedup. The only runtime listed at the BBFC for the cinema version is given as 149m. Barry Wom (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

If there is disagreement on the running time, some or all of them should be presented, not just the ones you prefer. The AFI entry lists no less than four ... none of which match your numbers. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The ones I "prefer"?! This isn't a matter of opinion. And you're not addressing the points I've made.

There's no reason we can't trust the BBFC site; in fact, it's the only suggested reliable source for runtimes at WP:FILMRUNTIME.

However, the guidelines there specifically mention the following: be careful to source the correct time, which are all listed at the entry page for the film under "Cinema". In this case, the only figure given at the BBFC for the cinema runtime is 149m40s. As I've explained, the BBFC "headline" figure of approximately 143m refers to a UK DVD release under the "Home Entertainment" section and is irrelevant.

If you somehow believe that the 143 minutes mentioned refers to the cinema version, you're going to have to provide evidence to back up that assertion. Barry Wom (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I have nominated 2001: A Space Odyssey for deletion, so that this article can be moved there. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

As one of the greatest advocates of using BBFC running times in articles (especially for pre-digital films because they would measure the physical length of the film) I don't believe the BBFC is an appropriate source here. The BBFC page does not have a run-time for the original theatrical version on its entry, and it is not clear what the "approx running time" relates to. See the BBFC entry for Lawrence of Arabia for example, where the "approx running time" does not appear to relate to either theatrical version it has listed. Betty Logan (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for alternative sources that would be acceptable? There's no shortage of cinema or streaming listings giving the correct runtime of 149m ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) but these aren't usable under the guidelines.

As for Lawrence of Arabia, it looks like exactly the same problem. In the sidebar they've used the 210m runtime of the first listed Home Entertainment release from 1996. Barry Wom (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

ETA: The BBFC page does not have a run-time for the original theatrical version on its entry. Unlike Lawrence, every re-release of 2001 has been of identical length, so I see no reason we can't use the cinema runtime which is listed. (In fact, I'm not entirely sure why the film had to be resubmitted for classification in the first place). Barry Wom (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The BFI obtained a 35mm copy of the film in 2008. The catalog entry for 2001 can be viewed here: https://collections-search.bfi.org.uk/web/Details/ChoiceFilmItems/153845017. You will note that the length of the physical film is measured at 13386ft. Given that the standard for 35mm film is 16 frames per 1ft, and plays at 24 frames per second, that comes out to 13386 x 16 / 24 = 8,924 seconds, which is equivalent to 148.7 minutes. On the basis of that the sources saying 149 minutes would appear to be correct, but this is almost certainly the print from the release in 2001. The question then, is this the same version as the 35mm release in 1968? It appears there may have been three versions at one point: the original roadshow version, the re-released roadshow version that Kubrick cut down (both of which would have included the overture and intermission score) and the 35mm general release. Given the debate over whether the roadshow musical elements should be included or not, a reasonable solution would be to follow the approach at Gone with the Wind (film). The MOS advises only a single runtime in the infobox, but roadshows do complicate the issue to such an extent that I believe the rules should be relaxed in such cases. If we can agree on a compromise we can then focus on acquiring appropriate sources. Betty Logan (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

If we're going to distinguish between 70mm and 35mm prints then to clarify, strictly speaking there were four versions.

(1) The original 70mm release in a handful of cinemas, which was cut by Kubrick a few days after release. Irrelevant to the discussion as the trims had been made before the film opened in the UK.

(2) The recut 70mm release, including overture, entr'acte and exit music. All 70mm prints struck since have been identical.

(3) The roadshow 35mm version, identical in content and length to (2).

(4) The general release 35mm version, sans overture, entr'acte and exit music.

The version in the BFI collection is (3), as indicated by the notes against "Quality report".

I agree the solution is to provide the runtimes of both the roadshow and the general release version, which is what I attempted to do a couple of days back. The original notes from the studio to projectionists [9] indicate 3 minutes of overture, 2.5 minutes entr'acte and 4.5 minutes exit music for a total of ten minutes.

That gives us runtimes of 139m for the general release and 149m for the roadshow. Barry Wom (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This approach would address my concerns; thanks! (And what an interesting discussion as well; the projectionist notes are delightful film nerd reading.) Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I contacted the BBFC regarding the "approximate runtime" figure in the sidebar. Incredibly, what they do is to calculate an average runtime by adding up the runtimes of every release which has been classified, including the PAL video versions which run 4% faster. So the 143 minute runtime listed is clearly a useless figure. Barry Wom (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to discount the 143 minute figure on the basis of what we learned from the BBFC. However, if the shorter time is going to be included as well then it still should be sourced, rather than deduced from subtracting the running time of the musical elements, due to potential round errors. If we are going to use the running time from the reissue in 2001 as a proxy for the roadshows release (post-cut) then we will probably need a note to make that clear. Betty Logan (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair points, although finding a source for the runtime of the general release version might be a tad difficult. I propose we only include the roadshow length for now, with notes regarding use of the re-release runtime and providing an approximate runtime for the extra music.

I've inadvertently thrown a spanner in the works by also asking the BBFC if they could insert the runtime of the original release, which they said they'd look into.

Well they've looked into it, and have now inserted a completely inaccurate figure of 132m52s. Barry Wom (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I found a New York Times review of the NTSC VHS release that shows 139m. Given all the detail going on here, I'll leave it to your judgement if that's good enough for not. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly good enough for me, but I'm not sure a review of a video release is good enough for our stickler overlords. Barry Wom (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The real issue here is that the overture, intermission and exit music were required for the original 70 mm screenings but were not required at other times. Some of the home video versions have included them even though they did not need to.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

You're mis-applying this entire concept of required within the context of the entire history of the film. As I've said above, there is reliable critical analysis that shows that music can be considered an integral part of the original artistic vision and you're stuck on this archaic idea of human projectionists being required to do anything. Hint: when HBO streams this film, nobody is requiring them to include the music; they're doing it because it's part and parcel of the film. There are no curtains that take minutes to open when you stream through the internet. So if it's just a legacy stopgap from mechanical theatres from the 1960s, what is it doing on my entirely digital experience in 2023 if it wasn't meant to be there in the first place? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

True, although the guidelines do say "for films that have had a theatrical release insert the runtime of the original theatrical version". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry Wom (talk • contribs)

Ok, just to ensure that this doesn't drop on the floor, I've adjusted the runtimes according to what I believe is the consensus here. I used the Gone with the Wind (film) format suggested by Betty Logan and sourced both. Now at least we can refine it further as needed. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

And now the entire thing has been reverted because I retained a previously sourced number for runtime that was there before my edit; no thought was apparently given to making a targeted correction. I hope everyone is enjoying themselves; I did what I could. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt! I lost the will to continue with the discussion when the BBFC inserted yet another incorrect running time (after I asked them to fix it too, dammit). Barry Wom (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I reverted this edit because it used the BBFC cite to say that the film is 143 minutes with the overture, intermission and exit music, which clearly isn't correct. The run time is 149 minutes when they are included.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Problem is, the incorrect runtime of 143 minutes is still being used. I don't think there's any question that the runtime is 139 minutes plus 10 minutes of music (and I do believe both runtimes should be listed), but clearly the BBFC is unreliable in this instance. And I don't really know where to find sources which could be considered reliable according to the guidelines. Barry Wom (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The length of the film on the Blu-ray/4K version is 2:28:51, which is at the correct speed of 24 frames per second, and it includes the additional parts. The Overture is three minutes long, the Intermission is 2:45, and the Exit Music (which is "The Blue Danube" and continues after the caption THE END) is 4:25. This means that the additional parts are around ten minutes long. The BBFC run time of 143 minutes is wrong and should not be used as a source, because it is incorrect for both versions; the runtime is around 149 minutes with all of the additional parts, and around 139 minutes without them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)