Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film)

Accuracy of first paragraph

I have to question the accuracy of the brief first paragraph of the article, as it currently stands.

I've read about the relationship between Clarke and Kubrick. They didn't get along for multiple reasons. Also Clarke's brilliant short story "The Sentinel" was only reflected in one brief scene of the film — although it clearly inspired the film. The book that Clarke wrote afterwards was really not very like the film at all.

Basically where I question the first paragraph of the article is: I doubt that Clarke worked much on the screenplay -- I don't think Kubrick would let him, and Clarke seems to have disliked the film in general, regarding it as what we might call "woo woo", a lot of spiritualistic atmosphere with little substance. (I liked the film myself, I'm just suggesting that Clarke had little to do with it, despite being hired as a consultant by Kubrick, so I think the Wikipedia article is kind of wrong.)

Also I doubt that Clarke wrote the novel "concurrently" with the film. Its tone and detail are completely different. My guess is that Kubrick had to let him write it aftewards, because of their contract, but that it's really a novelization of how Kubrick thought the film ought to have been, not really parallel to how it was.

I loved all three stages -- the short story, the film, and the novel -- but I'm suggesting that the relationship between them, like the relationship between Clarke and Kubrick, was much more tenuous than this article suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.189.158 (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

First all of the items that you mention are sourced later in the article. Your points seem to be inaccurate. From the books I've read (and there are several) Clarke and Kubrick got along just fine. There was some resentment on Clarke's part in later years but not at the time. Next, the book was written while the film was being made with many of the differences coming down to Kubrick finding that the F/X available at the time not being able to match what Clarke was writing. The best example is that SK had to change the planet that the Discovery was travelling to from Saturn to Jupiter because he couldn't find a way to satisfactorily visualise Saturn's rings. Two books that will help clear up your misconceptions are The Lost Worlds of 2001 and Space Odyssey: Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, and the Making of a Masterpiece. MarnetteD|Talk 01:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, there is little evidence in the sources that Kubrick and Clarke had a poor relationship, and it seems that they got along reasonably well.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

There is much documentation created in the last 50 years about the making of Kubrick's movie (e.g. Agel's The Making of Kubrick's 2001, Benson's Space Odyssey, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.), about the writing of Clarke's book, about the relationship of the two men, about the relationship of the two works. The "I doubt this" and "I doubt that" are often personally fascinating and personally relevant but irrelevant to a public encyclopedia when facts are available.

The old canard "with many of the differences coming down to Kubrick finding that the F/X available at the time not being able to match what Clarke was writing," which typically goes along with the similar statements that the movie and book differ because Kubrick didn't have enough money, or Kubrick didn't have enough time, are, as usual, rarely true (as with the Saturn rings) and mostly false as many facts demonstrate.

For example, we all read in the book Floyd travels in a space plane whose passenger area has 20 seats. ("'Takeoff's in five minutes,' she said, gesturing into the empty twenty-passenger cabin" chapter 7 "Special Flight.") We all see about 22 minutes into the movie 9 rows of 4 seats each, or 36 seats total.

The statement about "the F/X available at the time not being able to match what Clarke was writing" becomes evidence the one who makes such a statement does not know either work well.

The statement reveals its own absurdity for one would have to conclude filming seats is a special effect.

The statement also implies, whether or not filming seats is a special effect, that filming 20 seats is more difficult and requires more time and requires more money than filming 36.

The statement also implies Kubrick was even attempting to film Clarke's words to begin with and I see no reason to conclude that and many reasons to conclude the opposite.

To me the statement is false and worthless. From facts, I conclude Kubrick is not simplifying Clarke's words or ideas but more or less often ignoring them and filming the same rough plot (which the two men created together) in his own way. To me the statement fails in multiple ways when applied to that one example and fails more generally in hundreds if not thousands of other instances. (Shall I import the list of all the ones I know of? In the same scene in the movie, a stewardess captures a floating pen. There is no such moment in Clarke's book. Are we to conclude it took too much money, too much time, and too much effort to film what is not in Clarke's book? Etc.) Let us lay the statement to rest. Please.ConfusedButNotDazed (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

So what is your point? All of your statements are WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. My statements are from the books listed. It is a fact that the book and the film were being developed at the same time. Feel free to start a WP:RFC if you feel the need. Otherwise please be aware that WP:NOTASOAPBOX applies to article talk pages as well. MarnetteD|Talk 19:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes indeed I cited my interpretation and opinion. So have you. I followed your lead. But I cited facts which repudiate your interpretation. WP:NOTASOAPBOX applies to you as well. So, let's agree to stop posting interpretations. "[w]ith many of the differences coming down to Kubrick finding that the F/X available at the time not being able to match what Clarke was writing" is your opinion and facts repudiate it. Let's stick to facts, OK? Thanks. ConfusedButNotDazed (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

My statements are from secondary sources including the books mentioned earlier and are not interpretations so - no - you did not follow my lead. By the way you may want to read up on WP:SPA as well. MarnetteD|Talk 21:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The lead accurately summarizes the sourced content in the article IMO. If there is a problem in the description of the authorship or the nature of Clarke's and Kubrick's relationship then ConfusedButNotDazed should propose fixes for the body along with appropriate sources, as opposed to editorial speculation. Betty Logan (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Fact: in Clarke's book Floyd sits in a window seat. Fact: in Kubrick's movie Floyd sits in an aisle seat. Fact: in Clarke's book Floyd sits in the front row of the passenger section. Fact: in Kubrick's movie Floyd sits in the fifth of nine rows. You may think of these facts anyway you please--you may even think "many of the differences [between the book and movie] coming down to Kubrick finding that the F/X available at the time not being able to match what Clarke was writing." Cited opinion cannot be the foundation of the article as the article is about a movie and not opinion about the movie. To ignore facts, which must be the foundation of the article, and which are plainly inconsistent with specific and accurately cited opinion, seems counter productive. You see, I have accurately cited facts. No one disputes that.

That any editor accurately quotes a sourced opinion is beside the point. We should not be citing opinions in the article. Opinions may or may not be of value; but facts? There are many opinions we might choose to cite among the many available; but the only one an editor cites is necessarily one he agrees with. (By contrast, one neither agrees nor disagrees with facts.) He sneaks in his opinion through the back door. I fully understand this is accepted practice on wikipedia. But it is still counter productive to the goal of the article. As an editor's opinion is always the force behind the selection of any cited source (and his tacit rejection of opinions he chooses to not cite), "editorial speculation" is also beside the point. All citation of sources is speculative and biased. I do not understand why you pretend otherwise. There are many sources in books, journals, and magazines which I could have cited to bolster my position but then I would be doing what you do: I would be pretending an opinion I cite is somehow correct, more important than the facts I also cite, and simply because it is not my opinion, even as it clearly would be--as after all, I choose to cite it and not cite others I disagree with. I offered my opinion directly because it is my opinion and I did not wish to trick anyone. Unlike others, I did not hide behind the opinion of others and pretend--falsely--that it was a neutral opinion neutrally arrived at and thus appropriate. Apparently many of you have missed the purpose of "Let us lay the statement to rest. Please." It was that which was the substance of my comment. I made no attempt to edit the article. I thought calm and reasoned discussion on this talk page about the relationship of shared objective facts to an accurately quoted biased opinion inconsistent with those facts would suffice. You criticize the form of my comment but not its content. None of you argue the accurately quoted statement is correct and consistent with facts. You support it yet you do not support it. You argue merely that it is accurately quoted. (Accurately quoted mistakes are of value but not facts?) Not one of you seems interested in facts. To me this is one reason the article is a mess. It is also a reason I choose to not contribute to the article and seldom even comment on this talk page. You seem unaware you focus upon the wrong thing. ConfusedButNotDazed (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Fact: The seating arrangements and Floyd's place in them does not constitute a significant difference between film and book.

Fact: Statements from witnesses and experts can constitute legitimate evidence.

If you can find a reason as to why a seating arrangement of 20 or 36 seats is significant to the narrative of either the book or film, feel free to. You claim there is a sea of contradicting statements as to the relationship between Kubrick and Clarke, but even ignoring the fact that not all persons or their statement have equal reputability, you have failed to provide any of these "many opinions we might choose to cite". Hiding behind some sort of bizarre, virtue-signalling unwillingness to provide evidence of a supposed mountain of contradictory beliefs. If you have reason to believe that a single opinion that does not reflect the general expert consensus has cherry-picked to create a misleading article, then you have an obligation to use the legitimate sources at your disposal to reveal the truth. This hiding behind a lack of objectivity and a veneer of staying neutral is all addressed in (NPOV). 2600:1702:5B0:1520:4D8D:B1A9:F6B4:9369 (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Name inconsistencies in the plot summary

@Ianmacm: Hi Ian, I notice you reverted an edit by an anonymous editor a couple of days ego. I don't have a problem with the revert per se but the edit did address an inconsistency in the plot summary i.e. Dave Bowman is referred to as "Dave" throughout the summary except for the final paragraph, where he is referred to as "Bowman". I don't mind which but I think it would be better if the name reference were consistent. Betty Logan (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a choice of using Dave or Bowman all the way through the plot summary. I'm fine with consistency either way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with "Dave". It looks like we already use "Frank" consistently throughout the plot summary. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Length of cut footage after premiere

In the Theatrical run section, it first says, "Kubrick decided to delete about nineteen minutes of footage to tighten the film." The next sentence says the original 160 minutes were cut down to "around 88 minutes for the first section, followed by an intermission, and 55 minutes in the second section". Then it goes on to talk about the "revised 142-minute version". So we have 19, 17 and 18 minutes, respectively. So which is it? I'm inclined to go with 17 minutes, because Warner Bros. says it has those 17 minutes in a salt mine archive, and it's implied in the Wired article that that's all the cut footage. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Could be explained away as rounding errors. If you cut 19 minutes from a 160 minute film then that can result in 140–142 minute film (if the seconds are rounded o the nearest minute). Likewise, two sections of 88 and 55 minutes can sum to 142—144 minutes. Cutting 17 minutes from a 160 minute film can similarly result in a 142–144 minute film. So provided the end cut is 142 minutes none of the claims based on length alone are necessarily contradictory.

The only real contradiction is that sources say 19 minutes were cut from the film, and Warner say the found 17 minutes. Is there a plausible explanation for the discrepancy? I suppose it is possible for Kubrick to cut 19 minutes and for Warner to only find 17 minutes. What is more likely I think though is that sources were probably wrong in their earlier reports, and that Kubrick did indeed only cut 17 minutes. I don't think we need to pin our colors to mast on this. We can simply say that the cut footage runs at 17 minutes, although contemporary sources reported at the time that 19 minutes had been cut. The 142/160 minutes difference, and the 88/55 minutes split, are all still consistent with a 17 minute cut allowing for rounding errors. Betty Logan (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It's slight vagueness in the sourcing rather than an outright mistake. As Betty Logan says, subtracting the number from the running time could do this with rounding up/down.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I do object to claiming that the cut footage was 17 minutes long. That's OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Now I am confused. Isn't this what you are making the case for? If any of the numbers are unsourced then they should be removed, and if they are sourced then we should ensure they observe the context of how they are presented in the source. Betty Logan (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You stated that you want to "say that the cut footage runs at 17 minutes" when that is disputed. However, I think I have a solution. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we are getting our wires crossed, what did you mean exactly when said you were "inclined to go with 17 minutes"? If Warner have located the footage and state it is 17 minutes long then it seems fairly undisputed to me that the footage is 17 minutes long (unless of course the source is misquoting). If that is the point you were making then I agree with you. However, even if the footage is 17 minutes long, it is plausible this may not represent the sum total of what was cut from the film. Betty Logan (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The Wired article says that Warner Home Video claims that it is the entirety of the cut: "When Mr. Kubrick trimmed the 17 minutes from 2001 after the New York premiere, he made it clear the shortened version was his final edit." However, other reliable sources disagree, so that has to be put out there, as I have done. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

National Society of Film Critics Ranking

Currently the page reads : "In January 2002, the film was voted no. 1 on the list of the "Top 100 Essential Films of All Time" by the National Society of Film Critics.[217][218]"

However, both of the citations show this movie as the first film on an alphabetical list. I do not believe that this film was voted number one, it is just the first alphabetically on an unranked list of the top 100 films of all time. 2600:1700:830:99C0:C5FA:3DC0:63BD:4CAC (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The list is here and I think you're right about this, as it says "(alphabetical, unranked)". The list does not state or imply that 2001 is #1, it is simply a list of 100 films.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Google search

Could someone explain why the release date is noted as February 5. 2010 in the google search result (what is displayed for the Wikipedia article before one clicks on the link) ? Louister41 (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I can't see this, maybe you could give a screenshot. Anyway, Wikipedia cannot control what external websites do, and as long as it says 2 April 1968 here, that is what matters.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the reply, it only shows up on Yahoo! So maybe that’s the issue. Louister41 (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I cant seem to attach the image, but I doubt it matters. Louister41 (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe just cut and paste the link? There is nothing we can do about a third party site, but it could be a wikidata issue of some kind. Betty Logan (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You don't live in Canada by any chance, do you? Betty Logan (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is a shot in the dark guess - the sequel film 2010: The Year We Make Contact and book 2010: Odyssey Two are set in 2010. I don't know if either give an exact date for the mission but it might be worth checking. I know it is unlikely to be the answer to this question but I'm mentioning it anyway. MarnetteD|Talk 03:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)