# Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey

I've spent the afternoon trying to nail down the veracity of the challenged sentences under the 'Influence' section "Kubrick did not envision a sequel. Fearing the later exploitation and recycling of his material in other productions (as was done with the props from MGM's Forbidden Planet), he ordered all sets, props, miniatures, production blueprints, and prints of unused scenes destroyed.". 
Wasted most of my time doing date-restricted searches for corroboration, as the statement tends to appear in similar wording in numerous media from after 2006 - which is when user Jason Palpatine (no longer active here so not pinging) added it, without a cite, but with the edit summary "K ordered the stuff destroyed (Starlog coverage about making of 2010)" (edit found here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2001:_A_Space_Odyssey&direction=next&oldid=53420315). That suggested later media isn't reliable for sourcing, as they were likely just regurgitating what's found here on WP.
'Starlog' was a sci-fi magazine that had an article about the documentary film of the making of 2010, and which does make the claim, but specific to the Discovery ship only (http://2010odysseyarchive.blogspot.com/2015/ originally published in 1984).
Further searching unearthed an excerpt on YouTube from the documentary in question, where Peter Stetson, Model Shop Supervisor on '2010' says the same beginning here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHpCeBQ5Xug&t=189s - and also seems to be referring only to the Discovery models, plans, etc., though his wording does leave some ambiguity. The fact that other paraphernalia from the film has surfaced from time to time at auction suggests that he was speaking specifically of the 'Discovery'.
Use of Youtube as a source is generally discouraged, but since it's an excerpt directly from the 'making of' documentary, I believe that's acceptable. I'm only going to add the cite, not modifying the current wording - I'd appreciate some feedback on interpreting Mr. Stetson's statements from the documentary before changing it (if needed).
Yep, fell down the rabbit hole here... cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It's often said that all of the models were destroyed. The Discovery probably was, but in March 2015 an Aries 1B Trans-Lunar Space Shuttle used in the film fetched US $344,000 at auction.[1] Also, in 1974, a model of Space Station V was found at a local council dump near the former MGM British studio in Hertfordshire. It was damaged but seems to be genuine.[2]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
There is an image of the Aries that was auctioned here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
There have been claims that this all came down to a failed exhibit and a storage fee Kubrick didn't want to pay in 1974:
"after the movie was released, Kubrick reneged on a contract that would have sent the spaceships to an exhibition in Washington, D.C.—because he wanted to maintain the mystique of the film, it was thought. The terms of the out-of-court settlement meant Kubrick and MGM had to hold on to the models until the mid-70s, at which point most were sent to a dump",
"They were crated pending transfer to a new museum being opened in the US.  The museum never happened.  In 1974, MGM sold the studio, which was then torn down.  MGM management told Kubrick if he wanted to keep the 2001 stuff, he'd have to move the crates to storage somewhere else, which he would have to pay for.  Kubrick then elected to have the crates sent to the dump."
Seems to be the only claim that we might be able to back up. The "ordered destroyed after production" claim may be a bit of an urban myth. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The redirect I'm sorry Dave has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 19 § I'm sorry Dave until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 05:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I've elaborated the Home Media section in line with the expansions at Full Metal Jacket, Battle of Algiers, Apocalypse Now and others.  Georgelazenby (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but the table you've inserted is not only much too detailed, it is largely unsourced or OR. As is the prose you've added before it. Barry Wom (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
The table is no more detailed or worse-sourced than are the other examples, including another Kubrick film. I added sixty citations to it. It isn't the fault of a Home Media section if a film has been released dozens of times on home media. The previous home media section did not give any idea of the release history of 2001.  Georgelazenby (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a WP:CATALOG Betty Logan (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I concur with Barry and Betty. The level of detail is indiscriminate, in the vein of WP:IINFO #3 and #4. It is more direct and relevant to say that the film has been released in so-and-so format however many times across the years. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
thanks for your feedback. I'll try finding better citations and create a separate page for the home media releases so that the level of detail will not distract from the main articles for the films.  Georgelazenby (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Surely we do not want to be creating pages just full of detail about individual home media releases?  There comes a point where such information is not notable and essentially trivia. MapReader (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
@MapReader I see no real difference between the countless wiki pages listing the complete discographies of even quite obscure bands and the ones under consideration listing home media releases for well known films. For a movie like 2001, which is I think as well-regarded as any album by any band one could name, the argument seems a good deal stronger. Put another way, if a famous visual artist authorized various editions if their works, as Goya did with «Los caprichos» or «Desastres de la guerra», surely an exhaustive list of these editions, even if only those issued during Goya's lifetime, would be notable, useful and worthy of their own page. I agree there may be a slippery slope leading to catalogues raisonee of the Twilight movies or The Hunger Games trilogy but I think we can agree that 2001 is in an entirely different class of media object from these. A bias against such as project because of the commercial nature of home media will disappear in time as surely as has the wholly commercial aspect of Goya's (or for that matter Rembrandt's) portfolios of etchings. 73.191.123.72 (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Agree with the previous comments. Wikipedia is not Discogs or a similar resource, and a text based summary of the home media releases is better than a table with exhaustive listings.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Why is the spelling in this article British? Kubrick was an American. Lechonero (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

There are links to both the UK and US, hence TIES cannot apply, so it’s a straightforward case of RETAIN. MapReader (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)