Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey/Archive 2

message: I'm removing the "Speculation" section as original research crawling with weasel words. Any reporting on interpretations of the movie here must be based on the published findings of professional critics. Angr (t • c) 07:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly agreed.  Any section titled speculation has a 99.99% likelihood that it does not belong in the Wikipedia.  This entire article really needs a world-class cleanup effort. — Scm83x hook 'em 08:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation section 

message: Why does the article (currently) list "The survival of ...Howard Johnson's restaurants ... to the year 2001" as an inaccurate prediction? In 2006 there are still five operating Howard Johnson's restaurants. - Nunh-huh 11:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Howard Johnson's 

message: I'm confused by this line from the introductory paragraph:
:Kubrick collaborated with Clarke, and together they first concurrently produced the novel version that was released alongside the film (which eventually grew into the so-called Space Odyssey series of books), and then towards the end Kubrick simultaneously wrote the screenplay.
First of all, I recall the novel being released shortly after the film, not concurrently. It's the "then towards the end" part that I can't understand, however. Towards the end of what? The filming? How could the screenplay have been written towards the end of filming? Don't films usually need a script before filming starts? I think this sentence should be re-written, but I don't know the exact chronology so I can't do it. -- Bungopolis 17:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The words "towards the end" appear in the external link http://www.talkingpix.co.uk/Two%20Views%20of%202001.html, which talks about the screenplay and novel being developed concurrently. If I read it right it seems Kubrick and Clarke wrote the novel first, then Kubrick did the screenplay, while at the same time, or later, Clarke does more on the novel while not knowing what Kubrick's final version would be like. Quite a chronological mix. -213.219.151.76 22:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenplay/film/novel chronology 

message: Recently:
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. 
B-Class This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. 
It was Clas A quality earlier, but.... -- Jason Palpatine 20:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jason, Class B is the highest grade that can be assigned to an article without going through official processes.  The next grade up is Good Article, then A-Class, then Featured Article.  I tried to get the article promoted to GA status based on this criteria, but it failed.  I will try to address the editor's concerns and re-nominate. See Template:Grading scheme for more information on grades. Aguerriero (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've made a great deal of changes today, incorporating all of the advice given here. I think the article still needs some cleaning up, but I hope we're closer now to a successful nomination. --Bungopolis 08:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no consensus (though it was close). --liquidGhoul 03:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Class B

message: Hi all,
I was very close to promoting this article as the material in here is very good. But I decided against it because I feel there is some imbalance in the article. Sections such as "Scientific Accuracy" receive a disproportionate amount of attention. There are also a number of very short sections such as the "Production" section where more could be said. The main article of the "Trivia" section may be better placed as a "See also" link given that there is no summary for that section. Sections such as the "DVD Release" section may be better incorporated into the "Release" section if not omitted entirely. In general, the article could use some restructuring and I get the feeling that this is the direction the article is already heading towards but is just not there yet. Given the good quality of the article in parts, I am confident that it will settle down soon and become a good article. Please renominate it when you feel it has reached this point.
Cedars 02:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a great deal of changes today, incorporating all of the advice given here. I think the article still needs some cleaning up, but I hope we're closer now to a successful nomination. --Bungopolis 08:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no consensus (though it was close). --liquidGhoul 03:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for not promoting 

message: Wookiepedian has proposed this move because "The film is more well-known that the book or the comics, and the title should reflect this."
===Survey===
Short comments please
*Firmly oppose. Wikipedia has parallel pages and a disambiguation page unless a primary meaning is overwhelmingly more common than the others. It is disputable whether the movie is actually more notable than the book; it is much further from being the primary meaning. Septentrionalis 16:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
===epilogue===
Huh? The closing admin said the poll was "close" - I don't get this. The voting was 6-5 for. That is not close. That is a clear no consensus. I know Wikipedia is not a democracy, but how can something where there is only one vote difference be said to be close to having support? I'm only saying this because it seems my vote swung things towards no consensus. Previously it was "60% suport" (see comments on various talk pages). How many other votes like this have gone through because of a 6-4 "60%" support? How can two people in a vote of 10 people make the difference between something succeeding and failing? Carcharoth 06:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't have a clue how many at 6-4 have gone through. This is the only one I have come across. The reason I was adament about failing it at 6-4 was the 60% statement at the top of WP:RM. Normally, this would be a complete failure, but it seems that WP:RM has slightly different standards. I am still unsure why. --liquidGhoul 06:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move request

message: Huh? The closing admin said the poll was "close" - I don't get this. The voting was 6-5 for. That is not close. That is a clear no consensus. I know Wikipedia is not a democracy, but how can something where there is only one vote difference be said to be close to having support? I'm only saying this because it seems my vote swung things towards no consensus. Previously it was "60% suport" (see comments on various talk pages). How many other votes like this have gone through because of a 6-4 "60%" support? How can two people in a vote of 10 people make the difference between something succeeding and failing? Carcharoth 06:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't have a clue how many at 6-4 have gone through. This is the only one I have come across. The reason I was adament about failing it at 6-4 was the 60% statement at the top of WP:RM. Normally, this would be a complete failure, but it seems that WP:RM has slightly different standards. I am still unsure why. --liquidGhoul 06:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: epilogue

message: Some comments, hopefully helpful:
1) Quote from article: "The second chapter of 2001 does not have a title, although "TMA-1" is sometimes adopted from Clarke's novel for this purpose." - this sentence mentions "Clarke's novel" before anything has been said about such a novel. Something needs to be said about the novel in the lead section to avoid confusion.
2) The first reference I can find to the book that was published later that year is in a link called "novel version". Why not give the book its name, and say more about the relationship between the two. The current link to The_Lost_Worlds_of_2001 is not enough. In general, there is a lack of linking from the film article to the book article. Currently, you either have to click on the disambiguation hatlink and browse a list, or you have to get all the way down to the series box at the bottom, or you have to click "novel version", which is an unclear, poorly named link. At the very least, I think the book should be mentioned in the lead section and linked from there.
Carcharoth 01:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique 

message: Alright, here's my own synopsis. Feel free to comment or criticize it for whatever reason, and if we only post snippets and tidbits of this (or not at all), that's fine. I just think the current synopsis needs more information on several plot points, most importantly the HAL and Star Gate segments. I've also taken some text from the current synopsis, so thanks to Modemac for that. 
====text==== 
:The film is divided into four segments. The first chapter of 2001, titled "The Dawn of Man," takes place in the late Pliocene Epoch, and contains no dialogue whatsoever. It shows prehistoric "man-apes" in their environment, and focuses on various aspects of their survival, such as avoiding predatory leopards and capturing water holes from other groups. Eventually, the man-apes wake up and encounter a black, rectangular monolith, and nervously approach it. 
:Afterwards, a lone man-ape (called Moonwatcher) is in a field covered in bones. The man-ape picks up a bone and plays with it, but as the scene progresses, he begins to more and more use it as a weapon, until by the end of the scene, he is smashing the bones with aggressive force. The man-apes are then shown to be eating bloody carcasses, presumably tapirs, which marks a drastic change in their diet from small plants and leaves. With their newfound weapon, the first group of man-apes easily take back the water hole.         
:In a match cut often described as one of the most famous shots in motion picture history, a victorious man-ape throws a bone into the air and the film jumps forward to the modern era, the image of the bone matched to that of a man-made satellite—presumably a weapons platform, illustrating the advancement of human technology. 
:The remainder of the film takes place in a near-future time (presumably around the year 2001, as the film's title suggests). The second chapter begins with no title, and proceeds to show a transport shuttle docking into an orbiting space station, with Earth in the background. Several shots of the interior of the shuttle's cabin show it carries only one passenger: Dr. Heywood R. Floyd, a scientist bound for the Moon. 
:Floyd arrives in the space station, as a monotone stewardess says the first spoken lines of the film: "Here you are, sir. Main Level, please." Floyd meets Mr. Miller of Station Security, and the two walk through the sterile space station to a restaurant, but Floyd stops and makes a call as Miller goes on ahead. 
:In the first real narrative exposition scene, Floyd meets an old friend Elena and her colleagues, and sits down for a chat. After revealing that he is going to the Moon base Clavius, one of Elena's friends, Dr. Andrei Smyslov, becomes interested and inquires as to why no one can get in contact with the base, and Elena mentions that the base denied emergency landing to a shuttle. Floyd expresses blank surprise and naivete at these facts, but when Smyslov brings up the rumor that an epidemic has broken out at the base, Floyd turns resolute and firmly refuses to comment on the situation.  
:The next scene resembles the space shuttle docking sequence from before, as Floyd's lunar landing craft Aries heads towards the moon base Clavius. The craft settles down onto the base and is lowered down on an elevated platform into the heart of the base. 
:In a meeting room on Clavius, Floyd lectures to several scientists on the importance of hiding the real reason for Clavius's suspicious activities: they have dug up a black monolith (similar to the one the man-apes encountered) and the epidemic is simply a cover story. The scene cuts to a transport shuttle on the Moon, where Floyd and two other scientists debate what the monolith is and where it came from, saying it was "deliberately buried." The shuttle lands at the dig site, and the scientists warily approach the monolith. They gather around it for a group photo, but before one is taken an earsplitting sound issues from the monolith.                     
:Before any explanation is offered for the Monolith's tone, the movie jumps forward once again to its third chapter entitled "Jupiter Mission: Eighteen Months Later." The story here takes place on the spaceship Discovery One that has been sent on a scientific mission to the planet Jupiter.
:Accompanying the pilots, astronauts Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) and Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood), are three scientists in cryogenic hibernation and the HAL 9000, an onboard supercomputer. During a conversation with Dave, HAL reveals his anxiety about the mission, but before he can go any further he detects a fault in a crucial ship component. Bowman goes out in an EVA Pod to retrieve and repair the part, but upon examination they find that the part is completely fine. HAL suggests restoring the part and waiting until it fails to determine what’s wrong with it. Bowman and Poole enter a pod, shut off all audio communication, and have a private conversation from HAL about what to do if he turns out to be wrong. Unbeknownst to them, HAL is reading their lips. 
:Poole heads out in a pod to restore the part while Dave watches inside the Discovery One. As Poole exits the pod to manually restore the part, HAL uses the empty pod to somehow detach Poole from his air support (it is never shown how he does this with the pod.) Poole floats lifeless into space as Bowman exits the ship in another pod to rescue him (forgetting to bring his space helmet). While Bowman is outside, HAL murders the three hibernating scientists by sabotaging their life support systems. 
:Bowman manages to retrieve Poole’s body and asks HAL to “open the pod bay doors.” HAL refuses to let him in and reveals that he knows of Bowman and Poole’s conversation in the pod. He also informs Bowman that without his helmet it would be fatal to enter the emergency air lock. He decides to do it anyway, and by using the pod’s ejection system propels himself into the airlock, seals the chamber, and fills it with oxygen.   
:Bowman enters HAL’s “brain room” where all of HAL’s memory and operating systems are stored. With HAL pleading for him to stop, Bowman proceeds to dismantle and disconnect him. Gradually HAL reverts back to his earliest programming, loses his memory, and sings a children’s song.
:HAL's shut down triggers a prerecorded briefing recorded on Earth by Heywood Floyd, which explains to the crew (although Bowman is the only survivor) the true nature of the mission, which is to investigate the signal sent from the black monolith. 
:The fourth segment, titled “Jupiter And Beyond The Infinite”, begins with a shot of the Discovery One entering the Jupiter system, and shows that another monolith, identical to the previous two, is orbiting around Jupiter. Bowman exits the Discovery One on a pod, and “enters” the monolith. 
:Bowman appears to travel across vast distances of space and time in a corridor or tunnel of colorful light and sound, in what is described as “a cosmic light show” and is often labeled “the Star Gate sequence.” He arrives in a Luis XVI style hotel room, which is completely deserted save for himself. He begins to rapidly age and eventually lies on his death-bed. Another monolith appears at the foot of his bed, and as Bowman reaches out to it, he is transformed into a baby-like figure in a ball of light, what audiences call the “Star Child”.  The Star Child is then shown in orbit above ethe earth.
====tweeks by me====
I must apologize for the slight alteration I made to your proposal.  The film 2010 does maintain that the HAL incident did occur as Discovery entered Jupiter space, but 2001 contradicts this.  The film shows the events taking place three weeks after launch.  Discovery could not have reached Jupiter in so short a period of time.  The recording was supposed to be played after the survey team had been awakened.  Instead, the deactivation of HAL triggered it. 
The opening and changing shots of Discovery and the monolith would appear to indicate the passage of a significant amount of time the in scene (i.e. not the actual 2 minutes real time in the film).
In J Angel's Making of Kubrick's 2001, the hotel room was described as being Louis XVI style instead of 18th century.
I added a final sentence describing the conclusion.
Hope you don't mind.  If you want approval  -- I AM ALL FOR IT!  POST THE THING.  If I do it, it'll almost certainly be reverted the minute it happens.
Best
--Jason Palpatine 03:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, glad you like it, and don't bother apologizing for the tweaks, as I want this to be as accurate as possible. Thanks for your approval, and I'll post it within a couple of days if no one says anything. -Dark Kubrick 03:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, it's added. -Dark Kubrick 02:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some major copyediting on your synopsis. I would like to remove a few non-essential parts, but I am pretty happy with it as it stands. I would also like to add an image of the man-apes approaching the monolith.--Bungopolis 05:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Want me to put it in? I have several good images to choose from. -Dark Kubrick 05:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you show them? --Bungopolis 05:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "Here's the best, I think. -Dark Kubrick 05:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me, I'll add it now --Bungopolis 07:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Recording "Supposed to be activated after they reached Jupiter"?  No.  The hope was that none of the predictable failures would occur. But they made recordings for all possible foreseeable failures, including the one where the ship got marooned at Jupiter.   The ship was meant to go slingshot around Jupiter and head for Epsilon Eridani at .88C.  If Dave had not freaked out and turned off the computer, this particular recording would not be activated at all.  I have written some more thoughts on this at http://www.geocities.com/gregu10/ettuHAL.txt  Frizb 23:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New proposal

message: I must apologize for the slight alteration I made to your proposal.  The film 2010 does maintain that the HAL incident did occur as Discovery entered Jupiter space, but 2001 contradicts this.  The film shows the events taking place three weeks after launch.  Discovery could not have reached Jupiter in so short a period of time.  The recording was supposed to be played after the survey team had been awakened.  Instead, the deactivation of HAL triggered it. 
The opening and changing shots of Discovery and the monolith would appear to indicate the passage of a significant amount of time the in scene (i.e. not the actual 2 minutes real time in the film).
In J Angel's Making of Kubrick's 2001, the hotel room was described as being Louis XVI style instead of 18th century.
I added a final sentence describing the conclusion.
Hope you don't mind.  If you want approval  -- I AM ALL FOR IT!  POST THE THING.  If I do it, it'll almost certainly be reverted the minute it happens.
Best
--Jason Palpatine 03:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, glad you like it, and don't bother apologizing for the tweaks, as I want this to be as accurate as possible. Thanks for your approval, and I'll post it within a couple of days if no one says anything. -Dark Kubrick 03:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, it's added. -Dark Kubrick 02:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some major copyediting on your synopsis. I would like to remove a few non-essential parts, but I am pretty happy with it as it stands. I would also like to add an image of the man-apes approaching the monolith.--Bungopolis 05:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Want me to put it in? I have several good images to choose from. -Dark Kubrick 05:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you show them? --Bungopolis 05:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "Here's the best, I think. -Dark Kubrick 05:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me, I'll add it now --Bungopolis 07:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Recording "Supposed to be activated after they reached Jupiter"?  No.  The hope was that none of the predictable failures would occur. But they made recordings for all possible foreseeable failures, including the one where the ship got marooned at Jupiter.   The ship was meant to go slingshot around Jupiter and head for Epsilon Eridani at .88C.  If Dave had not freaked out and turned off the computer, this particular recording would not be activated at all.  I have written some more thoughts on this at http://www.geocities.com/gregu10/ettuHAL.txt  Frizb 23:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: tweeks by me

message: Surely there is more to be said about the SFX than just that bit about back projections.
-- Beardo 05:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think it is the most lacking section of the article. I'll do some work on this section soon, when I can be bothered. --Bungopolis 04:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special Effects 

message: There's a 70mm showing of 2001 at the Castro Theatre in San Francisco this Friday (August 11) at 6 and 9 PM if anybody in the bay area is interested in seeing the film in all its glory. For those who can't, is there anything you'd like me to look out for that can't be seen on the DVD edition? --Bungopolis 23:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes -- please watch for livery on the satellites. Also, on the food tray dispensing unit during the space-station-to-moon segment, there's a brand name on the unit visible (in, I believe, the upper-left of the frame), I think Westinghouse or Whirlpool. Last, on the food trays themselves, I believe each of the eight straw-bearing modules has a Seabrook Farms logo in the lower-left corner. Thanks in advance, -- Sailorlula 01:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So did you make it to the showing, How was it? -- Sailorlula 20:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was amazing. If you ever get the chance to see it on a big screen, and particularly in 70mm (many showings are in 35mm transfer), you must do it! Watching the DVD pales in comparison to the theater experience, including the sound and music, which are much more powerful at full seat-rumbling volume. The TMA-1 radio signal tone is unbearably ear-piercing, as well as the "LIFE FUNCTIONS TERMINATED" beeping, for both of which the audience scrambled to cover their ears. It was really pretty bold of Kubrick to have decided to actually cause physical pain to the audience. Although the audience giggled quite a lot at the pre-historic scenes (the apes are a bit less convincing in full size, so it was a little hard to suspend one's disbelief), it was very cool to experience it with a full house. There was a roar of laughter and applause (appropriately cynical laughter and applause) at HAL's great line "I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over." The EVA scenes were also incredibly stressful and claustrophobic. In this sense, 2001 is an incredibly immersive experience when presented as it was intended, and the Star-Child is a strangely comforting as a finale to the whole thing. It can't say how exactly it has changed my interpretation of the film, since I don't really have a unified "theory" to begin with, but I did find the amplified emotions as a result of the scale of both image and sound pretty enlightening. The Castro seats 1400, but the balcony level was closed, so there might have been 700 people? The line to enter went around the block. A passer-by commented "is this really the line for a 37 year old movie?" Sorry Sailorlula, but I couldn't catch any of the details you mentioned as I was too busy enjoying the movie and it kept slipping my mind... --Bungopolis 07:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds like it was great -- I'm jealous. The last time I saw it on the big screen was in 2001 in Times Square at the now gone Loews Astor Place, during a winter storm. The huge theater had maybe ten people in it, including a couple in their early twenties behind me who'd never seen it before. The film jammed during the intro. After the end, I asked the couple what they thought, and all they could say was "It all looks so dated -- it reminds us of EPCOT!" -- Sailorlula 18:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  70mm showing in San Francisco 

message: This looks pretty good.  Very straightforward, "just what you see."24.33.28.52 22:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about the curtains Sailorlula, I'll fix it. I'm going to see the film at a theater tommorrow, I'll see what they do in this respect today! --Bungopolis 04:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Bungopolis 05:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tangential question about that.  Is 2001's reputation (particularly among casual viewers) being hurt today by the mistaken impression that people are supposed to sit attentively during the entr'acte?  Since the DVD does not bother to explain such practices or anything.  I don't know if it would be worth getting into in the article, but think that this might be the case at least in some small way.  Sort of a "how dare you make me sit through three minutes of black, mister high and mighty 2001 a space oddyssey?"  Anyone know if there's been discussion of this that could be referred to?24.33.28.52 08:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: WRT entr'acte, I've read multiple reviews on IMDB showing this is often the case. I used to hate that on the original 2001 DVD, a corny, still filler image was kept on-screen during the intro and intermission music (vs. the more recent releases with music and black screen). Given how many clueless viewers think they're being asked to sit staring at a black screen in rapt attention, maybe adding the stills wasn't such a bad idea! -- Sailorlula 21:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right about "The Dawn of Man" - I couldn't remember if this title was actually used in the film, but I missed it when I checked. I will correct this. I'll also find a way to deal with whether or not the 2nd "chapter" should be viewed as such. --Bungopolis 04:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Bungopolis 05:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Synopsis 

message: I'd remove this item from the list of scientific inaccuracies. 
:*There is a somewhat famous, though small, technical error when Heywood Floyd is flying to the moon. Supposedly in a weightless state, he sips through a straw, and when he lets go of it, the fluid slides back into the container. \
True if you stopped sucking at the straw, the liquid would not fall back; it might even flow out and spill because the sucking creates a siphon. I'm sure Heywood Floyd would have learned to avoid this e.g. by ending a prolonged suction with a quick short blow, which would send the liquid back down. 
I would not add this explanation to the article because it's original :-) Vincent 05:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This error is verrified in Making of Kubrick's 2001.  Why did you delete it when it is valid?  --Jason Palpatine 05:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw man

message: From the "2001: A Space Odyssey (film)" wiki article:
:"Upon release, 2001 received mostly positive reviews"
From the "Stanley Kubrick" wiki article:
:"Initial reactions from critics were overwhelmingly negative"
A repair is clearly needed --Sailorlula 22:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the usual history go that reviews were generally unfavorable but that the film became a popular hit?  The popular success of the movie is something that gets a bit glossed over in this day and age with people giving the old "critics love it but the people hate it" attitude, which really is not true of this movie historically speaking.24.33.28.52 01:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My recollection from reading the many 1968-69 reviews in "The Making of Kubrick's 2001" is that most critics -- while impressed by the film's technical virtuosity - were generally negative or just plain bewildered. (As far as rank and file viewers are concerned, a quick look at IMDB reviews for 2001 shows that many folks have extreme positive or negative opinions.) I'd say the text in the "Stanley Kubrick" Wiki article is the correct verison. -- Sailorlula 02:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: True about imdb, but bear in mind that it's a relatively recent development and speaks only for those with ability and volition to comment in such places.  Ticket sales over a long period of time speak more about a popular success than anything else, and 2001 is an easy example of that.  There's also a considerable anti-2001 sentiment on the internet that may not have existed even fifteen years ago. I would not consider imdb a definitive measure of popular success in this case particularly, but also just in general due to the old "telephone poll bias".24.33.28.52 09:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes of course, IMDB is both anecdotal and totally too 'newbie'-slanted. Then again, I saw 2001 in June of 1968 (in Cinerama!) when I was 10, and I remember a lot of folks disliking it at that time. But all this is about the audience, not the critics. I think the article text should go with the  "most critics were negative" take. -- Sailorlula 09:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, generally negative would be about right.  Talking about this movie on these terms is difficult because while 2001 has been a darling of -criticism- (academic examination done after the fact) it has often garnered hostility in -reviews- (newspaper & magazine recommendations for their audience)... the two are often taken for the same thing in the general vernacular, which really makes things tricky.  With 2001, the release pattern itself also (potentially) introduced skew in terms of reviews--many reviewers were looking at a movie that already had a reputation, which can introduce that reactionary element.  Blah I'm longwinded.  Anyway, it seems a fair enough edit.24.33.28.52 22:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but a look at the many critiques provided in Jerome Agel's book The Making of Kubrick's 2001 simply doesn't support the conclusion that the film received "mostly negative reviews."  The entire "Reaction" section of this article is incredibly skimpy and needs to be rewritten and greatly expanded with examples of the kinds of responses 2001 received at the time of its initial release, both pro and con.  The provided quotes from Pauline Kael, Stanley Kauffman, and Roger Ebert don't even begin to provide an adequate representation of the varying critical reactions to the film.-Hal Raglan 02:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Were 2001 Reviews Good or Bad?

message: The page says: "This article appears to contradict another article.
Please see discussion on the talk page."
:Would someone please explain to me what this is about? -- Jason Palpatine 22:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the section Were 2001 Reviews Good or Bad? immediately above this one. --Bungopolis 22:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article appears to contradict another article?

message: Does "MGM made a publicity still..." refer to the following: 2001_photo?  If so, it's an octagonal corridor.  Of course, this may be a different photo, but Bowman is holding the antenna part, and lots of the corridors are octagonal anyway: 2001_spaceodissey.gif Slov01 13:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MGM publicity still 

message: Anyone feel like the cast section is unneeded? 2001 is definitely not an actors' film, and the three main stars are already mentioned in the infobox and other parts of the article. We'd also get rid of a useless image as well.--Dark Kubrick 02:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree --Bungopolis 05:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree -- those curious can go to IMDB for that info. -- Sailorlula 12:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree - it may not be an actors film, but they are still an important part.  Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia - we shouldn't say - "go to IMDB for that info". -- Beardo 14:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I still think that the article weould be poorer for the removal of Ed Bishop. Some people may be looking to see who played the parents. -- Beardo 03:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not, we are an encyclopedia, let's be encyclopedic !  Perhaps this could be spun into a separate article with just a link from here ?  Then it doesn't clutter up this page, but is still availble in wikipedia.  -- Beardo 19:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of cast section 

message: This text has been recently added to the "Scientific Accuracy" section:
:"During the approach of the Pan Am shuttle to the space station, two cinemagraphic errors occur. First, the spin of the space station switches back and forth between a clockwise and anticlockwise. Second, a shot of the shuttle cockpit shows the shuttle synchronising its spin with that of the space station, but the rendezvous monitor on the control panel shows the space station still rotating relative to the shuttle."
It's a good catch, but I vote for removing it from this section. Perhaps a new section is needed specifically for this class of errors? Of course, we'd then have to populate it with all the other errors of this sort (as seen on IMDB). Thoughts?
-- Sailorlula 12:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with Sailorlula.  Article is too long already to denote such a detail, and should not be devoted to picking out every little technical error or failed "prediction".  Both do disservice to the movie in that it's notable for trying to avoid science/tech errors where other movies disregard that entirely, so picking its bones for errors to expand a list is a slanted approach in comparison to other films--and of course the latter, the "predictions" is a common misinterpretation of the purpose of SF generally.  Suggest not only removal of this piece but also the so-called "forecasts" about the USSR and Pan Am, possible further trims to section.24.165.147.43 19:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. --Bungopolis 22:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cinemagraphic Errors don't belong under Scientific Accuracy Section 

message: Why does 2001: A Space Odyssey redirect to 2001: A Space Odyssey (film), instead of vice versa? --(trogga) 21:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because someone has just changed the redirect, but there was no concensus on a move. -- Beardo 23:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect  

message: Was this the first time a space going habitation was shown as a spoked wheel (even if partially under construction)?
One possibility for the cup mentioned above - it was designed for use in zero gravity so has an "automatic fluid suck back".
Jackiespeel 17:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  An earlier wheel station based on Von Braun's original concept was put to film in the movie "Conquest of Space."  Unlike Kubrick, who fully understood the principle of its design, the makers of this film shot the station sequences on a flat and curved set.  -- Jason Palpatine 09:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Space base 5

message: I am confused by the following plot error assertion:
Possibly the most glaring plot error is the failure to troubleshoot the core problem by trained and experienced pilots:
* HAL 9000 is a very intelligent computer, thus, assumingly, it is an extremely complex system at either the software or hardware level, probably both. To consider it “fool-proof”, as done in the film, seems an unwise assertion.
This assertion should not be written in the passive voice. Who is considering HAL 9000 fool proof?
Are we saying that because certain characters in the film consider HAL 9000 fool-proof, and they are later proven wrong when HAL makes mistakes, that this is an error in the plot?
:The whole thing is speculation, and quite lame at that. I vote for deleting it altogether. Sailorlula 04:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I'm deleting it now. --Bungopolis 06:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot errors? 

message: I have a question for everyone: is there any definitive way, from viewing the film alone, for us to know the orientation of the centrifuge within the forward sphere of Discovery? That is, is the plane of centrifuge 'horizontal', 'vertical' or what?
Also, did the book have anything to say about this?
Sailorlula 05:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The centrifuge is set virtically at the back of the sperical command-module.  The thimbal shaped projecton at the rear where it is conected to the instrumantation modules, contains the flywheel.  A vertival access tube is in the center (Bowmwn was shown climbing up it to get to HAL) going from the podbay up to the command deck.  There is a door in the back of it at the midlevel -- this is the entrance to the centrifuge hub.  -- Jason Palpatine 09:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is the Discovery Centrifuge Oriented? 

message: The synopsis is very well written, however in my opinion we really don't need included in it, at what point certain musical scores are playing for the different scenes. To me it detracts from the purpose of the synopsis altogether, which is a cliffnotes versian of the movie. Any opinions? Coradon
:I think the music is such an integral part of the film that it deserves mention in the synopsis. The opening sequence with Also sprach Zarathustra, for instance, is probably most memorable because of the music that accompanies it. --Bungopolis 04:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the music references are crucial and should stay. And by the way, it's CliffsNotes, not CliffNotes- Sailorlula 04:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need the music in the synopsis? 

message: I have some issues with this section. I fixed some grammatical, punctuation issues. But I note we have a whole subsection devoted to, cough cough, things that 2001 "failed to predict." ("Some important innovations were not anticipated:") 
I think it's irrelevant to the film. Okay, to start with, it's a fictional film, not a science fair. Comparing technical projections depicted in the film with actual developments as of 2000 is fair game: biometrics, videophones, electronic (?) fountain pens, flat panel tv/computer displays, automated computer control, zero-G toilets on extended space flights, voice command computer interface, microwave ovens (arguable), etc. Interesting and fun to reexamine from our historical viewpoint. But faulting the film for what it didn't "predict" is IMHO a double-fallacy. It didn't predict the Internet? Where in the film was a global computer inter-network portrayed? Why not fault it for not "predicting" ... reality tv, virtual reality, cyberspace, TiVO, Britney Spears, the breakup of The Beatles, CD/DVD optical storage, the paperless office, freeze-dried ice cream, spermicidal foam, WiFi, PDAs, Windows, Clackers, GPS, terrorism, Pee Wee Herman, Anita Bryant, Jaws (film), Segways, rollerblading, the Moral Majority, video game entertainment, Tribadism, Star Trek's reemergence, ... sigh ... and a few hundred other developments of the last quarter of the 20th century that 2001 "failed" to predict." You get the idea, surely.
The overall article is long enough, I think the rationale that Jason, Sailorlula and others have promoted for the synopsis can be applied to other sections: discuss the film, what's in the film, but leave conjecture about what the film "doesn't have" to subjective fan pages. Thoughts on this? TIA. — David Spalding Talk/Contribs 06:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already posted on this matter and generally agree.  Although sailorlula had a point in his response, I still think that it's fun but not necessary or well-suited to the encyclopedia article.24.165.210.213 08:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although my name was mentioned here in regards to another matter, I'm not sure wether or not I should be flattered.  I must agree here (surprised?) -- a failure to predict section is I think a little too far left field by any definition.  As for it failing to predict the internet, there was a sequence that was filmed that depicted Floyd accessing a global information network during his time on the Aires leg of his  journey to the moon -- it was cut and never used, but is in the novel.  -- Jason Palpatine 08:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The following "comment" was added to the article last night (subsequently rv'ed): People with too much time on their hands. Are we really gonna make a list of what this movie didn't Anticipate? You people are too much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.236.77.36 (talk • contribs).  I swear that's NOT my ip! :D ~Dbs I was referring to the Talk discussions months ago, Jason, I think several editors recommended brevity and conciseness over comprehensive inclusion. I personally think the article is pretty long, but not for lack of really interesting content. It's one of the 50 most important films made, as many "top 100" lists attest. Our humble little page just trying to cover so much. Hence my skeptical glower at "what's NOT in the film." Perhaps Looking back at 2001 could be a separate article; surely there's a similiar one for 1984 (novel) (he said, hoping that no one's fact-checking this morning). Oh, I think I recall the "Aries" segment you refer to, wasn't that where Clarke described the "NewsPad" that Dave and Frank were watching on the Discovery, was really a flat panel computing/informational device? I love that idea, Sharp is (was) working on one circa 1996. Bravo, Clarke. ... OMG, that just reminded me of something....  — David Spalding ta!k y@wp/Contribs 14:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: — David Spalding ta!k y@wp/Contribs 21:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I had a quick go at rephrasing it two weeks ago, because I thought that a comparison of the "2001" of the film with the real year 2001 was interesting and noteworthy, but to claim the film was a "prediction" that was partly "wrong" is to misunderstand the film and, for that matter, the creative arts in general. In some ways, the film obviously does show a best guess from 1968 as to what life would be like 33 years later, but only to create what would have seemed a believable setting for the events of the film. There's nothing wrong with mentioning this; Kubrick's guesses were, in part, pretty accurate. However, to extrapolate from this that the whole film is little more than fortune-telling is to do it little justice, and is, ipso facto, original research. ProhibitOnions (T) 21:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2001: A Space Odyssey (film)#Imagining_the_Future|Imagining the future]] 

message: Is this based on a novel by Clarke, or was the novel based on the screenplay?  Nowhere in this article is it stated that the movie is based on the book, though the article has the category tag 'films based on books'.  Whichever is the case, it needs to be stated clearly, probably in paragraph #2 if the former is the case.  Tempshill 14:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The movie's screenplay and the book were written simultaneously. That way, Clarke and Kubrick could make suggestions for each other. However, the book was released several months after the movie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andy120290 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So that category is not really correct - unless you argue it was based on "The Sentinel". -- Beardo 18:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should definitely mention the book in the article, most likely in the opening, because they were written concurrently, and were meant to accompany each other. Bonus Onus 17:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book? 

message: I mentioned that Roger Ebert was a young critic in the article because, he only started with the Chicago Sun-Times the year prior, he was not popular yet and he didn't yet win the Pulitzer prize. His reviews would have been seen and written differently that they would today. Funa 16:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's superfluous. The statement clearly intimates that he said that then, not later. Charles Champlin had only reviewed for the LA Times for three years, would you also point that out? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roger Ebert 

message: Plot summary follows popular belief
I believe I can prove that the popular beliefs about the technology in this movie are wrong.  Some of the evidence comes from Clarke's early work in space radar and radio, and in his article about meteorites.  Copies of two of his articles can be found on my web site at www.geocities.com/gregu10/geek/geek.htm  Later in life Clarke became an expert in two other areas of space exploration, predicting how the astronaut will behave, and predicting when radio signals can be corrected for errors.  All of these obscure technologies add up to a better explanation for the pods behavior, for the AE-35, and for HAL not letting Dave back in the ship.
The first issue I have is the pod.  Clarke's 1940s paper on meteorites concluded that a large space ship in the asteroid belt would not be nimble enough to dodge meteorites, nor powerful enough to destroy them.  In the movie we see meteorites just before the fatal scene.  Then the pod warning light turn on, then we see the severed air hose and the dead astronaut cross in front of us followed by the pod.  The pod crossed the astronauts path after his death.  The pod was trying to save the astronaut from a meteorite.  This scene might be a pre-view of what happened to Apollo 13.  That would be true if we could prove that Apollo 13 was hit by a meteorite and then the oxygen bottle failed.  Similarly the accident on Columbia happened not because the wing failed, but because the wing had been hit by ice, and was the part of the wing most likely to fail if it got too hot.
The second issue is the AE-35.  Using filtering techniques such as the Viterbi algorithm for radio communications was well known in 1968.  Viterbi developed his algorithm for the Venus spacecraft, and prior to that Wiener and Kalman had developed filtering algorithms used in television screens for radar applications.  Hal never says the AE-35 failed.  He predicted when it was going to fail, in the future.  This is possible when using error correcting algorithms.  Hal does not understand why the astronauts are so upset about his prediction.  Despite something like 76,000 systems on board, Hal expects the astronauts to know all about the AE-35 unit at the base of the microwave.  Hal has never seen anything quite like it.  Hal suggests putting it back, and waiting for it to fail!
The question is why does Clarke know it will fail.  His 1947 article on radio range to Jupiter shows clearly that power and range are available for communicating to earth.  Furthermore, Clarke showed that none of the other radio problems such as Doppler, ranging or tracking will create any unsolvable problems.  So why was Hal waiting for the AE-35 to start error correcting?  Why did Hal think the astronauts would want to know as soon as Hal knew?  Was there some fact of radio that Clarke missed back in 1947?  The answer is yes - Clarke failed to consider that a spaceship near Jupiter would accelerate to 35,000 mph or more, causing relativistic changes in wavelengths of the radio nearly one part in a million.  This relatavistic change is the reason the AE-35 unit started doing error correction, and led to the prediction of the failure of all microwave communications in a few days.  But the AE-35 never did fail.  They turned it off.  In the 1960s book Making of 2001 Clarke is quoted saying the computer was perfectly correct, it was ground control who messed up.  Ground control was not travelling 35,000MPH!!!
At this point Hal knows that Dave is a threat to the ship.  If you read the 1962 US Navy study about conflict resolution on my website by Mesarovic you will see the prediction that crew performance will decline rapidly if the two crewman talk to each other.  This is what happened, and Hal was well aware of the fact - he observed their lips moving while they were together in the pod - talking paranoia about Hal.  Early NASA studies such as the NASA 1962 University Symposium have simpler mathematical models for astronauts and test pilots.  It was Mesarovic who worked out the case of two astronauts on a ship being controlled by the ground with a seven hour communication delay.  
If you think critically during the time that Hal is doing the psychological workup - you can tell that Hal doesn't know what they are talking about.  Hal is just filling in the blanks for the psychologists at NASA.  He is boring chess partner as well.  Not intelligent.
Frizb 02:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Belief 

message: I just finished watching the movie on AMC for the second time and in the credits I saw this quote "thus spoke tharathustra" under someone's name, I think it was near the music credits. I do believe thats from Nietzche. So does anyone know why this quote appears in the credits? Ice Jedi5 22:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better late than never, I hope... "Also sprach Zarathustra" or "Thus Spake Zarathustra" is the name of the musical piece by Richard Strauss most commonly associated with this movie, the brass fanfare.--NapoliRoma 05:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote in credits 

message: <P>I am pretty sure that the apes have omnivore teeth, rather than herbivorous, which suggests that they already ate meat, though this contradicts their apparent gathering-only behaviour. If they do have omnivorous teeth, surely they did not "learn to kill" but instead learned to use tools (in this case, a weapon-tool). Certainly, it seems that they did learn to kill other humanoids at this time, but I suspect that this whole confusion is a result of faulty costume design, being the omnivore teeth in a herbivore's mouth.</p>
<P>My point is: <I>"As some of his tribe mimic his actions, he howls in triumph — Man has learned to kill"</i> should be eliminated. Anyone agree?</p>Asteroceras 20:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any doubt that the tribe mimic his actions and he howls - apparently in triumph - but "Man has learned to kill" is arguably editorialising and really belongs in a discussion under Interpretation (suitably cited of course) rather than Plot. Cheers, Ian Rose 21:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "man has learned to murder" would be much better, don't you think? What matters is the reason behind killing, with the ape killing the other purely in a display of power and domination. That one thinks he is superior to the other and it entitled to something.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.164.65.78 (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "learned to kill" issue 

message: If I am not mistaken, I think another inaccuracy is the rotating vessel as they travel to Jupiter. Such a quickly rotating object could not be attached to a non-rotating object (the rest of the ship) without contributing a rotation to the latter, although in the movie the rotating section is connected to the rest. ~ Rollo44 09:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific accuracy - rotation 

message: When the sun shines on the Monolith, do the scientists die when they hear the radio disturbance, or do they just fall down. I don't remember exactly what happened, but I always wondered if they died or not. Could someone clarify this for me? (I'm 69.120.63.248, forgot to sign)
>>>The monolith sends out a radio beacon.   The signal blares in the headsets of the space suits.   The humans instinctivly put their hands to their heads (another sly reference to our animal/instinctual-past).   They don't die.   Just an ear-ache.
::::Ahh, thank you. I was the only one in my family who saw it, so I couldn't ask anyone what they thought had happened. 
:::::Whoops! I forgot to sign last time. --69.120.63.248 02:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TMA-1 

message: Suprisingly,there seems to be little in this article in terms of box office gross, or even how the film compares in terms of high grossing films.Can anyone provide this information.Rodrigue 22:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box office gross 

message: Jason and Jackaranga seem to be having an edit war dispute over: "Computers depicted as having an error-free performance record, completely unlike the glitch-heavy computers of today."
First: it's not really depicted in the film that computers generally had an "error-free performance record", only that the 9000 series did (before HAL's malfunction). It's not even implied that computers generally might be error-free, because HAL's perfect record is something of a marvel to the BBC interviewer and the astronauts.
Second: there is a general misconception over what constitutes computer-error that might come into play here. Computer hardware can malfunction, but it is very unusual, since digital  circuits are designed with restoring logic -- signal re-amplification at every logic gate -- that makes the probability of error astronomically small and impossible for all intensive purposes (this is one of the most powerful discoveries of our history).
Software error is a different thing all together. Computers do exactly what they are told. But when your PC does something you didn't "tell" it to do, this almost certainly does not constitute a computer error. Instead, it constitutes a programmer error -- the instructions written by the author of the software you are using (or any of the programmers that built the systems down the entire chain of software underlying it) failed to anticipate the state you were to create in your computer when you issued your command.
When NASA's satellites, probes, and robots malfunction (occasionally compromising the entire mission), it is not because the computational circuits inside of them have "made" a mistake, but that the software running on that hardware already contained one. Assuming the film does suggest that all computers are "glitch-free" (which it doesn't), to say that "many space probes have glitched and been lost," and that therefore our computers make "mistakes" in a somehow more important way than the hypothetical machines of the film, is a misleading oversimplification.
--Bungopolis 21:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tks Bungopolis. While I don't know that Jason and Jackaranga are quite in an edit war at this stage (only one round each so far!) and your last few paragraphs above may be getting in too deep, I fully agree your main points. I don't think the film implies that computers as a rule will be 'error-free', in fact not even the 9000 series is shown to be such - look at HAL! The line in the article is simplistic at best and inaccurate on all counts at worst. It would say delete it completely. Cheers, Ian Rose 22:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I'm not in an edit war! :)  I just thought I would remove the part about computers having many glitches nowadays.  Most personal computers, especially if badly setup will crash from time to time.  However computing systems can be made that have a much better record that Windows or other personal operating systems.  I think it's unfair to compare HAL to a personal computer, when the film clearly states that he is the best type of computer available.  I don't know of any space probes lost due to an uncaught computer bug.  However if this has happened with any recent ones (remember it must be from 2001 onwards!) feel free to add it back in, with the reference.  In the film it's debatable whether or not HAL has an error, or if he does it on purpose.--Jackaranga 12:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few examples: In 1998 the Mars Climate Orbiter was destroyed over Mars due to a software (unit conversion) bug. The Mars Polar Lander was also destroyed in 1998 due to a software bug. Phobos 1 ran out of energy due to a software bug in 1988. Mariner 1 failed on launch in 1962 due to a software bug. As did Ariane 5 Flight 501 in 1996.--Bungopolis 14:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are all prior to 2001 though, still interesting, I didn't know about all those.--Jackaranga 11:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error-free computer performance record 

message: Can someone please tell me what the hell was Kurbich trying to explain in the movie. I read the book and seen the movie on TCM. I still get the theme of the movie in general.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.16.211.95 (talk • contribs).
:
::-- Bungopolis 18:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of the Movie 

message: The rest of the film can be divided into four acts — an unusual number, rarely seen in any form of narrative — each but the second preceded by on-screen title cards.
Is there any independent evidence that there are four acts?  Arguably, the movie has three acts, each preceded by an on-screen title card.  The first act, titled "The Dawn of Man", would therefore span several million years; i.e. we are, ourselves, still living in the earliest period of the human race.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.193.71.9 (talk • contribs).
:Since Kubrick gave us 3 title cards, I agree that we should think of 2001 in 3 acts, not 4. The first two time-frames (Savanna, Clavius) are clearly shown to be in continuity through the match cut, and that is definitely an important suggestion the film makes about us, as you said. You could also split the film using the appearance of the monolith, in which case "Jupiter & Beyond the Infinite" would be divided into 2 parts (stargate/room, star-child) giving us 4 acts divided another way. --Bungopolis 21:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would actually consider "Monolith appearances" to make the film 3 acts, as I would consider the third act as Bowman arrives, investigates monolith, is whisked off to nether regions, is twiddled, still seeks to touch/investigate monolith, and is changed as were the ape-men. Three characters reach out and touch/try to touch the monolith: Moonwatcher, Floyd, and Bowman. Adds up to 3 acts, not 4. I agree that the Dawn of Man and Clavius sequences are part of a single act, as the themes, metaphorical ties from Moonwatch to Floyd, and significance of the monolith are consistent. Anyway, this article is not the place to conjecture or interpret "how many acts" the film has. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Acts

message: An anonymous editor (presumably the site owner) keeps adding a link to kubrick2001.com on the external links section. This was happening last year for a while too. It's a cool little flash presentation, but it definitely doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, since its highly interpretative. Does anybody object to me removing it every time? --Bungopolis 22:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection. Link spam is discouraged. If another editor feels the site is a worthwhile external link, fine. But site owners (or presumed owners; e.g. the same IP or anonymouse edit repeatedly adds the same thing only) aren't entitled to "advertise" their sites in WP articles. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 12:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  kubrick2001.com