Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey/Archive 1

message: The current article says:
* Among the failures to predict future technology are the ship's computer interfaces, with numerous small screens displaying FORTRAN code, instead of screens with multiple "windows" and graphical user interfaces.
:Actually, most displays of embedded systems applications do not feature screens with multiple windows and GUIs. Have a look at modern airplanes for example: very often, selection is done with buttons (around the screen), not with a pointer device. And as the screens are rather small, multiple windows partly hiding each other would prove horribly counter-productive (and dangerous...).
:Industrial displays are far less eye-candy than what you'd have in a BMW car. The only goal is efficiency, there's no need to make something look better if it doesn't work better (ask an Unix-shell guy what he'd think of GUIs ;-) ).
:--193.56.40.253 12:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Screen displays

message: In the book, Clarke sent Discovery to Saturn instead of Jupiter.  The Big Brother monolith was found above the moon Japetus.  I know the correct spelling of the moon's name is Iapitus, but Clarke spelled it with a J in the book.  I had edited this into the article, but you undid the edit.  Why? Robeykr 04:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: J vs I

message: Don't you think this deserves to be nominated for a featured article?  I can't do it because I'm not around regularly enough to respond to all the objections promptly.  68.118.61.219 15:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article?

message: Is that image that someone just uploaded violating copyright?  It was copyrighted in 1968. Greenmountainboy 23:34, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright??

message: *The psychedelic "stargate sequence" that concludes the film, subtitled "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite," has been cited as being more than coincidentally a match for the Pink Floyd song, "Echoes," similar to the match up of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon with the movie The Wizard of Oz. 
Is it just me or does the above read like complete bollox??? What does it mean????? I'm baffled, if you can shed any light please explain, if not, edit mercilessly... quercus robur 23:47, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It does make sense (although it's not very well written). Apparently if you watch 'The Wizard of Oz' with the sound turned down while playing Pink Floyd's 'Dark Side of the Moon' album, the music seems to match the action perfectly, so the album almost seems like it was designed as a soundtrack for the film (especially, I understand, if you smoke a lot of pot beforehand). So the paragraph is saying that the same happens if you play 'Echoes' while watching the Stargate sequence. The paragraph does makes sense, except for the 'more than coincidentally' bit, which is, I think, bollox. I think I'll go and remove it... The Singing Badger 00:46, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: from which Kubrick created the movie and Clarke wrote the novelisation.
*I object to the language here. Clarke wrote the novel, with Kubrick's input, as the basis for the film. A novelization is generally an ex post facto treatment (e.g., there exists a novelization of Jurassic Park, which follows the movie, not the book). Clark himself remarked in The Lost Worlds of 2001 that: "Other movies are based on screenplays specifically written for them, and no novel version (or even–ugh!–"novelization") ever exists." I'm going to re-word the intro ever so slightly to remove "novelization". Mackensen (talk) 20:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novelization 

message: Don't be too harsh on the film, it is actually quite realistic. The main critics which I removed were not really valid:
* There is velcro everywhere in the spaceships -- that's why people walk so slowly
* In a constraint space, you might want to walk vertically by using you hands, like the woman in Orion. Similarly, it's difficult to ay wether Dave in the pod is not only too constraint by the small room to float around
* The pods are obviously fixed to their plateforms, who would want a space pod to float round ? Discovery has to undertake manoeuvers, you dont want a who-knows-how-many-ton craft to wander freely in the garage ! :p
* If Floyd has fallen alseep with his head on hid shoulder (very possible, he might jut be accustomed to sleep so), it won't move
* Floyd's arm is moving very slowly; could be only the movement of air displaced by the woman; or him moving in his sleep; or just his triceps being slightly more relaxed than his biceps.
So I wouldn't say we have obvious inaccuracies here -- there might be others, but those ones are very disputable. Cheers and happy editing ! Rama 18:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific accuracy: Weightlessness 

message: In the next couple of days, I will create two new articles to solve some problems caused by two Stanley Kubrick ”film” pages.
Both A Clockwork Orange and 2001: A Space Odyssey try to deal with both the book and the film when what’s really needed are individual pages for these two separate topics.
Though neither of these pages are anywhere near as confused or biased as the Dune page, for example, I cannot see how serious future contributions can be made without muddling things up even further.
As for the names of the new articles, ACO is straightforward enough: the book came first, and the film was adapted later. The case of 2001 is perhaps more controversial, since Kubrick and Clarke worked on the screenplay/novel(ization) simultaneously. In this instance, I’m going to favor Kubrick: 1) The film was released first and 2) The film is undoubtedly the more better known of the pair (and thus the more likely target of a search).
The new articles will be named:
* 2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(novel)
* A_Clockwork_Orange_(film)
I’m sorry that this necessary editing job will result in some tedious manual labor thanks to the (hopefully few) link changes that need to be made. (Of course, there’s really no rush, since all the pages will still link to each other.)
See Talk:A_Clockwork_Orange for more discussion. 62.148.218.27 21:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: <strike>Separate articles for separate topics</strike> DONE!

message: What do Americans call "2001: A Space Odyssey"? I've never heard anyone call it anthing other than "Two thousand and one: A Space Odyssey". I've never heard it called "Twenty oh one: a Space Odyssey". , but apparently Americans don't put and in number descriptions. What about One Hundred and One Dalmatians? Jooler 10:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of AND

message: My kind thanks to whomever replaced my half-vast third hand memory of the New Year's 2001 incident with *actual* references.  I felt it was important, but I was a little uncomfortable with the self-referentiality of it. --Baylink 23:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnusson Park references 

message: What is transcendental mysticism? Isn't it the same as saying a huge giant or a smart genius? --Eleassar777 21:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Transcendental mysticism

message: In the spoof section, recently I added the lego-based "One: A Space Odyssey," and it was deleted by another user for "advertising," possibly because I linked to the page that had O:ASO.  I restored the entry, without the internet link, as it certainly is a spoof of 2001.  I was just curious is it acceptable without the link, or is there still an issue?  Personally, I don't believe it can be considered advertising without the link, any more than the other media "2001" has been referenced and spoofed in are.  I am going to try to find the 'advertising' policy on wikipedia to better understand this issue.  RudolfRadna 16:05, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see where you're coming from. It's not that it was meant to be part of a series, or was part of "The Sentinel" story or any of that. It's that all of the stories are related. Now, Clarke himself has even stated that even his seque;l novels aren't to be taken as literal sequels to 2001. But they all have a common denominator story/thematically-wise. That's why they're grouped as a series. The Wookieepedian 11:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I have just edited the page to make it a bit clearer (though not sure I've stated it very clearly!) that Kubrick was involved only in the first film, and that the later efforts were either Clarke on his own or Hyams working from one of Clarke's novels.  I was very disappointed with a lot of the later work.  For example, ascribing HAL's behaviour to him being unable to reconcile his operational perfection with living a lie just makes him out to be a malfunctioning computer, rather than the much more intriguing idea that as a computer attaining human intelligence level and self-awareness, he has also developed human frailties.  Understandably, given the time it was written, 2010 (book and film) has the cold war as an important plot element, but of course that now dates it severely JRJW.
*I really don't see the point in having an interpretations section for this article.  Interpretations, especially for this film, are not facts, they are opinions.  I don't see the place of opinions in an encyclopedia and think the sections providing interpretations of the film should be removed. --Allseeingi 21:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can see your point, but I think even if the interpretations (including some of my own, I should confess) are removed, at the least there needs to be a link to some of the better known published opinions.  The Kubrick site has a number of them; I've finally gotten around to putting in Kubrick's own quote regarding HAL and a link to the site from whence it came.  JRJW
*Interpretations are a necessary byproduct of any commentary. Writing about anything requires an act of interpretation (even writer's who just parrot other writers). The "rules" governing how articles are written for Wikipedia privilages the parrot paradigm. This is somewhat unfortunate, although the discussion pages (while not applauded) occasionally buck the regurgitation rule.
I think there is too much interpretation in the plot summary itself (Discovery looks like a skeleton, etc.) and too much reliance on Clarke's novel particularly the "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite" sequence, which should be described in visual terms rather than simply stating things like "star nursery."  --24.33.28.52 21:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: Can anyone tell me what the paintings that appear in the final few scenes of the movies are from or who they are by? They seem to depict the garden of eden and the tree of knowledge, if I'm not mistaken. There are four of them in the room with the bed. This information probably wouldn't be relevant to the main page, I'm just asking out of curiousity.--209.43.9.250 06:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've often wondered about the artwork in the hotel room my self.  It is often refered to as Louis XVI style.  There has never been any mention of whether or they are reproductions or originals created for the film.  You may want to look at the tables under them:  There appear to be Royal Doulton figurines on them.  And what about the big statues?  -- Jason Palpatine 22:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Scene Paintings

message: Why are so many little tidbits of autobiographical trivia insterted into the plot summary? For people who have never seen the movie or who are merely wanting to remember what the movie was about, it would really disturb the flow of the read. Scotto 12:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anecdotes

message: I think the super bowl commercial for Sierra Mist that featured monkeys and 'Also Sprach Zarathustra' should be mentioned, but I don't know enough details to do so.  Someone please help.
Clarkefreak ∞ 03:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sierra Mist Commercial 

message: Hello Wookieepedian -- we seem to be in conflict now over the inclusion of the "sexual symbolism" passage. The inclusion of this passage is a violation of no original research. There is nothing wrong with including it as long as a reasonable source (newspaper, magazine, journal article) is cited as a source for the speculation. However, as it stands, the paragraph should not be included. There are just too many random interpretations that could be made of the film, and wikipedia should only cover those that have been made by reputable sources. Again, I have no problem with the content of the passage, only the fact that it is unsourced by any outside writer. Sdedeo 09:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LEONARD F. WHEAT does make mention of this in his book ‘’"Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory.’’ (page 10) -- Jason Palpatine 22:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexual Symbolism

message: It might be nice to have a merchandising section included within this article. I remember I few items I used to own, these were;
*A six inch tall posable Action Man type figure wearing a space suit based on the 2001 suit design. Can't remember who made this, but I got it as a birthday present circa 1973 0r 74 I think???
*An Airfix kit of the Pan Am Space Clipper that took Floyd o the space station
*Best of all, a plastic self assembly kit of the moon bus that took Floyd to the TMA crater. this was great, it was about a foot long and had a removable roof so that you could see the pilots the passengers and their cargo. I think it was made by a company called 'Aurora'???
Unfortunately I don't remember this stuff in enough detail to add the section myself, maybe somebody else recalls thsi stuff and other merchandising? quercus robur 00:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It needs to be very comprehensive if it is to ever be a fe3atured article. And of all films, this would be the best for that. The Wookieepedian 00:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merchandising

message: I think the references in other media listed in the spoofs section, and the trivia section, should probably be forked off into its own article. And I'm guilty, I just added a reference myself. There's also the 'appearance' of the Discovery's pod in Watto's junk shop on Tatooine in Star Wars Episode I that didn't get mentioned.... :) Oh, also Clarke and co-writer Stephen Baxter quote a couple of the lines in the Time Odyssey series, and has anyone incorporated the "contest" that Clarke had for HAL's first line? I believe it was along the lines of "Good morning doctors. I have taken the liberty of removing Windows 95, and all references to it, from my hard drive." --JohnDBuell 00:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and (since someone duplicated the material into a spoofs and references section anyway) have at least sorted them into their proper sections, with a note at the top of the Trivia section to the effect that entries there are about the movie itself, and that spoofs and references should be moved to the appropriate section. Maybe that'll make it easier to move Spoofs and refernecs Alan Canon 21:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have moved the references material to List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the trivia section to List of 2001: A Space Odyssey trivia --Bungopolis 18:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoofs section

message: The use of "Thus Spake Zaruthustra" by Elvis Presley and Ric Flair is mentioned twice, once separately in Spoofs and References and again, together, in Trivia. Once is enough. CFLeon 22:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. The Wookieepedian 01:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate Items

message: I put in a reason when I moved it, but I don't know where it is, so I figured I'd say something here.  I moved this article because I felt that the novel and the film needed to share equal standing, since they are really of equal importance, so I figured I would parenthesize both articles and put a disambiguation page up.  Please discuss your feelings about this here.
::: On what basis could you possibly say "the novel and the film needed to share equal standing, since they are really of equal importance"?  The film is one of the most famous motion pictures in history; the novel has nothing like the global fame or even the standing amongst other novels.  It is nowhere near as famous in its own right.  You only have to look at the grossly inferior sequel film, which was based very closely on the novel 2010, to see how much the original film was the result of a unique collaboration between two geniuses.  The later stuff was like Art Garfunkel's solo career: worthy in itself, but not worthy of comparison with the more famous collaboration JRJW January '06.  
Clarkefreak ∞ 23:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind the disambiguated title, but I think the redirection can be improved (Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey). Shawnc 23:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In making your move you managed to make all of the items on the archived talk page disappear. There were several things of interest on it and if it can be recovered it would be nice. If not this will give you a good reason to ask wiki-editors about how to do these things before you make the hard work of so many who came before you vanish.User:MarnetteD | Talk 01:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The archive has been relinked. Shawnc 05:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making the Move 

message: I removed a sentence that said the monolith was cast of black lucite.  I found sites that claim the prop was made of wood coated with graphite (here and here).  Other sites do mention a lucite prototype, but don't seem to imply it was the final version used in the movie.  Does anyone have a copy of "Lost Worlds of 2001"-- I seem to recall it talks explicitly about what the thing was made of.-Alecmconroy 15:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What was the monolith prop made of

message: Maybe I missed something, but it appears that you haven`t mentioned video phone and phone cards as correct prediction. And did film realy mention USSR ? There were russians, but I guess they didn`t mention SU.
The film did not mention the USSR at any time.  But it was made during the time the USSR existed and the Soviet Union is mentioned in the sequel 2010.  This would appear to imply that to be the case.  But I agree, it was not mentioned to exist, so it is a moot issue. -- Jason Palpatine 23:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: predictions

message: The cut between the bone and the space ship is called here a "jump cut".  As far as I can tell, this is not correct; indeed the jump cut article itself explicitly says that the 2001 cut is not a jump cut.  The correct terms appear to be "plastic cut", "match cut", or "graphic match". I will correct the text. --Macrakis 01:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jump cut?

message: I know this may be not the right place for this, but maybye we should put some info on the possibility of film adaptions of 2061 and 3001.
WB purchased the option rights for 3001 when the novel was first published.  However, no agreement has been reached on an acceptablecript.  The project is currently in limbo. -- Jason Palpatine 00:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2061,3001

message: Should all the edits 69.143.172.3 made to this page be reverted? It sounds like a lot of uncited analysis to me. --Tifego 05:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well now that he's started changing around the links so much and removing some I'm guessing the answer is "yes". But I could be wrong, in which case, somebody un-revert it. --Tifego 05:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 69.143.172.3 

message: I have removed the following paragraph from the "Allegory" subsection of "Interpretation," because it is clearly non-NPOV:
:Although these allegories and symbols are "left to the eye of the beholder", it gives one pause to think that any director in the history of cinematography would even attempt such a bold and thought-provoking work, i.e.: three separate allegories underlying a separate surface story. But when the director is Stanley Kubrick, you have to consider it quite possible.
If anyone thinks it can be scrubbed up a bit and put back in, I encourage it, but I don't think this paragraph is at all necessary or encyclopedic.  -Dayv 22:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading further, the entire interpretation section is (IMO) in need of serious editing for both length (an issue throughout this obsessively detailed article) and non-NPOV content.  -Dayv 22:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing POV paragraph

message: The article contains legion repetitions. Examples are HAL's lip-reading and humanity's landing on the moon. 128.95.15.78 04:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: HELP!  I just did an edit of th article and the system just amputated 2/3's of it!  I can't fix it.  Somebody -- HELP! Jason Palpatine 13:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Something is wrong

message: There have recently been a whole series of edits to the plot section - most by Robekyr - which are adding info from the book and not the movie (Floyd's having an hour layover for example). I do not wish to start an edit war because I know that he or she is working hard and that these probably mean a lot to him or her. Perhaps if any wikiadministrators encounter this they can start the process to reach a consensus about what to do about this. I feel that they are detracting from this article but that is just me and others may feel differently.User:MarnetteD | Talk 00:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dialouge in the movie.  Miller tells Floyd that his flight "leaves in about an hour" and "as a matter of fact I've reserved a table for you in the Earthlight Room."  The entrance to the Earthlight Room with the adjoining picturephone booths are clearly visible in the scene in the film.  The Earthlight Room sign shows it is a Howard Johnson's restaurant.  I AM NOT REFERENCING CLARKE'S NOVELIZATION.  
The quotes from the book pertain to the 2 main climaxes of the movie the acension of Moon-Watcher and Bowman in the end.  I felt that these 2 quotes -- both intentionally alike -- wold be appropriate.
BTW: I am a guy. ;-)
-- User:Robeykr 01:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: ::Dialouge in the movie.  Miller tells Floyd that his flight "leaves in about an hour" and "as a matter of fact I've reserved a table for you in the Earthlight Room."  The entrance to the Earthlight Room with the adjoining picturephone booths are clearly visible in the scene in the film.  The Earthlight Room sign shows it is a Howard Johnson's restaurant.  I AM NOT REFERENCING CLARKE'S NOVELIZATION.  
The quotes from the book pertain to the 2 main climaxes of the movie the acension of Moon-Watcher and Bowman in the end.  I felt that these 2 quotes -- both intentionally alike -- wold be appropriate.
BTW: I am a guy. ;-)
-- User:Robeykr 01:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong

message: I for one belive in the spirit over the letter.  However, as I am the one responsible for this situation; and I want to avoid an edit war like the one I went through a year ago (re: Palpatine) may I suggest that we put this up to a vote?  I belived that correlating an image with each paragraph hightened the article.  However, I am only, as Carl Sagan would put it, "one voice in the cosmic fuge."   So, may we delay any action on this matter for a period of a week so that other opinions may be heard? 
People -- I ask for a vote.  Should we do as per the demand of Scm83x?  Edit it or keep it?
Please let me/us know. Based on the replies here, I/we will act on this matter come May 8.  Thank you.
-- Jason Palpatine speak your mind
*I don't believe a poll is necessary.  I think that it is rather clear that placing an image every few sentences limits the ability of the owner of the copyright to market their product.  Why go see the film if almost every scene is outlined and photographed for anyone to see?  Please take a look at featured articles about film for good examples, including Casablanca (film), Sunset Blvd. (1950 film), and November (film).  Also, consider reading fair use policy for a better understanding of the reasoning behind limited usage of screenshots in articles. — Scm83x hook 'em 00:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only just discovered the message about it at WP:CP. Just because no one has discussed it for over a week doesn't mean the problem has gone away. When images are uploaded under a claim of fair use, it is required that a detailed explanation of why the image is necessary for the article be included. There's even a new speedy criterion, I6, whereby images uploaded after 2006-05-04 can be speedied if they don't have a fair-use rationale. Images uploaded before that date, like these, have a grace period in which the uploader can provide a rationale before they get deleted. Angr (t • c) 13:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion Poll Request

message: All right, I ve done as you've demanded.  Are you satisfied?  -- Jason Palpatine speak your mind
:There are still way too many.  I would suggest, as The Anome (talk • contribs) did, that there only be one picture per h2 level heading. — Scm83x hook 'em 01:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have responded at the talk page where the discussion originated. — Scm83x hook 'em 23:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ALL RIGHT I GET THE MESSAGE!

message: Today you did "removing excess of fair use pictures,  and : this article needs help"
I removed the excess yesterday!  What is your problem now?   You want to start an edit war?  I am reverting the article to restore the remaining images from my edit yesterday.  There is such a thing as moderation.  What I left was/is reasonable.  SO KNOK IT OFF!  
You call this ([]) excess?
-- User:Robeykr speak your mind
you said: rv to non-fair use violation version, please consider reading fair use criteria, discussing before reverting, and being civil.
I don't think that you are grasping the concepts of discussion and fair use policy.  The discussion is not over when one party says it is over.  Wikipedia is run through consensus.  Please respond to my comments on the talk page here before reverting yet again. Also, again, I ask you to check out Wikipedia fair use criteria, especially point #3.  You are fighting a losing battle, as it has been previously decided that continuing fair use violations are grounds for punitive action. — Scm83x hook 'em 23:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also consider WP:3RR before making any more changes to the article. — Scm83x hook 'em 23:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What the @#! do you think you are doing!?

message: So, you are an administrator on this site.  As a descendant of mine would put it -- fascinating.  I find it difficult to belive that I am having this discussion with someone who wasn't even around whe I first saw the movie in the ceinerama theater back in 1968.
OK -- so, you consider the article in its current form still excessive.  Why? -- and don't even think of throwing that policy lingo at me.  The spirit of the rules and the letter are not the same thing.  2001 is one of the most complicated films in the history of cinema.  Photo correlaton -- given the fact that the film is mostly a visual experirence -- is a must in any article about it.  Most articles about 2001 at the time of its release contained more than a dozen or more images from every act in the film -- The apes and the monolith, the journey to the moon, TMA-1, the Discvery Mission, Boman's confrontation with HAL, the moons of Jupiter, even the hotel room sequence!  
I felt/feel that there should be more than the simple one-shot desert of images as the article originally was and you are trying to enforce.  
You talk about discussion, yet you demanded an immediate reduction; and when I deliver, you further sterillize the article.  It is said that too much of anything, even a good thing, is not a good thing.  I may have, in the original final edit befor you started this, over done it, but it can also be said that too little of anything, even a good thing, is not a good thing.  I belive the version you are postulating is too little.
An all text article -- or predominantly text -- does not do justice to this film.  In addition, you removed an number of correlated images from elswhere in the article.  Why did you delete the image from People Are Alike All Over?  It corrleated with the theme of the film in the trivia section.  The Mars is Heaven correlation was even reported in the original Newsweek review of the movie.
I've printed out both of our recent versions of the article.  The difference is only 3 pages.  The images that remain in mine do NOT overwhelm the article.  Yours, on the other hand, seems a little banal.
You want to have people discuss this before any action is taken?  I belive I originally asked for such a discussion and the reply from you and one other was swift.  You are unliaterally forcing deletions here without anyone else's feedback.  I did NOT have to do those edits yesterday, but I did.  I even got a than-you on my talk page.
So lets hear  from the others before this goes any further.  Or can't you wait a week, like I asked? -- User:Robeykr speak your mind
:In regards to insulting my age and insinuating a lack of experience, please see this essay regarding the concept and be more civil in the future.  Policy is what keeps things running around here.  Our policy, which we all agree to by contributing, states that fair use pictures are to be used in limited quantity and should not impede the copyright holder's ability to market their product.  By practically turning the 2001 article into a storybook, both the letter and the spirit of the law are violated.  We are inhibiting the copyright holder's ability to market their product by making a large portion of their work available for free.  Also, each fair use article must be critically essential to the article.  Is it possible to justify the inclusion of everyone of the 33 fair use images in this article? Once again, as before, I do ask you do look at WP:FUC and other featured articles about movies at WP:FA.  There you will see both the policy and implemetation of that policy across the Wiki.  In case you do not care to check that page, I will paste the pertinent information here:
::3. The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.
::8. The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.
::10. The image or media description page must contain:
:::* Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different) where possible.
:::* An appropriate fair use tag indicating which Wikipedia policy provision permitting the use is claimed. A list of image tags can be found on the Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Fair_use page.
:::* For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the article and a "fair use rationale" as explained in Wikipedia:Image description page. The rationale must be presented in a manner that can be clearly understood and which is relevant to the article in question.
:Please state your beliefs in terms of policy.  Others are far more likely to agree with you if you use policy to back up your statements.  You will gain few friends calling for edit wars and insulting other contributors. Thank you. — Scm83x hook 'em 04:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In reply/discussion

message: Arthur C. Clarke's theory, expanded by Kubrick into a spoofy narrative, that man and machine will one day merge into a symbiotic entity, a sort of humanoid machine.
Having read most of his books (yeah, I know, booor-ing) I have to wonder what this person is talking about. Clarke wrote about the transendence of humans, not man-machine symbiosis. In particular, Childhood's End' appears to be the most obvious example of the themes in 2001; an alien race that helps man evolve into a higher form of existance. Maury 12:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely agree.  On seeing 2001 the first time, I was reminded of the themes in Childhood's End.  Slowmover 15:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In his diary, Clake makes mention of the fact that Kubrick did consider including the book's gargoyles theme in 2001. -- Jason Palpatine 22:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: :A lot of what Maury is objecting to (and I agree with) is what is called original research. Put very simply, Wikipedia policy on original research is that: 
::"Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position."
:In the context of this article, statements such as "He was not totally unprepared for this..." and "the monolith watches the new visitor plunge into the Jupiter system to put itself in orbit. For some time the two observe each other" cannot simply come from the head of the user writing it.  They must first be written in a reputable verifiable source, such as a film review or critique.  Wikipedia is not the place to write lengthy stylistic plot analyses for films.  Those things are more suited for personal webpages.  Wikipedia is simply not a publisher of original thought. — Scm83x hook 'em 04:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Obejecting to

message: You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophy and allegorical meaning of the film – and such speculation is indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level – but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point.
– Stanley Kubrick, 1968, interview for Playboy Magazine
-- The Odious Wasp  06:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PS

message: I think that there are serious ownership issues concerning this article.  Although one user may have written the entirety of an article, they do not own it and other editors have the right to "edit it mercilessly".  It says so right below the edit box, and it is something we believe in as Wikipedians.  This article needs external review, which is what Maury and I were attempting.  But when forces from within the article resist change, the article will never become any better than it is.  This article has potential; don't waste it. — Scm83x hook 'em 19:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:OWN|Ownership issues]] 

message: A late friend of mine, Jim Kim, who immigrated to the US at the close of the US-Vietnam conflict watched this movie with me one time when he visited me.  He had seen it in theaters during its original release in his home country.  The version he saw was not in English, but dubbed in Korean.  When I had told him that my favorite movie was 2001: A Space Odyssey he initially believed he had never seen it on account of the fact that he'd never heard of the title.  When he saw the beginning of the movie, he told me he recognized it and had seen it in Seoul under a Korean title.  The title translated into English was “Planet of the Monkeys.”
Remembering this, I have posted it in the Trivia section.  But given that I only have the recollection of a conversation I had with a friend of mine – i.e. hearsay – and a deceased friend moreover, I felt I should also post a note about it here to see if anyone might think it (like so much I posted before) should not be in the article.
Views, opinions, and Admin action requested.  -- -- The Odious Wasp speak your mind
*I can't find anything to back that up. Evem if your friend's account was accurate, that could have been only one translation, used at a single theater in Seoul. I'm afraid it runs a little too close to original research. All you'd need would be a site, a poster, or maybe a Korean film review book to back it up. Deltabeignet 22:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't your friend have been confusing 2001 with Planet of the Apes? Somone who renamed 2001 "Planet of the Monkeys" could only have watched the first 10 minutes or so... Angr (t • c) 07:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean version title 

message: For what it's worth, I agree with Scm83x that 111 KB is excessive in length. This doesn't mean that there can't be 111 KB of material on 2001; it just means that summary style should be used to split off some things to subarticles. It is rare to see a good or featured article longer than 50 KB. Taking a look at a the Media section of Wikipedia:Featured articles, I see that Halloween (film) is 40 KB, Red vs Blue is 39 KB, Thunderball is 41 KB, Triumph of the Will is 44 KB, etc. 
As an example of a section that could be moved into its own article, the "Spoofs and references" section could become List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey or something like that. This alone would makethe article more manageable. It also looks as if the "Interpretations of the Film" section is more or less redundant with the article Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey, so perhaps that latter article could merely be briefly summarized here.
As for the plot, I also agree that it could be shortened. In some places, it seems pretty much blow-by-blow (I don't know nearly enough about the film to say exactly where, but I do know that I've seen six hours of plot summarized in less space). As well, it seems to incorporate some analysis by Kubrick, which might be better fall under production or interpretation, rather than a "synposis". This may just be my opinion, but I personally find it jarring when prose repeatedly switches between an in-fiction perspective (describing the film as its plot unfolds) and an out-of-fiction one (describing how it was made), so I would save Kubrick's tidbits for another section.
Just my thoughts.… — TKD::Talk 03:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split