Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey

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.

"slightly fag robots"

I gave up on editing Wikipedia years ago, due to the politics and juvenile chatter. However I've noticed that this quote has been in the 2001 article for years.

The citation references nothing and is not searchable. Can someone confirm it?

Granted, Mr. Kubrick was gay and lived in a world of homophobia. However even if it were true, I don't think that retaining this quote, in the article of arguably one of the greatest movies of all time - is appropriate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.209.231 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The phrase "slightly fag robots" comes from Clarke and was used in his The Lost Worlds of 2001 in 1972. Quote "October 17. Stanley has invented the wild idea of slightly fag robots who create a Victorian environment to put our heroes at their ease."[1] Two points here. Firstly, Wikipedia is not censored. It isn't a social sciences course which tries to rewrite the past to fit the standards of the present or avoid giving offence at all costs. Secondly, the idea that Kubrick was gay is unsourced and speculative.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Ian. If some other adjective was being used we wouldn't be having this discussion. The only reason we are discussing it now is because it is offensive by modern conventions. It is not our place to issue judgment on the past, just to document it. Who knows how we will all be judged 50 years from now? Betty Logan (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Does Arthur C. Clarke's opinion on unseen robots' sexuality even add anything to the article, though? Sephiroth1337 (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Clarke isn't really discussing the sexuality of the robots, he is disparaging Kubrick's concept, which on balance is probably relevant. Betty Logan (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think he's disparaging Kubrick's concept, just characterising it. I also that the English Public School meaning of the word fag is likely, as mentioned below. Jonpatterns (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The "public school" explanation is certainly very plausible. It would be great if we could find a source to clarify what he actually meant. Betty Logan (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I’m no expert on British public school culture, but wasn’t a “fag” a student from a lower form who ran errands and polished the shoes of the older students? Maybe a robot that looks after the space crew struck Mr. Clarke as being in that tradition? Since Mr. Clarke hails from that world?Markhh (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

In British English, a fag can be "A junior pupil at a public school who does minor chores for a senior pupil."[2] It's unclear if Clarke meant this, but the Clarke quote is an interesting piece of insight into how the film was made. Initially, Bowman and Poole see HAL as a rather bland and subservient figure, like Jeeves the butler. It is only much later that they realise that HAL has been watching them closely and thinking of ways to kill them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

"Handwritten Cutting Plan by Stanley Kubrick"

This was added today in this edit. It's a bit puzzling due to the scant information given by the uploader on Commons about its original source.[3] Two obvious questions spring to mind here: a) how do we know this is a genuine document in Kubrick's handwriting? b) how do we know if it is Creative Commons licensed? I have asked Joho345 about this on his talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It needs to be deleted from this article and the Commons. It has been uploaded under a Commons licence on the pretext that it is the uploader's own work. Now, if it truly is the uploader's own work then presenting it as Kubrick's work is misrepresentation. If it really is Kubrick's work then it is most likely under copyright of his estate and the Commons licence is invalid. Betty Logan (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Well it is from the exibition 2001 in Frankfurt in the Film Museum Frankfurt 2018. I took the photo There, so it is my own work.Joho345

This would make it a derivative work. I'm not a copyright fusspot, but this image would have dubious status on Commons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• I've removed this because of the copyright status. Also, it isn't discussed in the text of the article, so there is a lack of background detail about what it explains. The exhibition in Frankfurt is mentioned here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

4K video release

Re this edit: at the time of writing, the release has delayed until November 20, 2018. The review makes clear that the 4K video release is not based on Christopher Nolan's 70mm print, and has been supervised by Ned Price at Warner Bros and Leon Vitali. Some people had assumed that the 4K release would be based on the Nolan print, but it is not. The source says "It’s very important to note here that this is most assuredly not the Christopher Nolan “unrestored” presentation of the film. It has, in fact, been properly restored using state-of-the-art digital tools and properly color-timed as well, a process supervised by Vitali."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

"Space Odyssey helps launch first 8K TV channel"

This is in the news today. 8K resolution video is still experimental in most countries, but Japan is ahead of the game. I wasn't sure if this was notable enough for a mention here, but it might be at 8K resolution.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 December 2018

• 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) → 2001: A Space Odyssey
• 2001: A Space Odyssey → 2001: A Space Odyssey (story)

– Since people already know firsthand that 2001: A Space Odyssey is a film (or, at least, so Uncle Google tells them), the designation "film" is rather redundant, in my opinion. So I hereby propose the name changes. Thank you for your consideration. Angga (formerly Angga1061) 14:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed rename 2001: A Space Odyssey (story) does not accurately describe the article at 2001: A Space Odyssey, nor has the proposer presented any evidence that 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. While I suspect it probably is I think the status quo of retaining 2001: A Space Odyssey as a broad-concept article is a better approach. All the articles that have claim to the title (see 2001: A Space Odyssey (disambiguation)) relate to the same topic, so on that basis I think the main page name should be kept as a WP:DABCONCEPT. Betty Logan (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: We've only just finished a similar debate at The Shining which led to a WP:SNOW oppose rejecting this argument. This is another poorly thought out move request for the same reasons that were given in that debate. Wiki policy is to use clear disambigs in the article title when it exists in more than one form. Kubrick's film is famous, but 2001: A Space Odyssey (novel) by Arthur C. Clarke is notable in its own right. Wikipedia article titles are not driven by the top hit in a Google search.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support since it seems to meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in both regards -- usage and long-term significance. I opposed a move at the recent The Shining RM discussion because in terms of usage, the film had only a factor of 3 in terms of page views compared to the novel, and having worked on and read coverage about Stephen King's works, I found the book to have some weight in long-term significance (though I don't doubt that the film beats out the book). In the case of 2001, for page views, film vs. novel shows a factor of over 10, and I do not find the novel to have much long-term significance. To show what I mean, Google Scholar shows Clarke's novel being referenced 16 times, where King's novel is referenced 141 + 18 times (seeing two book listings there). Betty Logan, ianmacm, thoughts on this? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  To clarify, I am aware that the current page is a broad-concept article with the novel article already existing. I am essentially saying that the film should be the primary topic here. I do not have strong feelings on sorting out the secondary topics. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  The film and the book were developed in conjunction with each other as a body of work, therefore they do not exist independently of each other and neither does their notability. They were both produced from the collaboration between Kubrick and Clarke. In fact, it is difficult to discuss the development of either work without discussing the other. That is why I regard this as a "broad concept" topic and I think the focus of the article at 2001: A Space Odyssey should be the collaboration. I am willing to take it on good faith that the film is more famous but I find it difficult to envisage sources that discuss the film in depth ignoring the book, and vice versa. I am not categorically saying that the film isn't the primary topic, but no evidence has been forward here. Because the notability of the film and the book is so intertwined I doubt page views and Google hits tell the full story. Betty Logan (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  I agree that they were developed in conjunction, though that does indicate that the novel did not have a pre-film claim to fame. I do agree that coverage discussing the film's making will bring up the book, but going beyond that, in terms of themes and analysis, I'm not so convinced that the book is as prevalent in such commentary. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  As I've said, Google hits and page views aren't the main guide for this sort of situation. Steven Spielberg's film of Jaws is probably more famous than Peter Benchley's novel, but there is still a disambig for both on Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  Why do you say it is not the main guide? I also discussed long-term significance as part of this. Furthermore, I am not sure if Jaws is a good example because jaw is the primary topic here, and the disambiguation page jaws lists all topics that have "jaw" or "jaws". If the Jaws film and novel were titled something unique, then I would probably make the same argument as above with these (unless the novel surprises me with proof of long-term significance on its own). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose moves. I don't see any evidence the film is the primary topic. This is basically a repeat of The Shining RM. ONR (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  Actually, I've just seen The Shining RM, but it's a different case because, as pointed out by Betty (and the article of the novel itself), the novel was developed "concurrently" with the film itself, and was published after the film. I think the best article to use as a precedence is The Godfather—except for the fact that the novel predated the film. —Angga (formerly Angga1061) 17:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)