Talk:2010: The Year We Make Contact

, who passed away in 1995)

This is irrelevant to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.91.122 (talk • contribs).

Commented out weaseling

I've commented out this paragraph because, if it belongs, it needs a serious going-over.

After the visual impact and enigmatic ending of the film of the original 2001 (made in 1968), the more mainstream 2010 was considered by some to be a disappointment . However, other viewers argue that on its own terms, the film is more substantial than most other science fiction films.

It's pretty weasely. "Some", and "other viewers". If someone can come up with a decent appraisal of the long term impact of the movie, let's have it, but this is just too vague. --Tony Sidaway 23:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's useful to know that the film has a very different style. But the comments certainly needs quotes from reviewers to support them. There are some listed here: [1] The Singing Badger 00:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sivasubramanian Chandrasegarampillai

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

E-mail conversation in 1984?

Clarke's e-mail correspondence with Peter Hyams, director of 2010, was published in 1984. They had e-mail in 1984? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.106.46.84 (talk • contribs).

Yes. - ∅ (∅), 17:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Similar to Apollo/Soyuz

I think the whole joint US/Soviet mission is similar to Apollo/Soyuz. Due to being a joint space mission and everything.

Fair use rationale for Image:2010dvd.jpeg

Image:2010dvd.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Differences from the novel: orbit/Lagrange

I'm removing the line regarding the discontinuity about Discovery's location. Floyd's report indicates the monolith is in the Lagrangian point, not Discovery. Discovery is correctly indicated as being in Io orbit.

--Pauley (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Scientific 'impossibilities'

A flaw in the scenario - also present in the book - is the implausibility of creating a "second sun" out of Jupiter without it affecting the orbits of its satellites and other bodies.

The problems with this well-reasoned argument are that a) it is original research, and b) a drastic change in orbit and gravitation could have taken place in both the novel and film - they just weren't mentioned, or shown explicitly. Good reasoning, however. 206.248.158.217 (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Manifestly, you have zero understanding of what you are asserting. None. I don't contest the removal of the section, but please, don't be ignorant. Please. 128.214.133.2 (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who is the ignorant! Clearly I have exactly seven understanding of what I am asserting. Seven. My contention was not that the orbits could not be or were not affected, only that it wasn't mentioned in the film because the film ended almost immediately after Jupiter became Lucifer. Because it was not mentioned it does not follow that it was a mistake, simply an omission (much like most movies omit characters going to the bathroom, or some such thing). What you wrote was absolutely true, and the solar system would be massively changed; however, it was original research and as you hadn't provided a link to a dependable external source, it was removed. -DarrenBaker (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed the whole section, as it was entirely original research, which is not allowed on the Wikipedia. --DarrenBaker (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My recollection is that the multiplying slabs were compressing the gas of Jupiter, both in their construction and internally, thus increasing the density of the planet to the point at which fusion became possible. I don't have a copy of the book, but I thought it said something to that effect.

—WWoods (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow the argument here, the fact that increasing Jupiter's mass by a hundred fold would indeed lead to the inner solar system becoming unstable. In order to get hydrogen to ignite Jupiter's mass would have had to been increased by about a factor of 100. If Jupiter were 100 times more massive the inner solar system would quickly become unstable , I don't think Clarke ever noticed this did he? See this link:[2] This by the way is not original research it is known in the scientific literature.

One notes another thing changing Jupiter into a .08 Solar Mass Brown Dwarf without changes in the state vectors of the Jovian satellites would cause them to fall into Jupiter in about 8 days. Changing their orbital velocity at their same positions may disrupt the dynamics of the satellite system.Aajacksoniv (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2010-poster01.jpg

Image:2010-poster01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Death?

The Soviet astronaut that was pulled into the big monolith.. Was he actually killed or did he just get pulled in like Dave had been? - NemFX (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess nobody knows. But since he's never mentioned again in the film, the novel, or any of its sequels, it's safe to assume the former. Cop 663 (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actual title of movie?

This bothers me: the title of the movie as it appears on-screen in the movie is "2010".

"The Year We Make Contact" is an advertising tagline which appeared on the movie posters, one of which was used as the cover of video releases. It was never, and never intended to be, part of the title of the movie. But almost everyone gives the title as "2010: The Year We Make Contact".

If I'm not the only person in the world who cares about this, maybe somebody could fix it here.

-- Thomas G. Atkinson 141.157.14.202 (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Walter Curnow bisexual (in the novel)?

"in the novel Walter Curnow is bisexual and has a relationship with Maxim Brailovsky, breaking it off when he learns that Zenia Marchenko is in love with Maxim." Is there some sort of reliable source for this? I wouldn't have a problem with Walter being bi, but I think somebody is reading way too much into the text of the novel. I read it again a couple of weeks ago, and the only episode I recall that might hint at something like this, is when Floyd gives Walter a manly talking-to about his behavior with Max, when Zenia is around. The way I read it, Curnow is genuinely shocked; he hasn't thought along those lines, at all, but it suddenly becomes clear to him that Zenia has. Nerdjob (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose going by reader response theory the answer is there's no such thing as a reliable source here, your interpretation of the text is as valid as any other. That said the exchange between Floyd and Curnow regarding the "one case [where the crew's] adoration had gone too far" in ch. 28 is portrayed as both very uncomfortable and emotionally charged, re-read it with this in mind and see what you think. I'm unsure what Walter could think Haywood means by "your behaviour with Max" other than a sexual relationship which would elicit "a frigid silence" followed by the defensive "I was under the distinct impression he was more than eighteen", or why Floyd would avoid making eye contact if he was simply referring to horseplay. Later at the end of ch. 39 when Curnow and Floyd are described as taking the first step toward genuine friendship by exchanging vulnerabilities, Curnow's is in acknowledging that he's a little saddened to see Max and Zenia cementing their relationship and by extension firmly ending his and Max's fling, echoing an earlier passage in the chapter about spreading himself too thin.

Clarke often made reference to this kind of post-gay flexible and relaxed approach to sexual orientation in the future portrayed in his books, sometimes he's more direct about it than this (e.g. the description of Karl Mercer and Joe Calvert's "apparently stable liason" in ch. 10 of Rendezvous with Rama, or the general attitudes in Songs of Distant Earth where anyone whose preference is purely for one gender or another is considered emotionally unbalanced) but it is certainly one of his recurring themes and (I think) clearly in evidence in his descriptions of Curnow in 2010. The Movie adaptation expunges all the physical relationships between characters (most notably Zenia and Floyd's) which results in characters and relationships that are less complex and adult than those in the novel. While you could easily argue Curnow's orientation is open to interpretation, I think acknowledging this interpretation of the text adds significantly to a discussion of the differences between the film and the book.Splateagle (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be helpful to add a page reference to the comment about Curnow in the article, as it's a subtle moment that is easy to miss. BTW, there's also a brief mention of a gay couple at the beginning of 2061. Rubble pile (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea - any suggestions how best to reference it? Splateagle (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Just add <ref>Arthur C. Clarke, ''2010: Odyssey Two'' ([insert place of publication]: [insert publisher], 1982), [insert page number].</ref> In an ideal world it would be good to add page numbers for each of the things mentioned in this section. Cop 663 (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Reader-response criticism that addresses this question can theoretically be reliably sourced. The real questions are:

1. Can we find a truly reliable source, like professionally published criticism or analysis, or are we just opening the door to the inevitable stream of fan-written web postings?
2. Even more importantly, is such a tangential question worth exploring in this article? Currently, it's mentioned in only a part of a single sentence of a section which itself is completely unsourced and could be construed as forbidden original analysis.

I would suggest that, if this topic were worth including in a Wikipedia article, it'd be more appropriate to detail in 2010: Odyssey Two, where the relationship is at least suggested. But that article currently doesn't even mention Curnow or Brailovsky, let alone their relationship. We must remember that Wikipedia articles should remain focused on their subjects, not become opportunities for writing mini-essays about subtopics. Not everything that is true or plausible needs to be included. We're better served by attempting Saint-Exupérian perfection. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Both questions strike me as subsets of the wider issue of whether or not the two differences and discontinuities sections are worthwhile parts of the article. If it is worth examining the differences between the novel and the film, the removal of the physical relationships between characters seems an important part of that, if however the section itself is a digression it should probably be entirely removed Splateagle (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Discontinuities Section

This section is currently flagged as trivia which strikes me as unproductive and inappropriate (hence the (reverted) removal of the tag). The Guielines specify a trivia section as "one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list.", the current list is selective, though admittedly not organised. Some of its content substantially adds to that of the article, and surely some should be retained? This thread is thus opened in the hope of sparking discussion on how better to structure this information (rather than simply tagging the section with a finger wagging banner which accomplishes very little.) and in order to avoid engaging in an edit war.

Any suggestions for a better structure and/or specific "trivia" which could be removed to improve the section? (for example the change in location of the monolith from Saturn to Jupiter seems a significant detail, the missing blue suit helmet is arguably less so?)Splateagle (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

reception section?

this article needs one of them. 24.68.62.185 (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)