Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Preparation for possible renom

Reposting Talk page discussion from another talk page for any additional comments or suggestions for a possible renomination at FAC. In case anyone might be interested in participation of voicing an opinion of best procedures and best suggestions for moving forward. Dhtwiki has done a nice GoCE review and Jonesey has done a nice effort in converting to harvard cites. Reposting Talk page here for any adds or comments. CodexJustin (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

From 19 October 2019:

• P.S. I didn't find the reviews you mentioned in your request where "Sources and prose were cited as inadequate". So, I'm not sure I addressed all issues involved there. There is one error-generating reference that doesn't have a title (a no-no for featured articles). I tried to find that detail in that particular issue of Sight and Sound (volume 40, number 2, Spring 1971), but to no avail, at least with my online resources. That will have to be fixed before article is taken to FAC, as well as some unusual citations where external links have been combined with Harvard referencing in understandable but apparently futile attempts to get short citations to point to specific pages. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Dhtwiki: Thanks for doing the copy edits. I did add the missing title you mentioned, let me know if there are any more. This is the message about the poor cites and writing quality control from a month ago here [1]. Is there any way to get the year "2001" into the closing sentence of the plot section which was so important to Kubrick? @Jonesey95: Possibly you could also do a read through concerning the issues previously raised on quality control and if you think that the article and cites might need more effort prior to considering FAC or if they are sufficiently good. Your harvard cites look pretty good. Both of your edits have helped in significant ways for the article. CodexJustin (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Dhtwiki, I checked a bunch of those harv ref / page number combos, and the ones I tried worked fine, like "Schwam 2010, p. 86" (currently note 162) and "LoBrutto 1998, p. 308" (currently note 64). If you know of any that aren't working, please let us know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Jonesey95: That looks good, the only thing I found was cites #171 and #172 which don't seem to recognize each other for "Dirks, Tim." Otherwise the Harvard cites look good to me, maybe Dhtwiki has some follow-up. CodexJustin (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know what cites #171 and #172 which don't seem to recognize each other for "Dirks, Tim." means. Those references look and function fine for me, as far as I can tell. What are you hoping they will do that they are not doing now? – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• I have just updated the access dates for both links. They appear to both be linking now. Thanks. CodexJustin (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• My specific example is ref. #170: <ref>{{harvnb|Schwam|2010|p=[https://books.google.com/?id=yX1ZAAAAMAAJ 165]}}</ref>. That merely takes you to a Google Books title page. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Dhtwiki: There are two links in that tab; one is on the year designation when you scroll your mouse over it which gives the reference info, and the other is linked over the author name when you click on it and get the full article. It should work if you click on it, and let me know if there are other links which look suspicious. Otherwise I think the article might be getting close to a renomination, let me know what you think and Jonesey for his citation efforts. CodexJustin (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• I took a look at the failed FA nomination. It was a later version than the one linked to above that mentions specific issues with the prose, some of which, maybe all, I know I dealt with. I'll try to go through the list and see if anything was missed, and especially whether there are any "fused participles" left, which I tend to avoid, although I'm so unfamiliar with that particular term that I had to look it up and (re-?)encountered the controversy surrounding their use. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Dhtwiki: Its looking pretty good to me. Did you have a chance to see if mentioning the year "2001" in the closing sentence of the plot is possible? Otherwise it looks like the harvard cites of Jonesey are also holding up. Let me know if I can add more or add clarification to any other sections. CodexJustin (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Continuation past reposted talk page

Did you have a chance to see if mentioning the year "2001" in the closing sentence of the plot is possible? I don't understand this comment. The plot's closing sentence now reads: "A Monolith appears at the foot of the bed; and as Bowman reaches for it, he is transformed into a foetus enclosed in a transparent orb of light: the Star Child, which floats in space beside the Earth, gazing at it." How is adding "2001" appropriate? Dhtwiki (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The title of the film should be related with the plot somewhere in the plot summary. CodexJustin (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

But not if it leads to an original research interpretation of the on screen plot, which was a problem in this edit. As previously discussed, there are no exact dates given for the action in the film other than HAL becoming operational in 1992. The exact dates of the excavation of the monolith on the moon, the launch of Discovery and the arrival at Jupiter are not given, so we cannot guess them. They cannot all have occurred in 2001, as one of the captions in the film says that the Discovery mission is eighteen months after the moon scenes. It is by no means clear that the monolith scenes in the fake hotel room at the end of the film are set in 2001, as nothing in the film would allow the audience to infer this. They may be, or then again they may not be.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not NOR to state that the title of the film states "2001". Are you stating that the year as stated by Kubrick in the title in not relevant? CodexJustin (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The action of the moon/Discovery/Jupiter scenes must take place over a period longer than twelve months. Kubrick and Clarke have deliberately left out the exact dates and it is not our job to use original research to add them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

If someone has said "The article will not reach WP:FA unless you mention 2001 as a date in the film plot", then this has to be ignored. No specific scene in the film is clearly stated as occurring in 2001. This has been discussed before.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First please read WP:BRD. There is absolutely nothing seen onscreen that indicates what the year is when the film ends. BTW after all the space travel at various speeds the action of part two and three might start in '01 but it is unlikely to end there - note that is WP:OR on my part. You can start a new RFC if you wish but do not use WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to guess at something in the plot. MarnetteD|Talk 17:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not NOR to state that the title of the film was relevant to both Kubrick and Clarke. You appear to be stating that you do not know why the film was titled 2001 and why this date is relevant to the film plot. It is a relevant date for both Kubrick and Clarke and it should be included. CodexJustin (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It still requires WP:OR to assume that the culmination of the film is in 2001. The scene where Bowman falls into the monolith at Jupiter allows the normal rules of space and time to be suspended. As we know from the novel and a 1969 interview with Kubrick, "When the surviving astronaut, Bowman, ultimately reaches Jupiter, this artifact sweeps him into a force field or star gate that hurls him on a journey through inner and outer space and finally transports him to another part of the galaxy, where he's placed in a human zoo approximating a hospital terrestrial environment drawn out of his own dreams and imagination. In a timeless state, his life passes from middle age to senescence to death. He is reborn, an enhanced being, a star child, an angel, a superman, if you like, and returns to earth prepared for the next leap forward of man's evolutionary destiny." This effectively rules out giving exact dates for the action at the end of the film. Note the use of the word "timeless". The ending of the film is somewhere between vague and impenetrable, and Kubrick wanted this as a plot device, since it would allow the audience to add their own interpretations. From the same source: "What are those areas of meaning? [Kubrick] They are the areas I prefer not to discuss because they are highly subjective and will differ from viewer to viewer. In this sense, the film becomes anything the viewer sees in it".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

There are ambiguities in the film and the film is richer for them, though the title of the film is not ambiguous in designating "2001" as the unambiguous year specified by both Kubrick and Clarke. You appear to be saying that you do not know what the year in the title indicates and why it was important to Kubrick and Clarke, doubly so for Clarke who used this specific year in the book version and also used it to determine the date of his sequel titled 2010: Odyssey Two. The highly relevant date for both Kubrick and Clarke should be added into the plot section. CodexJustin (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Clarke had ample opportunities to give dates in the novel, but didn't. The October 1965 screenplay does say that the initial space scenes with orbiting nuclear bombs (which was subsequently dropped as an idea) takes place in 2001. As far as I can see, this is the only place in the saga that specifically gives 2001 as a year for the action.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, this is similar to the Orion-III debate. We know from the 1965 screenplay that the spaceplane that docks with the space station is called Orion-III, but nothing in the onscreen action of the movie says this. The 1965 screenplay says that the scene where we meet Heywood Floyd for the first time and his pen is floating in the air is set in 2001. This is interesting to note, because many people have assumed that this scene (and the Clavius moon base scenes) are set in 1999, ie eighteen months before the Discovery mission as one of the captions in the film says. This BBC article asks "And considering that the opening section is set millions of years in the past, and the two central sections are set 18 months apart, how much of it actually takes place in 2001?" which is indeed a good question, and the BBC article goes some way towards answering it. The initial version of the screenplay was a sort of Dr. Strangelove in space, but eventually Kubrick moved away from this idea as he did not want 2001 to be seen as a sequel to Dr. Strangelove. This is why all of the references to nuclear bombs were dropped from the final version of the film. Due to Kubrick's changes of plan during the production of the film, we are never going to know the exact dates for the action.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Peter Kramer in his book on "2001" for BFI states that, "Both 2001: A Space Odyssey and the journey promised by the film's title are completed..." with the end of the film, p. 84. You have also stated that you have found notes on your own confirming that Kubrick and Clarke dated the last scene at 2001 when the nuclear detonation of the closing scene was being considered as an option. It is odd at this point that you still appear not to want to add "2001" into the closing part of the plot summary. Either the IP trying to interact on this Talk discussion or myself can place this into the closing sentence of the plot section if you do not know how to edit it into the end of the plot section. The article will be strengthened if the plot section reflects knowledge of what the title of the film means. The year "2001" should be added to the plot section on the authority of Peter Kramer as a reliable source and the other reasons stated above. CodexJustin (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Is the TMA-1 date given in the film?

As usual a fundamental problem with wikipedia arises: an editor here offers the opinion of Mr. Kramer as definitive, even factual, even as the opinions of those who edit the main page are supposedly not permitted to become part of the main page, even were such opinions hypothetically of more value than Mr. Kramer's. (I.e. because I offer my opinion here rather than in an external publication, I am to kowtow to Mr. Kramer. He's the expert.) Mr. Kramer's statement is not definitive. Nor are those of several other statements here. Clarke's statements (in or out of his novels) are of course utterly irrelevant to Kubrick's movie. So is Hyams' movie, based upon Clarke's 2010. (E.g. 38 seconds into Hyams' movie it asserts the moon monolith was found in the Sea of Tranquility. In Kubrick's movie, the moon monolith is found near Tycho. Tycho is nowhere near the Sea of Tranquility.) It is clear Kubrick's movie often mocks Clarke's worldview. (Very easy to demonstrate.) Etc. There is a date--a relevant and meaningful date--specified inside the movie (besides that of HAL's "birth," and besides the unspecified dates of Squirt's and Poole's birthdays, etc.). The date does require interpretation, necessarily subjective, as to exactly what event it refers to, but there it is.

Extended content

All the editors on this talk page who assert there is no such date have demonstrated they lack familiarity with the movie and are thus unqualified to edit the main page--indeed should in my opinion be banned from editing it. But, again as usual, their opinions shall prevail. I have nothing but contempt for them. I regularly laugh at their comments. This is the straw that broke the camel's back. From your previous work, I have no confidence any of you, especially ianmacm, have the ability to create a subjective or objective interpretation of the date.

Oh, the date? It occurs at 0:48:10.71 on the DVD. See for yourselves, all you experts.Iamnotanexpert (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't understand why this is so cryptic. Can you tell us in plain language what the date is, and how it is inferred from the onscreen action. It may be this, which is a map/photo of the TMA-1 monolith that Heywood Floyd and his colleagues look at on the spacecraft before they visit the monolith on the moon. This says "TMA-1 021201". Now it is possible that in the US date system, this is meant to be February 12, 2001. However, this isn't an easy call, as it would require some degree of interpretation. What do others think on this? Also, I'm a bit disappointed over the WP:NPA element here, but the main thing is the date.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it would mean February 12, 2001 in one of the USA dating systems. However there are other dating systems in use in the USA. This requires some interpretation. --AlainV (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm British and have always assumed that Americans prefer to say that D-Day was on June 6, 1944.[2] Date and time notation in the United States gives other possibilities which would include 2 December 2001, which is the usual British date method.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

By the way, Clarke's novel explains TMA-1 as follows: "Even to an untrained eye, it was obvious that something peculiar had happened to the Moon's magnetic field in this region; and in large letters across the bottom of the map were the words: TYCHO MAGNETIC ANOMALY-ONE (TMA-l). Stamped on the top right was CLASSIFIED." This is never explained in the 1968 film version, so we are yet again playing mix and match with the various different versions of the story.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

We have discussed the TMA photo before. While there is a strong possibility that it is a date stamp (a side I actually come down on btw), it is still an assumption. It could just as easily be an identifying code. Personally I would just add HAL's activation date to the plot summary; it is a concrete, non-debatable date and it pins down the era the Discovery mission takes place in. It doesn't really matter if the action takes place in 1995 or 2005, but it does matter that the action does not take place in 1968 or 2101. The technologies that are depicted in the film were meant to be a generational step on from the technologies of the Space race. Betty Logan (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I also echo the sentiments expressed by ianmacm. It is unnecessary to formulate a personal attack on the editors of this article. The fact remains the article is of a decent quality, it is informative and people have given their free time to develop it. The "fundamental problem" of Wikipedia you speak of is not intrinsic to Wikipedia, it is a characteristic of encylopedias. The goal of Wikipedia is not to actively research and generate new content but rather to collect and package existing knowledge. You can debate the merits of whether this is good practice or is an unnecessary limit on Wikipedia's ambitions, but it is currently the remit we all operate within. Betty Logan (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Another thought here. User:CodexJustin suggested that the scene at the climax of the film where Dave Bowman's star child returns to earth is set in 2001. However, if the scene where Heywood Floyd meets the monolith on the moon is set in 2001, the absolute "eighteen months later" requirement means that the Discovery/Jupiter scenes must be in at least 2002-2003. So this reiterates the point made by the BBC article that the dates in the film are always likely to be ambiguous.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Its useful to reflect on the definition of Odyssey as the "journey" of Homer's hero until its completion with his return home. The Wikipedia article for this Homer article states: "The poem mainly focuses on the Greek hero Odysseus... king of Ithaca, and his journey home." Peter Kramer is the reliable source for "2001" whom I have cited above, with page number, who tells us that at the end of "2001", with the journey completed, that Kubrick denotes the entire completed journey by its closing year and therefor its importance within the title. We have a reliable source for this now in Kramer. The final year, the completion of the odyssey, should be added to the plot section. CodexJustin (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Kramer is a reliable source for his opinion, but his interpretation of the plot cannot and should not be treated as an objective fact. The simple fact here is that there is only a single unambiguous date in the whole film. Betty Logan (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

"2001" is not a random date in the film title, and this Wikipedia article already tells us that the Homer analogy was a strong one for Kubrick. Kramer is a reliable source for adding the year "2001" to the plot section CodexJustin (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Kramer is a reliable source for adding his own opinion that the final scene is set in 2001. He never got a direct confirmation from Kubrick or Clarke. I have to agree with User:Betty Logan here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

According to reliable sources, WP:RS, Wikipedia policy states to go with reliable sources unless they are in conflict or are opposed by other reliable sources. There are also multiple sources, including Kubrick and Clarke, who acknowledge that Homer's Odyssey is the analogous literary work which they are referencing and as acknowledged among reviewers and interpreters. If you have reliable sources who oppose them, meaning opposing Kramer, Kubrick, and Clarke, then they need to be presented. Your interpretation of whether you like Kramer's writing or not does not qualify as a reliable source according to WP:RS. Its also not clear what your objection is at this time, since 'Odyssey' itself is a part of the title of the film as well. Otherwise reliable sources should be observed and the year "2001" should be added to the plot section according to reliable sources as Wikipedia policy. CodexJustin (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

And isn't the BBC classed as reliable source these days? This BBC article openly questions the dating of the film. Wikipedia policy also instructs us to apply proportional WP:WEIGHT to claims. I actually agree with your argument that the plot summary would benefit from a more precise timeframe (a point I was arguing before you arrived at this article) and proposed a compromise that wasn't taken up. That is ok, but it would not be consistent with Wikipedia policy to present an opinion as an objective fact when it clearly is not and also when that opinion is challenged by other sources. It would probably be more appropriate to discuss the timeline in the "Interpretations" section, because—as with everything else in this film—the dates seem to be ambiguous. Betty Logan (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The very fine BBC article you link again talks a lot about the ambiguities within the film which deserve much attention. This was discussed previously with Ian above. (The BBC article simply asks "how much of it actually takes place in 2001".) The title of the film is not ambiguous however and it clearly states the year and clearly states that this is a space odyssey. Nail down the ambiguity which you see in the title of the film. Are you objecting to the reference to "a space Odyssey" as being ambiguous, or is it the specific date which is given that you read as ambiguous. Kramer is stating that he does not see this as ambiguous; he seems to see the full stop in the title as indicating a direct reference relating the descriptive phrase "a space Odyssey" to the year specified in the title. He sees no ambiguity here. He is a reliable source and at present there is no WEIGHT of opposition to offset him. Your BBC article does not say that the title is ambiguous, and if you have such a reliable source from elsewhere please add it to this discussion. The full WEIGHT of sources is currently with Kramer. CodexJustin (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The dating seems like something that would belong in a section, even an entire article, on how 2001 is interpreted; but I don't see how it belongs in the plot summary section, which would be a description of things that are more-or-less self-evident to the viewer, with such exceptions as the naming of spacecraft types. What would be the wording of such a mention as part of the plot summary, if that is really where you're thinking of putting it? That might make a difference. In any case, I see too many things you'd have to reconcile: the TMA label, the 18-months-after flight to Jupiter, Bowman's aging during his captivity, etc. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree that the WP:FILMPLOT section should contain only statements that are simple and uncontroversial. Otherwise there is a risk of the article ending up like Room 237, which contains interpretations of what The Shining actually means, including some that Leon Vitali said were nonsense.[3]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• In A Clockwork Orange, there is a Probe 16 car which is called a Durango 95. Inevitably, some people have suggested that this means that the film is intended to be set in 1995 or thereabouts. However, as with 2001, the onscreen action of A Clockwork Orange never gives an exact date for when it is all happening.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

If I am reading Ian and Dhtwiki correctly from the above edits then it seems that the discussion has been narrowed to being either 2001 or 2002, with the latter 'computed' based on an '18-month period'. That being the case, then I think it might be possible to offer an edit that covers those concerns by something like a change stating "At Jupiter as Bowan's voyage approaches the year 2001, he leaves Discovery One in an EVA pod...". If that is an accurate summary of this discussion as indicating either 2001 or 2002, my edit here is to suggest going with language comparable to "...the mission approaching the year 2001"; it seems to cover the main concerns raised yesterday by Ian and Dhtwiki. CodexJustin (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: Peter Krämer (sic) does not make any statement about the year in which any part of the film takes place. You quote: "Both 2001: A Space Odyssey and the journey promised by the film's title are completed..." WP:OR says: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Deriving the claim you want to add to the article (i.e. that the end of the film takes place in the year 2001) from your quote from Krämer's book would be "new analysis or synthesis". It is not clearly stated by Krämer. (I consulted the Google Books version of Krämer's book, and I did not find such a statement. If you find one, please give the quote, including the page number.) To add any statement that a certain part of the film is set in a specific year, you would need to find a reliable source which explicitly and clearly makes that statement. Chrisahn (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Peter Kramer in his book on "2001" for BFI states that, "Both 2001: A Space Odyssey and the journey promised by the film's title are completed..." with the end of the film, p. 84. This was quoted in the section above this one and Kramer is a reliable source. CodexJustin (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

That's correct, but Krämer does not say the end of the film is set in the year 2001 (or any other specific year, for that matter). (What he is saying is somewhat poetic: both Bowman's and the viewer's journey are completed. Here's the rest of the sentence: "...and like the Star-Child going back to Earth, people are now returning home from the otherworldly space of the movie theatre.") To add any statement that a certain part of the film is set in a specific year, you would need to find a reliable source which explicitly and clearly makes that statement. Chrisahn (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Kramer states: "the journey promised by the film's title" and the title indicates "2001". Ian and Dhwiki seem to be suggesting the best place for this. CodexJustin (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

You keep repeating that quote, but that doesn't change the fact that Krämer does not say that any part of the film is set in any specific year. The quote you are probably looking for would be something like this: "The main events of the film are set in the years 2001 to 2003" or "the end of the film is set in the year 2001". The sentence "the journey promised by the film's title is completed" is a very different sentence. It does not mean "the end of the film is set in the year 2001". Do you understand the problem? Chrisahn (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: I don't think you are reading Ian and Dhtwiki correctly. My understanding is that you are arguing for including a specific year in the plot summary, and all others in this discussion are against it, because there are no reliable sources which clearly state that any part of the film is set in any specific year. My guess is that Kubrick/Clarke chose "2001" because it sounded and looked aesthetically pleasing and was far enough in the future. In my opinion, it's possible that 2001 is the year in which the monolith was buried in Tycho, and the whole "present day" part of the film is taking place much later. But neither my guesses nor my opinion matter. All that matters are reliable sources which clearly state that any part of the film is set in a specific year. As long as there are no such sources, we cannot include such statements in the article. Chrisahn (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It might be best to wait for Ian and Dhwiki to answer for themselves. Each of them have raised the point that the dating seems to come down to either '2001' or '2002', according to the 18-months they cite. Let's wait to hear from them. I have offered a way to solve this earlier this morning and they can state their views. CodexJustin (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that there is an element of WP:IDHT here. Various editors have pointed out that it is by no means clear that the final scene of the film is set in 2001, and that it is unsuitable to say in the WP:FILMPLOT section that it does, based purely on an interpretation. It would be far more profitable to look at why it is so hard to pin down actual dates in the story, despite the title of the film being 2001: A Space Odyssey. To give another example, we do know that Space: 1999 is initially set in 1999, because the onscreen story very clearly says this. I don't think that anyone has ever argued about Space: 1999 starting off the story in 1999, because it is WP:BLUE that it does.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

If you are staying on point then you can see that all of the sections in the article refer to the year '2001' several times with the single exception of the plot section. If you meant what you were stating above about the computation being either '2001' or '2002' by your own calculation of the 18-month period, then why exclude it from the plot summary; are you saying that the plot looks better by leaving it out with no time reference at all because of the ambiguity between '2001' or '2002'? The statement of the year was important to Kubrick, Clarke, and Kramer. It is useful to put "2001" into the plot summary even if using BettyL's approach of dating some of the contemporaneous dates she can pin down in the film. Leaving the date blanked out appears inadequate based on the film's title as designated by Kubrick. CodexJustin (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: I get the impression that you have a tendency to interpret (and sometimes misinterpret) statements or words to mean something that you would like them to mean but is not actually stated:
1. Yes, ianmacm wrote a comment that mentioned "2001/2002", but the last sentence of that comment is: "So this reiterates the point made by the BBC article that the dates in the film are always likely to be ambiguous." ianmacm did not argue for including either of these years in the plot section.
2. Your quote from Krämer about the end of the movie contains the word "2001" because it contains the title of the movie, but he doesn't say what you claim he's saying. He simply says that the movie ends and the journey (the "odyssey" of the title) ends. That's all. He does not say or imply that the end of the movie is set in any particular year.
3. You are sure that "TMA-1 021201" includes a date, but that's just one of many possibilities: "021201" may well be just a number, and even if it is a date, it's unclear which one.

4. "all of the sections in the article refer to the year '2001' several times" - No, they don't. They refer to the film by its title. (I hope that distinction is clear. Here's an example: When I say "2001 was made by Kubrick", I refer to the film, not the year. When I say "I graduated in 2001", I refer to the year, not the film.) I found three occurrences of the character sequence "2001" in the article where it actually refers to a year, but always in the real world (e.g. that the film was re-issued in the year 2001), never as a year in the fictional world of the film.
This approach is not going to work. Please find reliable sources that clearly make the statements you want to add to the article. Please read WP:OR. Quote: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Chrisahn (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

And I didn't mean to suggest that the date had been narrowed down. The only date given in the film, that of HAL's activation, is a triviality, meant to indicate the future (from the standpoint of 1968) but also the past (from the film's standpoint). The TMA label is certainly open to interpretation. The title itself is certainly meant to be more suggestive than just a date (it could suggest a time when we would be transformed, as the end of the first millennium was once thought to be). Dhtwiki (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The Peter Krämer source is the book 2001: A Space Odyssey (BFI Film Classics) published in July 2010, which I don't own. The quote that set off the discussion is "Both 2001: A Space Odyssey and the journey promised by the film's title are completed." To me, this is suggesting that the film is intended to be seen as influenced by Homer's Odyssey, which is a common theme. I don't think that it is saying that the final scene of the film is set in 2001; what it says is that the final scene of 2001: A Space Odyssey completes Dave's odyssey.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This was covered several days ago. Then Betty Logan suggested that it might be useful to add some supportive dates to at least provide a plausible time frame for a film titled "2001", for example, by adding HALs start date. The edit could look something like: "Eighteen months later, the United States spacecraft Discovery One is bound for Jupiter as the year 2001 approaches. On board are mission pilots and scientists Dr. David Bowman and Dr. Frank Poole, along with three other scientists in suspended animation. Most of Discovery's operations are controlled by "Hal", a HAL 9000 computer, originally made operational in 1992...". CodexJustin (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

HAL's activation date in 1992 is not a key part of the plot, it is simply something that HAL says during the "Daisy, Daisy" scene. The only real clue about the dates in the later part of the film is the eighteen month gap between the moon and Discovery scenes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Going with @Betty Logan: on this, that adding the available dates into the article is better than no dates at all. Otherwise it looks as if the editors of the plot section are without a clue as to why the film is titled "2001". If she has a suggested edit for where to put the available dates in the plot section then I will be supporting it. CodexJustin (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting things again. Here's what @Betty Logan: actually said: "The simple fact here is that there is only a single unambiguous date in the whole film. [...] It would probably be more appropriate to discuss the timeline in the "Interpretations" section, because [...] the dates seem to be ambiguous."

You're right: the editors of the plot section are basically without a clue as to why the film is titled "2001". It's very likely that some part of the film is meant to take place in the year 2001, but since there's no reliable source that clearly states which part it is, we can't add anything about it to the article.

I think we should adjourn this debate until someone finds such a reliable source. I'm looking forward to it. Bye! Chrisahn (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

+1. I've enjoyed this discussion, because it has raised many interesting questions about when the action in the film might be taking place. However, we are left with the two facts that the only clear date in the film's onscreen action is HAL's activation date in 1992, and that the moon and Discovery sequences are set eighteen months apart. The consensus is that the WP:FILMPLOT section should not say anything about the dates that is contentious or requires an interpretation of a source. It would be appropriate to look at why the dates in the film are so ambiguous, with the BBC article and Kubrick's 1969 interview being good ways of explaining this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

A week later and it still has not sunk in. I stipulate that "021201" invites interpretation. But I conclude so does "2001" in the title. I conclude so does almost everything in the movie. To me, to treat the movie as an objective experience from which one can cull meaningful objective statements without interpreting aspects of them horribly distorts what a viewer experiences. I demonstrate. I apologize in advance for the egregious length and redundancy.

Extended content

:1. I do not know from anything inside the movie (certainly from anything in the title shot) that "2001" in the title must be a year in the Gregorian calendar. (E.g. it could be a year in another calendar, e.g. Julian, Jewish, Chinese, etc.) It would be an assumption or inference it is a year in the Gregorian calendar. The title is not "In the Year of Our Lord 2001: A Space Odyssey" or "AD 2001: A Space Odyssey" or "2001 CE: A Space Odyssey." I do not understand why anyone pretends it is without also acknowledging such a statement depends upon interpretation. Any assertion that it means any of those things relies upon assumption or inference. (Further, it would be an assumption or inference it must be a Gregorian year CE (the common era, i.e. AD) rather than a Gregorian year BCE (before the common era, i.e. before Christ). Etc.) To invoke HAL's "birth" year of 1992 here to "prove" "2001" in the title must be a date in the Gregorian system would be exactly what it seems: interpretation, a putting together of this and that and coming out with something not explicitly denoted by either alone. A no-no, OR. Yes, if simple arithmetic is OR and forbidden, then surely any invocation of calendar systems not explicitly discussed inside the movie is necessarily OR too. One cannot have it both ways. 2. I do not know from anything inside the movie (certainly from anything in the title shot) that "2001" in the title must be a year in any calendar, even if it is a temporal quantity. (E.g. it could be 2001 seconds, 2001 minutes, 2001 weeks, 2001 months, 2001 centuries, 2001 thousand years (i.e. two million years), etc.) It would be an assumption or inference it is a year in any calendar. 3. I do not know from anything inside the movie (certainly from anything in the title shot) that "2001" in the title must be a temporal quantity at all. (E.g. it could be a quantity which indicates some other kind of measurement--a non-temporal measurement. (I.e. 2001 what? 2001 miles? 2001 gallons? 2001 stars? 2001 characters? 2001 tools? 2001 points of view? 2001 motivations? 2001 events? 2001 questions? 2001 ambiguities? 2001 interpretations? Etc.) It would be an assumption or inference it is any temporal quantity. 4. I do not know from anything inside the movie (certainly from anything in the title shot) that "2001" in the title must be any literal quantity in the decimal system. (E.g. it could be a quantity in the octal system, in the hexidecimal system, etc., as they too use the digits "2" and "0" and "1.") It would be an assumption or inference it is a quantity in the decimal system. (Also in that same shot, in a small font at the bottom of the screen, and at the exact same moment I see the non-diegetic "2001" in the title, I see what I infer is the nondiegetic copyright notice. It begins: "© MCMLXVIII." I infer the symbol "©" indicates copyright. I infer "MCMLXVIII" is a value in the Roman number system. That is an easy inference yet an inference nonetheless. Thus, in the same shot as "2001" in the title, I see a non-decimal number about which I also make an inference.) More fundamentally, writing is squiggles. Knowledge and assumption about squggles which we consider writing enter into our attempt to find and understanding meaning, whether we want it to or not. The main page tries to pretend we objectively perceive things in the movie and have no need to think about them. I stipulate that reading is not the same as interpreting. But I also stipulate I cannot read without interpreting. (Semiotics makes that clear.) If any of you think you can read without interpreting, you might wish to re-evaluate your own mental processes. 5 That anything I perceive in that shot I think of as a title is yet another interpretation, based upon my experience of, yes, other things which I think are titles. (Nothing in the title shot or the rest of the movie explains what a copyright notice is--not even whether it is diegetic or non-diegetic. Certainly nothing in the title shot or in the rest of the movie explains a copyright's purpose, etc. Nothing in the title shot or the rest of the movie explains what "©" means. Nothing in the title shot or the rest of the movie explains what a "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer" is. Nothing in the title shot or the rest of the movie explains what "All rights" means. Nothing in the title shot or the rest of the movie explains what a "Motion Picture" is. Nothing in the title shot or the rest of the movie explains what "International Conventions" are. Nothing in the title shot or the rest of the movie explains whether I am to take the preposition "Under" literally or non-literally. Inferences everywhere.) (I infer a viewer's knowledge (including knowledge of the English language), memories, opinions, thoughts, etc., from outside the movie necessarily and inevitably impinge upon his experience and appreciation of it (including content in the title shot). I infer a viewer without knowledge of language, etc., would experience and think about the movie differently from how I experience it. I infer a viewer with more knowledge of language, etc., than I have would experience and think about the movie differently too. I infer a viewer whose knowledge of language, etc., differs from mine would experience and think about the movie differently than I experience and think about it. Well, actually, it is not an inference at all, it is an observable fact, as we see on this very page. A belief that a viewer does not or cannot or should not use his knowledge, etc., while watching this movie seems absurd to me--and yet that is the corner into which the page's editor's have painted themselves. A belief that the movie explains itself or requires no interpretation or has only one or two troublesome points which experts can solve for you is self-refuting. It is a fool's errand.) And yet I know of people who assert viewers should not interpret e.g. "021201" because ..., because ..., well, because we might mis-interpret it in a supposedly objective description of the movie? I.e. we might not succeed in mind reading the film maker's objective intent? But might not that supposedly objective intent be an illusion? That the film maker has such an objective intent which can be successfully reverse engineered is again an assumption or inference. It certainly is not a fact demonstrated on this talk page.) (Later, in the shot after the title shot I see the words "The Dawn of Man." Those too I interpret. Indeed, though I interpret it symbolically (in several ways), I could also interpret it--take it--literally, even if that might seem nonsensical at first. I.e. I grant that a symbolic interpretation of content in that shot is easier than a literal interpretation of it! (I suspect most viewers take it symbolically.) Either way, it is an interpretation.) The movie offers a viewer the opportunity to interpret "2001" in the title shot just as it offers an opportunity to interpret "021201" later. That one interpretation might be easier than the other for the viewer is irrelevant with regard to categorizing how it is we supposedly know what they mean. I am aware I interpret; are you? I do not know from anything inside the movie (certainly from anything in the title shot) that "2001" in the title must be any literal quantity in any number system. There are no units whatsoever associated with that number in the title. It is explicitly dimensionless; only an assumption or inference supplies a unit (and necessarily of one's choosing rather than necessarily as a successful attempt at mind reading the film maker's intent). (E.g. it may be a symbol and not literal at all, analogous to using "trinity" to refer to certain spiritual relationships. It may be a reference to a symbolic new age without being a reference to a specific literal millennium. Etc.) It would be an assumption or inference it is any literal dimensionless quantity or measurement. (It also would be an assumption or inference it is a symbol and not a literal quantity. Either way, it is an assumption or inference.) To me the above (and more) implies any interaction of my mind with "2001" in the title invariably requires assumption, inference, or interpretation. (Yes, I am aware some assumptions, inferences or interpretations of "2001" in the title are more simple or complex than others but that does not change their nature--a simple assumption is still an assumption and not a fact.) To me, that conclusion is perfectly consistent with almost everything else I am aware the movie offers. Even just restricting this to the very same title, I do not know "space" in the title must refer only to "outer space." That would be an assumption or inference as well. I can interpret "space" in the title refers to e.g. geometric space (shapes), or to cinematic space (to what a film maker can offer a viewer and to what a viewer might be aware a film offers), etc. I cannot know it must mean "outer space." It is not a fact "space" in the title means "outer space" and nothing else. The shot does not explain what "space" means or refers to. Again, even just restricting this to the very same title, I do not know "odyssey" in the title must refer only to a work by Homer. That would be an assumption or inference as well. I can interpret "odyssey" in the title refers more generically (in effect as a synonym) to e.g. "journey" or "adventure." Indeed, this seems to be the exact way many viewers do in fact interpret it (whether or not they know of that Homeric work)--i.e. they imply the title does not have anything specifically to do with Homer's work but is merely using a fancier highbrow word when a simpler word like "adventure" would do. (I.e. assuming or inferring that word in the title refers to "adventure" or to a work by Homer does not change either assumption or inference into a fact. They remain assumptions or inferences.) Going beyond the title I am again aware almost everything the movie offers (including other things I am aware the title shot offers) invites or demands a viewer think about what he experiences in it (and I do not just mean the ending) and thus interpret it. Etc. etc. etc. Thus the claim "2001" in the title shot must be a date in the Gregorian calendar (e.g. because that is a simple and obvious assumption or inference) is in hindsight not simple or obvious at all, and certainly does not make the assumption or inference true from anything inside the movie, let alone from the title or anything else in the title shot. And even if one contends the assumption or inference is simple and obvious--even unavoidable--it is still assumption or inference and not a fact. (Yet all of you seem to deny that.) So, I am aware I must assume or infer something about "2001" in the title shot for it to be meaningful, and I am equally aware of so much else the movie offers me I make assumptions or inferences about (e.g. "021201"), whether they are implicit or explicit. Unlike other viewers, I don't mind making them explicit. Apparently most of you do mind, or consider it inappropriate. Well, then, perhaps it is inappropriate to have a page about this movie.

To be clear: I generally do interpret "2001" in the title shot does refer to a CE year in the Gregorian calendar. But I am aware that statement relies upon assumptions or inferences (even if they are generally implicit). And I am aware there are many other assumptions or inferences I could make about it; and such thoughts (not only their content but their type: assumptions and inferences) are consistent with thoughts about almost everything else in the movie.

To me, a viewer who makes such assumptions or inferences implicitly is thus assuming or inferring "2001" must have one and only one meaning, a Clarkean one. He is implicitly seeing "2001" (and by extension Kubrick's movie) through Clarke's eyes. (In effect he assumes or infers what Clarke does.) I see the movie through my own eyes. The entire foundation of the main page is that everyone should see the movie through the same eyes.

I infer this movie shares much with almost all other movies; but I conclude it is also unique and to ignore that uniqueness vastly lowers the what the main page might accomplish.Iamnotanexpert (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the week-end long entry from Notanexpert. Kubrick's historical context is well-known as making this 1968 film of the eve of the then on-going NASA Apollo program with the 1969 moon-walk immanent. The science of 1960s NASA was then calling for an orbiting space station and a lunar base in the years leading to the new century. That was Kubrick's historical context in the late 1960s which is well-known to students of the JFK administration and its legacy. @Ian, it seems plain that Kubrick never planned to call his film 2002 1/2: A Space Odyssey, if your 18-month comment is credited. Here is a second reliable source from Michael Benson's dating of the content of the film from his new 2018 book, page two, "2001: A Space Odyssey encompasses 4 million years of human evolution from prehuman Australopithecine man-apes... through to twenty-first-century space-faring Homo sapiens". I state that this is a second reliable source since Peter Kramer is the other reliable source on this, as I have already quoted him, and Benson agrees with Kramer that the correct date must be its 21st century reference in the title. The two reliable sources should be noted, and the year "2001" should be added into the plot section. CodexJustin (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

"Kubrick's historical context is well-known as making this 1968 film of the eve of the then on-going NASA Apollo program with the 1969 moon-walk immanent" is assumption and inference from information outside of the movie; no such explicit and unambiguous context or information exists in the title shot or anywhere else in the movie. (E.g. there is no reference in the movie to Apollo, to the first moon landing, to a moon-walk, etc. Is the movie a fiction or a documentary?) It never ends. Is the main page about what we experience in the movie or is it about assumptions and inferences some people make about it based upon information not in it? Is the page supposed to be objective or subjective? Make up your mind. You are not removing ambiguity but merely subjectively choosing from among alternatives--ignoring the ambiguity you do not subjectively care for. You ignore the very ambiguity I am aware the movie offers, something which I, subjectively, conclude is essential to it, even which makes it enjoyable. You come close to implying Clarke made Kubrick's movie; or, that Kubrick erred by offering ambiguity in it; that Clarke forbade it to be ambiguous and Kubrick did not listen; that Clarke did not want viewers to be aware of or to enjoy those ambiguities. You seem to wish to neuter the movie.Iamnotanexpert (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

It was aready said multiple times above, but I'll say it again: Krämer does not claim that any part of the movie is set in any particular year. Your new source is interesting, but it also does not say that any part of the movie is set in any particular year. Please be more careful with your interpretation of words you read - the words "twenty-first-century" are not the same as "2001". The year "2001" should not be added to the plot section. At first glance, I would consider Michael Benson's book a reliable source, and since it contains the words "twenty-first century", I think I would not object to adding some statement about parts of the film being set in the twenty-first century to the plot section. We just have to be careful that we don't add anything that is not clearly stated in the source. Thanks for finding this source! Chrisahn (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Going with short addition based on "twenty-first century". CodexJustin (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it is WP:Original research to state the ending takes place at the "dawn of the 21st century". There is an argument that the Jupiter mission takes place on the cusp of the 21st century but it is impossible to speculate when the end takes place. Dave passes through a stargate that could compress or elongate time and then seems to age a good 40 or 50 years. By the time the starchild occurs any timeframing from earlier in the film is lost, and and speculation must be drawn from the books or the sequel. Betty Logan (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, I wasn't going to comment on this again, but cannot understand the ongoing fascination with adding dates that are not clearly supported by the film's onscreen action. Saying "but I found a source that says that the date is x" does not override the film's deliberate ambiguity about dates.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it is quite a stretch to derive the date of the starchild floating in space from "2001: A Space Odyssey encompasses 4 million years of human evolution from prehuman Australopithecine man-apes... through to twenty-first-century space-faring Homo sapiens". I think it is a reasonable assumption from HAL's activation date that the Jupiter mission occurs in either in the late 90s or in the first decade of the 21st century, but I think all bets are off after Dave passes through the stargate. He could age in a fraction of a second relative to Earth time due to time dilation or alternatively the starchild might not appear until millions of years in the future. Betty Logan (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm with Betty and Ian, and particularly agree with Ian about the "ongoing fascination" with dates -- I'm afraid my own term would be stronger if anything, something along the lines of "obsessive". I'm sure there are more important things to do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Betty and the Ians. WP:FILMPLOT was worked out through WP:CONSENSUS and it is clear that the 'pedia's film articles should not be adding individual interpretations of what is seen onscreen. IMO the plot sections should not be demanding that a reader see things in only one way in a film that is as subjective as this one. One thing to consider since this is important to you CJ. Wikipedia is not the only website with an article about this film. You can write about your interpretation of the film's dates in many places including facebook and wordpress. I would encourage you to do that rather than continue beat a dead horse here. MarnetteD|Talk 23:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

According to multiple editor, the prose in the article is subject to needed improvements. According to Graham Beards "the prose is below FA standard" with his multiple examples given at peer review. A similar review of defects in the article is given by Nikkimaria stating, "lots of missing page numbers, incomplete and inconsistently formatted citations, areas missing citations, etc. Also noting that there seems to be a lot of quoting going on, which at times interferes with the flow of the prose." Because of these problems, Laser Brain then removed the peer review since the article is lacking in quality. Nonetheless, I submitted it for GOCE review and requested Jonesey to clean up the cites, followed by Laser Brain and Schrocat again stating that the article still has defects and needs improvements. It is evident that the article will need to be refactored and rewritten in at least several parts to be adequately improved. A good place to start is the plot section at the top of the article as noted by Graham Beards already. I have presented 2 reliable sources to start the improvements which multiple editors have now indicated as needed by this article for needed improvements.

Peter Kramer states on p58 of his book the outline of the film and their dating:

Segment 1; prehistoric times on Earth

Segment 2; a trip to the Moon at the turn of the 21st century

Segment 3; a trip to Jupiter at the turn of the 21st century

Intermission

Segment 4; continuation of the trip to Jupiter

Segment 5; a trip from Jupiter to an unknown destination and back to Earth, starting the the turn of the 21st century

The bolding is to show this as a quoted table of data directly from Kramer. Kramer then provides the dates on p68 of his book stating, "it is only in the third segment that the film reaches the title year (2001), whereas the action of the second segment occurs in 2000 or 1999." That's fairly detailed and should be brought into the plot section. It is also further confirmed by the 2nd reliable source of the 2018 book about Clarke and Kubrick which I quoted previously in this discussion above. Five editors have stated that the article is defective and needs improvements. These improvements should start by improving the plot section by adding the dates given by 2 reliable sources; otherwise it looks like the editors maintaining this plot section have no clue when the events of the film are taking place. The dates should be added given the reliable sources. CodexJustin (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Once again, I think that this is being driven by some misguided notion that the article will not reach WP:FA status unless it includes dubious and impossible to verify statements in the WP:FILMPLOT about when the onscreen action takes place. There is a clear consensus not to include anything in the WP:FILMPLOT section that requires an interpretation of the onscreen action. Kramer's book is not Clarke's novel, and it should not be treated like some sort of infallible bible. He is offering a personal interpretation of the film which he is entitled to give, but is not supported by either the film or Clarke's novel.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Michael Benson's book is a second reliable source, why ignore 2 reliable sources when this article has already been assessed by multiple editors as needing improvements. What improvements are you suggesting if you are not following these 2 reliable sources? CodexJustin (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The biggest improvement would be not to say anything in the WP:FILMPLOT section which is Joe Blow's personal interpretation of it in a book, not what the film actually says onscreen. This is now a WP:STICK debate as we have been through this numerous times.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

If you have no improvements to offer, then you should not disparage living authors such as Kramer and Benson with derogatory comparisons (WP:BLP). The discussion here should be about improvements to the article as indicated and requested by 5 editors at Wikipedia. The article should be improved as requested by other editors. CodexJustin (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm well aware that Peter Krämer is a living person. I'm just puzzled by how he knows dates for the action that are not supported by the onscreen action of the film, particularly the final scene where Dave Bowman's star child returns to earth. How long has Dave Bowman spent in the hotel room? We just don't know due to Kubrick's ambiguity.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is a third reliable source for dating the film and the date given from Dr. Barry Vacker's book and article [4]: "It is probably hard for contemporary readers to grasp that the year 2000 once stood for 'the future,' a world of tomorrow filled with optimism for art, science, technology, planetary ecology, social equality, and universal progress. With the 2 replacing the 1, followed by three 0s, the future beyond 2000 just had to be better, wiser, cooler, and overall more awesome. This hope for a better future after 2000 is why Kubrick and coauthor Arthur C. Clarke set their space-age odyssey in 2001 — the first year of the new millennium." How many reliable sources are needed. CodexJustin (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Once again it is an editor's opinion those sources are reliable. He agrees with the opinions he cites. (I am not surprised.) Others may disagree--i.e. have different opinions. All such an editor offers is opinion and does not seem aware (or care) that is what he does. (I tried to point that out in my earlier comments. I demonstrated I interpret all aspects of the movie's title and suspect so do all viewers, and that any viewer who thinks he does not interpret or make assumptions is not aware of his own thought processes.) Either the main page discusses what is actually in the movie, whether or not such things are ambiguous and difficult to discuss, or it discusses editors' opinions directly or indirectly via the imprimatur they choose to give to the opinions of others. They do not seem to wonder why it is necessary or good to offer any opinion on the main page; they seem to not realize--perhaps--that all the main page might do is to present in text aspects of what the movie presents in images and sounds. Opinion is irrelevant (in my opinion) on the main page. Some editors seem to have no interest in the movie's ambiguities and treat them as puzzles with solutions--and thus are sure the page must present those solutions, rather than present the ambiguity as ambiguity; and are certain those who agree with their opinion are correct. (A consensus is a collective opinion.) They interpret even as they might deny they interpret. In my opinion, many aspects of the movie are ambiguous, confusing, contradictory, paradoxical; and the movie is open-ended in several ways. I have interest in all of those and more; surely none of my opinions about them and no experts' opinions which agree with mine which I might offer belong on the main page either. A lack of interest by an editor about a large part of the movie is evidence such an editor has no interest in what is actually in the movie, and thus really no interest in the movie, but only interest in his opinion, to see it in print. Opinions belong on talk pages or on the interpretation page. (That an editor presents an opinion as a factual "solution" to an ambiguity can do nothing but distort or nullify--neuter--what the movie presents, as the movie does not present "solutions." Again, is the page supposed to present the movie or distortions of it?) Iamnotanexpert (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, this is another WP:IDHT contribution from CodexJustin. There is a consensus that the WP:FILMPLOT section should contain only simple and uncontroversial statements supported by the onscreen action in the film. Saying "but I found a book in which the author expressed his personal opinion that the action is taking place in year x" is unproductive. As for Dr. Barry Vacker's source, it doesn't come anywhere near resolving the ambiguities of when the moon and Discovery sequences occur.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

New "Plot" section

Hello, I am a quite new user, I noticed that the "Plot" section for this article is quite not as descriptive nor as deep in detail as a film of this kind should have. I do know that there is a limit on plot lenghts and details, but I thught that a more descriptive plot should be better for such a masterpiece as 2001: A Space Odyssey. I have recently written a new "Plot" section more centered on detail, photography and informations as they are given to the viewer rather than as they are interpreted by them. I would like to candidate it as the one for the article, or, at least, I would like to propose to use part of it integrated in the current plot. Thank you for your attention. --Mod Terrik (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC).

You should read WP:FILMPLOT, which advises against including some of the detail that you have in your draft. The plot length should be between 400 and 700 words. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I read that guide, and it states that films with unconventional plots (and I do think 2001 has an uncoventional plot, given that it is divided in segments, almost unrelated between them) can exceed the limit. I also have divided the plot in segments (just like the original film) to better conform to that rule, as if the segments were distinct works mounted into a single film reel. Also, being that 2001 is a film which's photography often tells the story, leaving it open to interpretation, I think that a more photography-based summary, like mine, would better fit the role. --Mod Terrik (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC).

While we appreciate your enthusiasm your summary is 1,000 words over the limit. The plot summary is supposed to be a brief overview of the film, not a blow-by-blow account. There has also been discussion about the in-film titles in the past and the consensus was that they were unnecessary. Sometimes it is difficult to get a grasp on what Wikipedia wants by reading the guidelines so I always advise taking a look at a couple of high quality articles: Category:FA-Class film articles. If you are interested in writing plot summaries then we have a category for articles that need one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:No_plot. All the best. Betty Logan (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Foetus/fetus

I had a slight change I made reversed when I changed the word "foetus" to the word "fetus" that the link was to. I was told this was because the British used "foetus" and I had to respect their use of it. In the same wiki it linked to, it states

      This spelling is the most common in most Commonwealth nations, except in the medical literature, where fetus is used. The more classical spelling fetus is used in Canada and the United States. In addition, fetus is now the standard English spelling throughout the world in medical journals.

If the link its self is to an article titled 'Fetus', then should that link not also be named after the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugurX (talk • contribs) 02:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The article uses British English and this edit was an attempt to ensure consistent spelling throughout the article. The policy here is WP:ENGVAR and articles should choose one variety of English spelling and use it throughout the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

2001 space suit up for auction

News coverage here, here and here. This looks like one of the silver space suits from the moon base sequence, and is not the same as the ones that Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood wear in the Discovery One sequence. The helmet is said to have been painted green at one stage, so according to the auctioneers it may be the one that Keir Dullea wore when he disconnects HAL. However, the suit itself is not of the type worn by Bowman or Poole. The auction listing is here and the auction is on July 17, the estimate is $200,000-300,000.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Well blow me down, the space suit fetched $370,000, which exceeded the high end of the estimate.[5] Interesting, but should it be in the article?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Considering the price it fetched I think it should be in the article. I'm only sorry that the pay around here is so non-existent as I would have liked to buy it for you for all your years of service here at the 'pedia :-) MarnetteD|Talk 10:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Some film costumes have fetched seven figure sums.[6] However, it is notable that a somewhat battered old space suit worn during the moon sequence fetched US $370,000 at auction. As for the helmet, we may never know whether it is the one that Dave Bowman wore during the scene in which HAL is disconnected, but it was painted green at one stage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

HAL or Hal?

Re this edit: Although it has been discussed before, I don't like the spelling Hal as it is not correct or consistent with the spelling in the article HAL 9000. HAL is an acronym and should not use lower case letters.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it should be all caps. The acronym mention is correct. Also any number of google searches (like this) will show all caps being used far more often. MarnetteD|Talk 19:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Spelling

2001 is about American astronauts sent by the United States to uncover the secrets of a monolith discovered by American scientists. Why is the British spelling for various words used throughout its Wiki page? A consensus was reached by whom? What possible rationale can be used to justify those variations? There is nothing British about the plot or narrative of this movie. Royhobbs roy (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I invite you to check out the archives. There have been numerous discussion of this issue. Timefurtherout (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The article has {{Use British English|date=September 2019}} at the top of the page. Although that could be changed by consensus, that makes it pretty official. The film was inspired by a story written by Arthur C. Clarke, who was a British citizen. It was directed by someone who rarely left England, if not himself a UK citizen. The film was made at MGM-British Studios. So, there is certainly some rationale for British spelling, even though the plot involves Americans for the most part. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The film comes under under the British and American film task forces. The subject matter does not have strong national ties to either country so we can use either British or American English, and the choice is largely incidental. The important thing here is that it is consistent. Betty Logan (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Film genre

Shall we call the 2001: A Space Odyssey film a sci-fi adventure film or is it just fine as is? --TMProofreader (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it is fine as it is. Betty Logan (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Pod Bay Gravity

Are there any sources which discuss, or even mention, one of the film's most glaring peculiarites: the inexplicable presence of normal gravity in the pod bay? Kubrick made everybody go to vast expense and trouble to depict the unavoidable physical realities of space flight, particularly zero gravity. (Dr Floyd's floating pen, the hostesses' grip-shoes, the rotating space station, the hostess walking upside down on the Aries shuttle, the elaborate instructions for use of the zero-gravity toilet, the centrifuge aboard Discovery, and the wire-work seen in the spacewalks, in the airlock and in Hal's brain room.) But all this is completely forgotten in the pod-bay scenes, and on Dave's walk to the brain room. We go completely Star Trek and just imagine that there's this magic artificial gravity you can switch on like a light -- which of course you can't, at all, ever. Would it really have been too much trouble to put the actors on wires in the pod bay and show them using proper spaceflight discipline to secure small objects that might float about? Did Kubrick or Clarke or anyone involved ever say anything about this? Did they just forget, or did they go, 'Oh, can't be bothered, no one'll notice'? The film is so much discussed that the absence of any comment on this salient point -- a point that the film invites by its laborious realism -- seems odd. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is noted in the "Goofs" section on IMDb [7] along with numerous others. IMDb isn't an ideal source though. Strictly speaking, only the main deck of the ship revolves as a centrifuge creating artificial gravity, and all of the other areas of the ship would have zero gravity. It has also been suggested on IMDb that Poole and Bowman are wearing grip shoes, which explains this effect.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Booker, M. Keith (2006). "2001: A Space Odyssey". Alternate Americas: Science Fiction Film and American Culture. Praeger. pp. 75–90. ISBN 0275983951.
• Redner, Gregg (2010). "Strauss, Kubrick and Nietzsche: Recurrence and Reactivity in the Dance of Becoming That Is 2001: A Space Odyssey". In Bartkowiak, Mathew J (ed.). Sounds of the Future: Essays on Music in Science Fiction Film. McFarland. pp. 177–193. ISBN 0786444800.
• Stoehr, Kevin L. (2007). "2001: A Philosophical Odyssey". In Sanders, Steven M (ed.). The Philosophy of Science Fiction Film. The Philosophy of Popular Culture. pp. 119–134. ISBN 0813124727.

2001 monolith found in Utah?

The monolith discovered in Utah in November 2020

This is in the news today.[8][9] It is made of shiny metal, and it doesn't seem to have the 1:4:9 ratio of the original. How it got there is a mystery, as it was found by a helicopter pilot who was counting bighorn sheep.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting item isn't it ianmacm. Likely worth a mention in the article though I'm wondering if we should wait a few days to see if more details emerge. One question as a followup - are scientists turning their telescopes to examine Tycho? :-) MarnetteD|Talk 17:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting news! But I also think we should wait at least several days before we consider adding it to the article. I guess it will turn out to be some kind of prank. Might be unrelated to 2001. The thing isn't even black. :-) And even if it was inspired by 2001, it probably won't have lasting relevance for the film itself, but we could then add it to 2001: A Space Odyssey in popular culture#Parodies and homages. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW - Several related "WP:RS" references - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

References

You may remember that there is also something similar in Qatar.[10] Although the artist Richard Serra did not say that they are inspired by 2001, people have noted the similarity.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• The Utah monolith now has its own article. It is in a very remote and difficult to access location, so you can see why the authorities have encouraged people not to go visiting it. Nevertheless, people have found it on Google Maps and some have visited it already. This is definitely worth a mention at 2001: A Space Odyssey in popular culture due to the large number of news stories comparing it to the monolith in 2001.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: I added a section to 2001: A Space Odyssey in popular culture. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Different releases and restorations after 1999

The article still lacks information on different releases and restorations from 1999 onwards. Sources that could be used for that:

• Hunt, Bill (2018). 2001: A Space Odyssey (4K UHD Review), The Digital Bits, Oct 29, 2018. This source actually includes a 2018 Warner Bros press kit on the restoration work and different editions that was released along with the 2018 UHD 4K edition.
• McKelvey, John W. (2016). 2001: An HD Odyssey (DVD/ Blu-ray Comparison), DVDExotica.com, December 12, 2016. This source fills in a few gaps on the period 1999-2008.
• 2001: A space odyssey 4k/uhd, avsforum.com
• 2001: A Space Odyssey 4K UHD (1968), Blu-ray.com

Now, the latter two sources may only be online forums, but they contain a lot of posts by industry professionals, including such that have been in direct contact with Warner Bros handling the distribution and with Fotokem that were responsible for *BOTH* 2018 releases, the 70mm and the UHD 4K version (see below). So, this is the breakdown:

• In the late 1980s, Criterion released a Laserdisk of "2001" that was the last official release where the telecine, grading etc. was overseen in minute detail by Kubrick from start to finish. Our WP article here only states that it has been overseen by Kubrick, but the point is that he a.) officially okayed every step on the grading (as far as was possible to make an accurate reference grading and telecine with late-80s technology), and b.) it was the *VERY LAST* release of the film where he did all that. That's why the Criterion Laserdisk has become an important reference point when it comes to home-video releases of the film.
• In 1999, MGM/Warner had a few photochemical 35mm reduction copies made (definitely internegatives, but maybe also a few interpositives?). These prints suffered from improper geometry (geometrical distortion) and a degredation in overall color and contrast range that would carry over into all further home-video releases before the 2018 editions.
• In 1999, MGM rushedly released the first DVD of the film that was an SD telecine taken from one of the 35mm reduction prints. For the visual part, it seems nobody at MGM cared much about any of Kubrick's notes, intentions, or a reference copy with this 1999 MGM DVD. However, some fans like the alternate music mix for this 1999 release.
• In 2001, Warners took the same SD telecine, but digitally graded it a bit, where the operator had remotely glanced over the late-80s Laserdisk release, and released that on the 2001 Warners DVD.
• In 2007, Warners made a new (2K? 4K?) telecine from one of the 35mm reduction copies made in 1999. This time, every single shot was painstakingly graded according to the overall look of the late-80s Criterion Laserdisk. In 2007, this telecine was released by Warners on NTSC DVD and Region 1 BD, and in 2008, on PAL DVD and Region 2 BD. In 2011, Warners re-released this very same telecine in a Stanley Kubrick boxset. Thus, the 2007/2008 Warners DVD/BD and the 2011 Warners release is absolutely identical.
• In the summer of 2018, Nolan made a purely photochemical 70mm "Unrestoration" print. The thing with Nolan is, his approach to film as a medium is one that would be called amateurish Lomography in still photography, believing that the nature of "film" would be one of damage, degradation, processing and printing technology outdated decades ago. Just like with his own films, he didn't go back to the original camera negatives on purpose, but made a 6th or 8th-generation print to 70mm instead, ultimately sourced from one of the improper 35mm reduction internegatives made in 1999. Basically, he wanted a "nostalgic" print that would look like a surviving, scratched, a bit faded 1968 print, complete with both positive and negative dirt, colored splotches, faded aka "velvety raised" black levels, etc., and Warners wanted a big Hollywood name that would help sell the 2018 re-release of the film in a number of different formats. Done this way, being a 6th or 8th-generation copy, the effective resolution was 2K or less, even without the dirt, splotches, and scratches. Nolan did this photochemical "Unrestoration" print at Fotokem.
• Shortly after, in the Fall or December of 2018, Warners released the UHD 4K Blu-ray and made a new theatrical 4K DCP IMAX release of that. Nolan's photochemical 70mm "Unrestoration" and this 4K IMAX release shortly following are not the same! This new 4K release had been in the works with Warners for several years, originally announced for a spring 2018 release (but then halted for Nolan's "vintage nostalgic extravaganza"), actually went back to the original camera negatives, and was overseen by Kubrick's personal assistant Leon Vitali who had been Kubrick's associate ever since Barry Lyndon. Vitali did this new telecine on Fotokem's 11K, 70mm film scanner. It appears Vitali looked neither at Kubrick's notes nor at the late-80s reference Laserdisk, but has tried to play everything "by ear" as for colors, contrast, brightness, gradation, etc.

First of all, Vitali and his team removed the geometric distortion. Geometrically, this new version looks as perfect as Lawrence of Arabia now. And of course, there's tons of new detail and sharpness, thanks to the fact that they've gone back to the original camera negatives for the very first time since at least 1999. Every single frame has been digitally retouched to remove damages, dirt, and even the cross-hatching patterns in the front projections in the Dawn of Man sequence. But regarding colors, contrast, brightness, and gradation, this new edition is a bit all over the place, also if you have an actual HDR monitor (where a lot of people don't know that's a requirement, and it's what also renders the online DVD Beaver comparison screenshots between the 2011 BD and the new 2018 UHD 4K Blu-ray utterly useless because they're comparing YUV images to HDR images, where the screenshots are not even displayed properly). At times, Vitali gets it right, and at times, it's a bit off.

As said, this version was released, after Nolan's summer 2018 "Unrestoration", to 2K DCP theatrically, to UHD 4K Blu-ray (2-disc, with a downscaled 1080p BD included), and as the 50th Anniversary Blu-ray edition, the latter being a 2-disc 1080p BD (one for the film, one for the bonus features). The UHD 4K BD and 1080p BD releases occured on the same day on both sides of the Atlantic. --2003:EF:1700:B486:40A4:31ED:152D:BBF6 (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's useful information but unfortunately the sourcing is not ideal (blogs, forums etc). It is noted in the article that the Criterion LaserDisc version from 1989 is the only one supervised and approved by Kubrick.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

According to Entertainment Weekly, The Digital Bits is as reliable as Ain't It Cool News, and is often referenced by sources such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, Fortune, Wired, Time, Newsweek, the USA Today, Businessweek, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter, as well as by CNN, ZDTV, MSNBC, ZDNet, TechWeb, and in national ad campaigns by 20th Century Fox, Disney, Warner Bros and other studios. It's not just an anonymous "blog" run by a single faceless person, but has dedicated, named staff also working for outlets such as Widescreen Review, Home Media Retailing, Geek Monthly, TNT’s Rough Cut website, Adult Swim, Troma, and Playboy.com, among them novelist, screenwriter, and industrial video producer/director Bill Hunt, writer-producer Adam Jahnke, film historian and columnist Michael Coate, Oklahoma Film Commissioner Bud Elder, and leading film preservation expert Robert A. Harris. Source: [11]. And, as said, they're publishing the original Warners press kit for the UHD 4K BD release at the linked URL where some of the above information is from.

Speaking of Robert A. Harris, he's also one of the contributors on those two forum threads with lots of more information. Wikipedia has been using far less reliable, entirely anon forum posts as sources on articles such as Prometheus (2012 film), Alien: Covenant, and Alien (franchise) for years since 2012, namely for calling Scott's prequel series canceled pretty much from each entry's theatrical release day onwards (the cancellation only actually happened after the Disney takeover in 2019 and Scott didn't want to turn it into a streaming web series for Disney), and to claim that Scott's Engineers would be the same race as the Space Jockey. --2003:EF:1700:B486:40A4:31ED:152D:BBF6 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

2001 and those amazing Apollo 8 photographs

The film predates Apollo 8 (the first round-the-moon trip) by several months, and thus missed including its amazing first-ever photographs of the earth seen from space. When I saw the film at its release they weren't there (and couldn't have been!). A few years later, a friend saw 2001 for the first time and when I commented to him that it was a pity the film had missed the beauty of the earth, he said that true views of our planet were indeed to be seen in the film. Were they added later or did my friend imagine it?

Franciscus montmartinensis (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The famous photos of earth taken by the Apollo 8 astronauts date from December 1968.[12] The film was released over six months earlier, so it had to be based on a certain amount of guesswork about how the earth looked from space. In one of the DVD commentaries I can recall someone saying that they were reasonably pleased with how the earth looks in these shots, except that the sea is darker in the Apollo 8 photo. In 2001 the sea is more of a sky blue colour (screenshot).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Off topic, but maybe could be added in some way. The images of Earth were all mat paintings, not real. btw there were many photographs of Earth (even in color) that predate Apollo 8. The film did get the Moon's surface wrong. It was know at the time the film was created that the Moon's surface features were gently rolling weathered hills, not "jagged mountains" as depicted in the film. Kubrick knew this but wanted the more dramatic jagged peaks. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, in a new preface to the novel published in 1999, Clarke explains why Discovery travels to Jupiter in the film but Saturn in the novel: "Why the change from Saturn to Jupiter? Well, it made a more straightforward story line—and, more important, the special-effects department couldn’t produce a Saturn that Stanley found convincing. If it had done so, the movie would by now have been badly dated, since the Voyager missions showed Saturn’s rings to be far more implausible than anyone had ever dreamed."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

There had been many earlier photos. See Timeline of first images of Earth from space. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit

has been reverted (again) by @Chrisahn:, though no rationale referring to the actual substance of the edit has been offered.

• MOS:LINKCLARITY clearly supports displaying the link text as "A novel" rather than just "novel".
• There is no need to repeat "human evolution" in the very same sentence.
• Phrasing the description of the premise as a dependent clause makes it seem like a parenthetical which is only secondary to the themes, and interrupts the flow of the sentence.

Given this, do you have any argument as to why the current version is preferable? Paxamorically Go (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion about your edit.

• MOS:LINKCLARITY says link labels should be specific. It gives the example that Mozart's Requiem should be linked as "his Requiem" (where his refers to Mozart), not "his Requiem". But in our case, "a novel" isn't more specific than "a novel", because the indefinite article "a" doesn't refer to anything. I think articles are usually not included in link labels. (For example The Light in the Forest (film): ...based on a novel of the same name....) Especially at the start of a sentence: to my mind, "A novel" just looks a bit awkward. (To adhere to MOS:LINKCLARITY, we could change our sentence to "A novel of the same name...". I wouldn't mind, but I'd like to hear what others think. Most Wikipedia rules are a matter of balancing competing goals, in this case link clarity versus succinctness.)
• I agree that we shouldn't duplicate "human evolution". I'm not sure though whether we should simply delete one of the two occurrences, or replace one of them by a different term. I think both occurrences are meaningful in their own way.
• "a parenthetical which is only secondary to the themes" – I agree, but I think that's the intention. The trip to Jupiter isn't what makes the film relevant and interesting. I'd actually say the plot is secondary to the themes, and I believe many other viewers, scholars and editors of this article would agree. It's rare for Wikipedia to have a page like Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey for a piece of art. "and interrupts the flow of the sentence" – Maybe it breaks the flow, but I think in this case that's an advantage – the subclause makes the sentence more readable, which would otherwise be overly long.

In conclusion: I hope you don't take this personally. Almost every word in this article has been discussed thoroughly, and changes to the lead tend to get reverted. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment Here is my two penneth:

• I think both "A novel" and "novel" are potentially WP:EGG links. How about wikilinking "A novel released after the film's premiere", which would be consistent with WP:OFTHESAMENAME? Alternatively, "A novelisation of the film released after its premiere". Basically anything will do provided there is sufficient context to avoid being an EGG.
• I agree that the "which" is superfluous.
• Human evolution is both a plot element and an important theme of the film, but it does come across as clunky. I think we only need to mention it once. Personally I would drop the first occurrence and retain its mention as one of the themes. After all, I don't recall if its impact on evolution is known to the scientists; they embark on the journey to Jupiter because the monolith transmits a signal to Jupiter.

Betty Logan (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Is "novelization of the film" a generic suggestion, a placeholder? If so, would not "a novelization of the screenplay" be a more accurate placeholder? Yet, even as I know of sources which claim the book is a novelization of the screenplay, it seems hardly more than a debatable opinion of that source, one of many I could cite; I could cite others which agree that it is a novelization of the movie, or something else entirely. I doubt even the horse's mouth (Clarke himself) could give an objective answer that would please everyone.ConfusedButNotDazed (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The distinction isn't too important right now, I was just providing an example. We could write the sentence in any number of different ways, but the point is that the link should have sufficient contextual specificity so that readers don't expect to be taken to the general "novel" article. Betty Logan (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't seem there's any perfect solution here, but taking account of everything that's been said, here is one suggestion. Paxamorically Go (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable compromise. Thanks! (As I said above, I'd prefer the version with "which", but I don't mind much.) — Chrisahn (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment by 47.149.101.246

Response to Ianmacm. Pardon. Wikipedia requires a navigation skill set that I was not graced with. This is my Plan B for responding to your comment: Some respected genre media professionals over a period of 37 years—1979, 2009, 2015, 2016—felt the connection between the two films was strong enough that each independently committed to paper and publication their views couched in NON-speculative articles. If these guys were nobodies, you'd have a point. But they are noted, known, well-informed commentators who articulated their thoughtful conclusions—and they really should be respected and taken seriously—and not summarily dismissed as you have done. In addition, sir, that whole section that compiled disparate passages from various sources took the better part of three days to assemble. I believe I'm within my rights to feel disappointed and to complain that your removal of my hard work, mere MOMENTS after I posted it, is WRONG, as well as insensitive and rude. In conclusion, I humbly and respectfully ask that you please UNDO and return my Conquest of Space section to more or less where I had POSTED it. Further, I believe it would be useful if you wrote some SORT OF point-counter point material to emphasize your opinions. Sincerely. Knowing that this method of communication to a Wikipedia editor to be doubtlessly earthshaking, maybe to the degree of the powers that be expunging my presence from the site (which I'd rather not happen). My explanation is no more complicated than that over a number of years I've never figured out how to get in touch with the editors. If somebody would like to tutor me, I'd be very much appreciative. Lastly, I'll be very surprised if any of this, any of my writing and posting this evening, will last more than a few hours or minutes, before it too is summarily removed! C'est la vie
-- Moved from article body by Ian Rose (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

One of the reasons why I reverted this edit is because exactly the same text was added to Conquest of Space. As a general rule, the same text should not be added to more than one article, particularly if it is a large amount of text. As I said in the edit summary, there are problems with WP:DUE and WP:TOPIC, and a lot of the text is taken up on speculation that Kubrick *may* have been influenced by Conquest of Space. If this is included in the article here, it should be a lot more concise and avoid introducing speculation by film critics. There are films that definitely did influence the development of 2001, such as Universe (1960 film) but it isn't as clear cut with Conquest of Space.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

2001 on the catwalk

2001 comes to Milan Fashion Week (yes, really).[13]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2001 A Space Odyssey (1968) - Trailer.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 12 May 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)