Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey

Scientific inaccuracies in its depiction of space flight

Some of these points are valid, but without sourcing they would not be suitable for the article

From the article: "The film is noted for its scientifically accurate depiction of space flight, . . ." I beg to differ. The floating pen would be rotating about its center of mass. It isn't. Are the seats in the PanAm shuttle really adequate for a launch? When Frank Poole is drifting away, the stars are continually moving up, and never stop moving up. This would only be true if the camera were "in orbit around him." Unlikely. I'm curious about the stability of the still-under-construction space station, with major pieces of it unfinished. Seems it would lose its balance. The moons of Jupiter are not like what we see in the film. Not at all. I think the space flight stuff is too luxurious compared to what it would actually be. I think Kubrick and Clarke extrapolated from buses to trains to planes to space, and you run out of money between the last two. Look at the ISS. Tens of billions of dollars just for that. Now think of what's in the film. What's with the explosive bolts? Where does the door go when Dave Bowman leaves the pod for the emergency airlock entrance, or whatever it's called? Could we really see stars with the sun in our face? Why is the Moon bluish? People in suspended animation? Uh, we're not quite there yet. Seems to me that the centrifuge room is too small. The artificial gravity would be higher at your feet than your head. Could cause blood flow problems! I've also heard that a calculation shows that the strength of the artificial gravity produced, and the size and angular speed of the centrifuge, are not mutually consistent. Still a great film. But like all movies, it has its flaws. Betaneptune (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, where's the sourcing for my quote? "The film is noted for its scientifically accurate depiction of space flight, . . ." Who claimed this? Yes, people have said it, but where's the source? And it isn't true.

I don't see any "sourcing" for that! So why are my points any worse? Anyone can plainly see my points are valid.

Apparently, whoever wrote the quote doesn't have to "source" it, but I have to source mine. Maybe parts of it, like the calculation for the artificial gravity, but not the rest. Would the Wikipedia article that includes the sizes of Jupiter's moons and their distances from Jupiter be acceptable?

The pen not spinning about its center of mass. What would be a reference, a physics textbook?

Frankly, I tire of seeing claims that space flight in this movie is "scientifically accurate," because it isn't. And this would be a good place to correct that nonsense.

Hey, you could strike that from the article instead of including my points! Just say it's not sourced, which is true!

108.35.232.207 (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

"I'm sorry Dave" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect I'm sorry Dave has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 12 § I'm sorry Dave until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Kubrick and 'destroyed blueprints, models, etc'

I've spent the afternoon trying to nail down the veracity of the challenged sentences under the 'Influence' section "Kubrick did not envision a sequel. Fearing the later exploitation and recycling of his material in other productions (as was done with the props from MGM's Forbidden Planet), he ordered all sets, props, miniatures, production blueprints, and prints of unused scenes destroyed.".

Wasted most of my time doing date-restricted searches for corroboration, as the statement tends to appear in similar wording in numerous media from after 2006 - which is when user Jason Palpatine (no longer active here so not pinging) added it, without a cite, but with the edit summary "K ordered the stuff destroyed (Starlog coverage about making of 2010)" (edit found here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2001:_A_Space_Odyssey&direction=next&oldid=53420315). That suggested later media isn't reliable for sourcing, as they were likely just regurgitating what's found here on WP.

'Starlog' was a sci-fi magazine that had an article about the documentary film of the making of 2010, and which does make the claim, but specific to the Discovery ship only (http://2010odysseyarchive.blogspot.com/2015/ originally published in 1984).

Further searching unearthed an excerpt on YouTube from the documentary in question, where Peter Stetson, Model Shop Supervisor on '2010' says the same beginning here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHpCeBQ5Xug&t=189s - and also seems to be referring only to the Discovery models, plans, etc., though his wording does leave some ambiguity. The fact that other paraphernalia from the film has surfaced from time to time at auction suggests that he was speaking specifically of the 'Discovery'.

Use of Youtube as a source is generally discouraged, but since it's an excerpt directly from the 'making of' documentary, I believe that's acceptable. I'm only going to add the cite, not modifying the current wording - I'd appreciate some feedback on interpreting Mr. Stetson's statements from the documentary before changing it (if needed).

Yep, fell down the rabbit hole here... cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It's often said that all of the models were destroyed. The Discovery probably was, but in March 2015 an Aries 1B Trans-Lunar Space Shuttle used in the film fetched US $344,000 at auction.[1] Also, in 1974, a model of Space Station V was found at a local council dump near the former MGM British studio in Hertfordshire. It was damaged but seems to be genuine.[2]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• There is an image of the Aries that was auctioned here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  There have been claims that this all came down to a failed exhibit and a storage fee Kubrick didn't want to pay in 1974:

  "after the movie was released, Kubrick reneged on a contract that would have sent the spaceships to an exhibition in Washington, D.C.—because he wanted to maintain the mystique of the film, it was thought. The terms of the out-of-court settlement meant Kubrick and MGM had to hold on to the models until the mid-70s, at which point most were sent to a dump",

  "They were crated pending transfer to a new museum being opened in the US. The museum never happened. In 1974, MGM sold the studio, which was then torn down. MGM management told Kubrick if he wanted to keep the 2001 stuff, he'd have to move the crates to storage somewhere else, which he would have to pay for. Kubrick then elected to have the crates sent to the dump."

  Seems to be the only claim that we might be able to back up. The "ordered destroyed after production" claim may be a bit of an urban myth. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

"I'm sorry Dave" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Home media section

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

Sorry, but the table you've inserted is not only much too detailed, it is largely unsourced or OR. As is the prose you've added before it. Barry Wom (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The table is no more detailed or worse-sourced than are the other examples, including another Kubrick film. I added sixty citations to it. It isn't the fault of a Home Media section if a film has been released dozens of times on home media. The previous home media section did not give any idea of the release history of 2001. Georgelazenby (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a WP:CATALOG Betty Logan (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Barry and Betty. The level of detail is indiscriminate, in the vein of WP:IINFO #3 and #4. It is more direct and relevant to say that the film has been released in so-and-so format however many times across the years. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

thanks for your feedback. I'll try finding better citations and create a separate page for the home media releases so that the level of detail will not distract from the main articles for the films. Georgelazenby (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Surely we do not want to be creating pages just full of detail about individual home media releases? There comes a point where such information is not notable and essentially trivia. MapReader (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)