Talk:2010: The Year We Make Contact

message: I've commented out this paragraph because, if it belongs, it needs a serious going-over.
: After the visual impact and enigmatic ending of the film of the original 2001 (made in 1968), the more mainstream 2010 was considered by some to be a disappointment . However, other viewers argue that on its own terms, the film is more substantial than most other science fiction films.
It's pretty weasely.  "Some", and "other viewers".  If someone can come up with a decent appraisal of the long term impact of the movie, let's have it, but this is just too vague. --Tony Sidaway 23:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's useful to know that the film has a very different style. But the comments certainly needs quotes from reviewers to support them. There are some listed here:  The Singing Badger 00:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commented out weaseling

message: Clearly an allusion to Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. IIRC -mpillai means "son of", though I may be horribly wrong. Someone who knows more about these languages could work this into the article? - ∅ (∅), 21:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sivasubramanian Chandrasegarampillai 

message: Clarke's e-mail correspondence with Peter Hyams, director of 2010, was published in 1984. 
They had e-mail in 1984? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.106.46.84 (talk • contribs).
:Yes. - ∅ (∅), 17:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm currently reading the book 'The Odyssey Files' and it sounds more like Clark and Hyams were using remote access (through dial-up modems) to transfer WordStar documents back and forth - there are occasional references to the fact that one of them is having problems accessing the other's machine. So it's e-mail of a kind, but not as we know it, Jim - Halmyre (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: E-mail was in use as far back as the 1960s. Its use back then was via government and university networks, so access was only within a narrow sector of Society.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.132.249 (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  E-mail conversation in 1984? 

message: :Image:2010dvd.jpeg 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 Wikipedia articles 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 fair use rationale.
If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 23:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:2010dvd.jpeg

message: I'm removing the line regarding the discontinuity about Discovery's location.  Floyd's report indicates the monolith is in the Lagrangian point, not Discovery.  Discovery is correctly indicated as being in Io orbit.
--Pauley (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences from the novel: orbit/Lagrange 

message: :Image:2010-poster01.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 fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:2010-poster01.jpg

message: The Soviet astronaut that was pulled into the big monolith.. Was he actually killed or did he just get pulled in like Dave had been? - NemFX (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess nobody knows. But since he's never mentioned again in the film, the novel, or any of its sequels, it's safe to assume the former. Cop 663 (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Most sources states that he is killed.. but for a long time i firmly believed that he was pulled in due to the line of Floys "Do you think that Max knows?" about the monolyth and after his fate.
The only hint the movie gives is the pod spining out of controll.. when in 2001 Dave's pod got teorically pulled in with him.. unless from outside his pod also spined out without his corporeal form..
Still i would imagine seeing Max pod spining that they would recover it to get his corpse.. after all Leonov had more pods
I just completely rewrote the Plot section, and don't quite know how to handle this scene. I personally think Max disappeared into the Monolith like Bowman because the "stars" appeared in it just before the flash of light. I'd ideally want to keep Max's fate ambiguous but can't figure out how to do so in a non-clumsy way, and I don't want to go into a lot of meta detail about how we don't know whether he's dead or halfway across the galaxy. YLee (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Death?

message: This section is currently flagged as trivia which strikes me as unproductive and inappropriate (hence the (reverted) removal of the tag). The Guielines specify a trivia section as "one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list.", the current list is selective, though admittedly not organised. Some of its content substantially adds to that of the article, and surely some should be retained? This thread is thus opened in the hope of sparking discussion on how better to structure this information (rather than simply tagging the section with a finger wagging banner which accomplishes very little.) and in order to avoid engaging in an edit war. 
Any suggestions for a better structure and/or specific "trivia" which could be removed to improve the section? (for example the change in location of the monolith from Saturn to Jupiter seems a significant detail, the missing blue suit helmet is arguably less so?)Splateagle (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discontinuities Section

message: this article needs one of them. 24.68.62.185 (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is accurate that there is no sound in space, but you are confusing the cause with the effect. Using your example of an explosion in space, the particles or debris of an explosion in space would not carry sound with them. They simply can't. Should debris from such an explosion actually hit the hull of a spaceship with a significant force, then it might be heard inside the ship as, like you said, vibrations from the hull. Therefore it is not the explosion itself that is making the sound, but the effect of debris hitting the ship. If something hit a ship in space, there would be no sound heard on the outside of the ship. And you would not hear a spaceship whooshing past the camera in space as if it was flying through the air....simply because there is no air. We can easily transmit signals (that may be decoded as sounds) through space, but they would have to be "formatted" for such transit (such as radio waves for example). However, such waves aren't actually heard in space itself. The radio waves would have to be decoded by a radio receiver that picked up the signal, and it would be the speaker on the receiving equipment that would be making the actual sounds. 80.41.27.163 (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: reception section?

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

message: Having recently watched the film again, ironically in 2010, I was reminded the entire centrifuge part of the ship is not shown. The obvious answer is it was simply to expensive and to complicated to rebuild for a gimmick effectively used in the previous film. It is a noticable absence though given the large volume of habitable space it contained for the ship. There are other minor differences between 2001 Discovery and its 2010 version though. The keyboards that appeared in the pod bay and brain room, also a large red 1 and blue 2 painted on doors. The CRT displays versus flat panels has already been mentioned in the article and was an unfortunate step backward in set design. Skywayman (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if you can find a reliable third party source which states this.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on what you think qualifies as reliable. In my view, a first-semester beginner physics course is sufficient to substantiate it. The Pen would fall to the floor, though not absolutely identically to how it would in an identical room resting on the surface of the Earth. There would be a measurable coriolis effect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Centrifuge Section

message: Upon since buying the Bluray region B / UK version, where image is maximized for optimum performance fair enough.
Sound as become an issue with me since noticing the original Dolby stereo film mix has been re-mixed as and who did the re-mix? It’s now got part of the (left and right front stereo) or (centre phantom signal folded onto the centre discrete channel). Thus this no longer makes the Dolby film mix original to its 70mm Road Show release Dolby format 42.
Also the surrounds have been re-mixed with fake split-stereo surround where the original surrounds where produced in monaural surround hence the Dolby format code (Dolby format 42)
LFE.1 has also been re-mixed and this is evident with the first edition DVD release if carefully listened too or monitored discreetly (with each or one of the channels muted for closer inspection of the DolbyTrue Dolby digital mix).
This doesn’t reflect the original mix as heard in (1984) on 70mm / 35mm Dolby stereo would be near to impossible to notice this because of the common crosstalk that folds onto centre and surrounds.
Start of chapter 17 DVD 
Centre channel has a few neighboured mechanical car effects in the distance that sounds like (hover vacuum cleaner).
The left and right has (centre phantom dogs barking and slight atmospheric ambiance).
Surrounds remain mute until the scene cuts to inside a home of Widow, Mrs. Bowman where the sound of announcer on the centre channel is heard for a Pan Am advisement. 
The sound of dogs is then heard distance on the monaural surrounds. That should be enough for those who may not even notice this.
Bluray Region B
Same as above except the centre has partly the centre (left and right phantom sound folded onto the centre mildly of the dogs barking).
The left and right still has the (centre phantom sound of the dogs barking). 
Surrounds has partly the left and right same centre phantom dogs barking (thou there seems to be some sly panning to the right surround with 1/3 of the same sound heard on left though you’d have to fade off the right surround to hear this)!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBListening (talk • contribs) 20:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. How is this related to the article? 80.47.64.168 (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010:The Year We Make Contact (1984) Bluray Dolby re-mix 

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

message: Hello! I'm hoping someone can expand upon the first reference cited: "LoBrutto 1997, p. 456". I'm assuming LoBrutto is the author, what is the publication? Jedikaiti (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am assuming they meant Vincent LoBrutto's "Stanley Kubrick - A Biography" but it was published in 1999 not 1997, so who knows if this is what they meant. LoBrutto has written several film-related books so whoever included this source needs to clarify it. 80.47.64.168 (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The release section seems very odd. It is focused on comic books and DVD / BD. I think this section should be much more like the RELEASE section of 2001: A space odyssey. That is, about the theatrical release and rereleases, as well as home media including VHS et al.67.2.145.52 (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike 2001, this film didn't really have much in the way of re-releases because it wasn't seen to be as "important" as 2001 (ha! what do they know?). There were 70mm screenings though, so perhaps if someone can dig up all the relevant dates, etc. VHS information might be harder to find, but someone out there might have some film mags from the 80s that include those details. 88.104.21.71 (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release section needs work. 

message: Been a while since I read the original, but I seem to recall that Bowman "put forth his will" and destroyed the Discovery at the end of the first novel.  So the sequel had to work around that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.149 (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He never returns to Discovery until the events in 2010. The bit you're referring to takes place when Bowman (as the Star-Child) is looking down on the earth, and destroys the orbiting nuclear weapons. But it has just occurred to me that both the book and the film of 2010 ignores that bit. Halmyre (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wasn't Discovery destroyed in the first novel? 

message: Could someone correct the item about the special effects and the pens being used by Heywood to plan the escape from orbit with the Leonov. I have seen a making-of documentary about 2010 and it clearly shows the pens stuck to a sheet of transparent film which could be moved and rotated to make them appear to float in space. (I was specifically looking for how they achieved this effect). This is the same technique used in 2001 when Heywood's pen drifts out of his pocket and the stewardess on the Pan-Am Orion catches it and replaces it while Floyd is sleeping.
There was no CGI involved here - just some very nice technical solutions to make it appear like magic.
- Sam, Helsinki  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.181.36 (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. The making-of documentary does show Scheider trying to get the prop pens to stick to the glass. The technique didn't work; the pens kept falling off the glass. In the end the technique was abandoned and the pens were added during post-production as a special effect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special Effects / Pens 

message: I noticed that the first sentence in the plot section basically ruins 2001 for anyone who is just looking to see the plot of 2010... It should be put more around the lines of "Nine years after the events of 2001[...]" instead of giving away the ending to the first movie... Spoilers for previous movies should either not be included in the article or put in further down so people don't necessarily see them if they're just trying to get an idea about what the movie is about.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.220.168 (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think you can word a plot summary for 2010 without giving away what happened at the end of 2001 because the events in the sequel take place because of the events in the first film, so it needs to be made clear what happened. 88.104.28.16 (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not right... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2010 (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 http://www.webcitation.org/5yVVEEY09?url=http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1995-hugo-awards-2/ to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1995-hugo-awards-2/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: ~~This movie is called "2010" at start and end of film. The words "the year we make contact" NEVER appear on the screen. These words were used to promote the film but the movie's true title is "2010". I suppose it's like when people refer to "Superman The Movie", which is also called only "Superman" on the screen (the words "the movie" don't appear on the screen). Unlike, say, "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", which has those exact words on the screen. I have no idea why people refer to "2010" as "the year we make contact". Abbythecat~~
I worked in video for decades, and that tag line has frustrated me for almost 40 years. A couple of people have mentioned it here; I really don’t understand why it remains here, as it’s extremely non-“encyclopedic.” PacificBoy 04:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "2010" is title of movie. 

message: Earlier today, another editor noticed that Douglas Rain, the actor who voiced HAL 9000 in both 2001 and 2010 was missing from the list of actors who started in 2010 in the infobox, and added him.  Another editor then undid the edit, because Rain's name isn't on the original movie poster.  Reviewing the edit and reversion, I restored it because HAL 9000 is one of the main characters, and Rain's role in the film is significant.  The reverting editor claims that the documentation for Template:Infobox film precludes Rain's appearance in the list.  The relevant language for the "starring" parameter is:
In general, use the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release as a rule of thumb for listing starring actors. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. An alternative approach may be determined by local consensus. Use either the  or  template for multiple entries, and link each actor to their article if possible. Don't add additional text (such as "with" or "featuring") or punctuation to the list.
I don't read this as a rule forbidding the inclusion of the main actors in a film, simply because they're not listed in the fine print at the bottom of a poster.  Besides the fact that the paragraph begins with "in general" and suggests alternative methods of determining who belongs, template documentation is not Wikipedia policy.  As I noted multiple times, John Lithgow is included in the list as one of the main actors, and isn't listed on the movie poster; the editor in question doesn't seem to think this is a problem.  In fact I think it would be hard to justify excluding him, as he appears in more scenes and has more lines than most of the others.  I fail to see why Douglas Rain shouldn't be treated the same way, given that his role is crucial to the film.
2001 really had just three major characters, and Rain portrayed one of them—arguably one of the two most important.  The return of Rain, along with his co-star, Keir Dullea, for 2010 was important to the film, and both of their characters were essential to the plot.  The movie poster only lists four actors, but there are six major characters, and I see no reason to exclude Lithgow and Rain.  Nor does it make sense to include one, but not the other.  Both are mentioned in the article's lead paragraph, and 2010 is mentioned in the lead paragraph of the article on Douglas Rain.  Excluding Rain, but not Lithgow, from the infobox solely because his name does not appear on the movie poster is arbitrary and pointless.  P Aculeius (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As always, when it comes to questions re who should be in an infobox and who should not be, I am happy for a concensus to be reached. For clarity, the edit that I reverted was made in April 2023 and not yesterday. Quentin X (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of stars in infobox