Underman's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY - 30 YEARS ON
VIEWPOINTS PAGE 2

2001: A Space Odyssey - 30 Years On

Mr Kubrick's masterpiece, in retrospect.
Viewpoints Page 2

*

Things you have said.

Continuing on from Viewpoints, page 1, this page covers your thoughts on:

*special effects *aliens with Carl Sagan's assistance
*Cinerama, laserdiscs and wide- screen cinema*the 2001 soundtrack (including Alex North's unused score)
*2001 and religion *non-2001 science- fiction
*space exploration for real *self- build models of 2001 spaceships and other items
*marks for presentation - how well this site does justice to this magnificent film *the things you have asked of me.

Remember, Hal features in his own Viewpoints page.

*

VIEWPOINTS: YOUR WORDS

SPECIAL EFFECTS How do they do that...?

Must have missed it

I've just spent the last half-hour or so reading through your really quite good 2001- related web site, and I think I might be able to help out on one tiny little point, re the big cat at the beginning with the bright eyes.

An old book I have ('Movie Special Effects', from 1975), has a whole chapter devoted to 2001, which is fairly logical considering that there wasn't anything like it in special effects terms up until the Star Wars films (ignoring more earth- bound efforts such as 'Earthquake', which was big news at the time).

Apparently, all of the scenes with the ape-men and beasties were filmed on a soundstage in England, using an innovative form of front- projection - essentially, the backgrounds were projected onto a screen behind the players, only instead of being projected from behind the screen the background was projected from in front. I can't remember exactly why this was done, but there was a very good reason (possibly because back- projection always leads to a small but noticeable loss of detail).

This was technically quite hard - the backgrounds were projected with such low light (to avoid reflecting from the ape costumes) that the screen had to be highly reflective, and the camera angles had to be worked out so that the bodies of the actors could mask their own shadows.

Now, the thing about cats is that they don't follow cues not to look at the projector very well, and the thing about a cat's eyes is that they are very reflective indeed. Therefore (and I think that the book states this explicitly) it is pretty likely that the bright light in the cat's eyes is, in fact, the background being projected onto its face - essentially, a mistake. No doubt Stanley Kubrick must have missed it whilst filming, and only later, in the editing suite, did he decide that it was a cool thing to keep in (a similar-ish 'good' can be found in 'Jaws', where the boat is sitting in the water and a real shooting star flies past - apparently the director didn't notice it until sifting through the footage later).

The rest of the book is pretty interesting, too, and it even manages to cram in the plot and a detailed description of the 'slit- scan' process, which still baffles me.

And, apparently, those mysterious shots of chemicals in petri- dishes which assail Dave as he passes through the star- gate were made by dropping chemicals into, er, petri- dishes. Ashley Pomeroy

PS - Noel Coward, when asked about Keir Dullea, apparently said 'Keir Dullea, gone tomorrow'. It helps if you know how to pronounce 'Dullea' (I didn't, at the time, and the quote confused me to the nth degree until I realised it was 'Doo-lay' and not 'Dull-ear').

****

(My note: I couldn't resist a little joust with Ashley on that one. Here is what I wrote, and Ashley's reply).

Anyway, I'm glad you considered my site "quite good", that's a big encouragement. After all, the film wasn't bad, was it?

I only have a little box of superlatives and I have to ration the things (otherwise they jump out and run away). For the record I thought that the alien spaceships in 'Independence Day' were 'fairly large', and I consider the Star Wars films to be 'not bad'. If my legs were bitten off by a crocodile I would be 'pretty annoyed', and it would probably hurt 'a bit'.

*

Zero G

Knowing or not knowing how effects were done is quite irrelevant to me. I sit and watch movies with people who spend the whole time going "How'd they do that?" I really don't care... But "The Making of Kubrick's 2001" has a rather deceptive title. It is really more figurative... most of the book is dedicated to commentary and reviews... a whole section on critics who gave bad reviews and then changed their minds. Interviews, and one wonderful section called "Dear Mr. Kubrick," letters from people of all ages who liked and disliked 2001. It is a great book and comes fully recommended.

...the best things in 'making of' type things are just those really really interesting little things like that the model of Discovery was 54 FEET LONG!! Or that some of the instrument panels in 2010 that had very small writing on them actually had the instructions for the zero G toilet from 2001 in very fine print!

...I don't really believe that you don't want any outside influence concerning 2001 if you are running a page such as this one with all the great argument and new insight. But... the actual HOW doesn't really matter too much. (Virginia)

*

Dust or something

There were a couple of things I saw on your site that I might be able to help you clear up. You were wondering about the "bits [of the Discovery] that linked the front end with the back end." The Discovery was powered by nuclear engines, right? Somewhere, I read that, in the design of nuclear- powered manned spacecraft, it's important to keep the crew protected from radiation from the engines. Apparently the best (read: most cost- effective) way to do this is to keep the crew compartment as far away from the propulsion module as possible. So those "boxcars" are probably just there for protection, although they could also be storage compartments for fuel, oxygen, instruments, etc.

Also, you noted that, in 2010, the Discovery is covered with a layer of dust or something. It was my understanding that Discovery's position when Dave left the ship was near (or in orbit around) Io and that yellow crap was sulphur (or ash or whatever spews out of those giant volcanoes) that Discovery had collected from Io's upper atmosphere over the years. Not sure about that one, though... (Brian Cundieff)

*

ALIENS How to represent them

Carl Sagan

The ponderings on the question of Aliens located at (the "Aliens" section of your Interchange page) are interesting indeed, however I think that it should be pointed out that both Kubrick and Clarke did intend to imply "Aliens" during the writing, production and post production phases of "2001"... Kubrick and Clarke were at a loss as to how they should represent the "Aliens". Kubrick was leaning towards the idea of hiring stunt men and dressing them up in makeup and costumes. Clarke had his own reservations. They decided to consult a leading exobiologist to get ideas on "what Aliens look like."

Carl Sagan joined Kubrick and Clarke for dinner in Kubrick's New York penthouse. Sagan explained that the possibility of the same course of evolution bringing about intelligent life forms as humans or "humanoids" was next to zero. Sagan suggested that, rather than show what the Aliens look like, don't show the Aliens at all. Leave it up to the imagination of the audience.

And so it was, that Alien form was never shown in "2001". Alien presence was the intent of Kubrick and Clarke though. Doug Jackson

*

CINERAMA Peripheral vision and laserdiscs

My note

This section contains extracts from emails sent in on the "Cinerama" aspects of 2001, and how they contributed to the physical and mental impact of 2001 on people who have seen it in that form.

A historical review of different widescreen cinema formats, going far beyond 2001 itself, has been put together by Tom Brown. You can find his complete paper in the Showcase page.

*

Less hiss

Now, I view the movie on LaserDisc. I have the 25th anniversary release and it is superb, even by LaserDisc standards. They've cleaned up the soundtrack (less hiss) and digitally restored the picture with the full 2.2:1 70mm aspect ratio. Although not as impressive as a Cinerama presentation with the wrap around screen, it comes a close second.

Further, the anniversary addition offers production stills, a recount by Arthur C. Clarke from his diary of the production, and cut scenes. (Robert Bayes)

*

The serious cinephile

I thought I'd send you a note complimenting you on your 2001 web site. It's very nicely done.

I also saw the film in 1968, in Cinerama (in Syracuse, New York), and it left a lasting impression on me. Like yourself, I found the video versions, formatted for the small screen, lacking... I would like to pass along some information upon which I can speak somewhat authoritatively: Laser Disc is definitely the way to go for serious film enthusiasts. The reasons for this are:

1) The superior resolution of LD. LD's give a picture that is nearly broadcast- quality, with at least double the horizontal resolution of VHS tape.

2) Superior mastering of LD. Since LD's are targeted for the serious cinephile, the manufacturers of LD's will frequently seek out high- quality originals for mastering the disc.

3) Theatrical aspect ratios. LD's will nearly always be available letterboxed in the original aspect ratios.

You might want to take a peek at Leopold's Laser Disc page at

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/

for an interesting and informed discussion of the challenges of transferring film to video, including the PAL vs NTSC issue.

The biggest drawback to LD's is the lack of a rental market (though our local Blockbuster has a small collection of LD's to rent): it is primarily a sell-through market, and LD's are priced (stateside) at about double the price of a tape (typically $30-$40 US).

After I saw one of the first Advent Videobeam projection TV systems in the early '70's, I vowed to have a video screening room one day. About this time last year, I was able to purchase a used Sony video projector, and a bottom- of- the- line LD player. I converted a corner of our basement into a screening room and started a collection of laser discs. Early acquisitions included 3 seminal S-F films: The Day the Earth Stood Still, Forbidden Planet, and 2001 (the latter 2 are both letterboxed in the CinemaScope and Cinerama formats).

My projection scre en is 7 feet wide. The other night I was watching 2001, while lying on the floor with my feet nearly touching the screen as the Light Show sequence washed over me, a definite throwback to the acid-tripping 60's.

The 2001 LD that I have is quite a good copy, with a few technical problems involving the film- to- video transfer process. My biggest complaint is the cloddish insertion of title slides for "Overture", "Entre'Act" (after intermission), and "Exit Music" where the film presented a darkened screen. Duh. David M. Arnold

*

Phenomenal

I have been perusing your 2001 page. Very nice. I just wanted to let you know that laserdiscs are the only way to go if you enjoy cinematography. 2001 in particular, as you noted, cannot be enjoyed except in letterbox- format. The image is crisper then any theater and the sound, if you have a good A/V system, is phenomenal. (Bradford J Schmonsees)

*

No substitute

On the LaserDisc issue, just wait a while. DVD is around the corner as well as other technologies such as HDTV. Whether DVD in its present incarnation is the penultimate video technology remains to be seen. I'd wait around until the dust settles. Even though these technologies are getting closer, there's no substitute for a good Cinerama theater... (Robert Bayes)

*

Spherical

I hope that you have had the experience of seeing the film in Cinerama in a good theater. Are you aware of any recent screenings in Cinerama or whether the 70mm prints still exist? The IMDB reports that it was printed in 'spherical Cinerama' and 'Super Cinerama', from a 65mm spherical negative. I have not been able to find out more about these processes. (Brian Wallen)

*

Extinct now

Thank you for putting the link to Cinerama. After I saw 2001 in '68 I became very interested in projection technologies (not that I did a lot of research..) and started to go to all movies shown at theOS Theatre (...extinct now.)

At one time I even went to the projection room after a movie (I forgot which one..) and asked the engineer to show me around. He even gave me some pieces of broken 70mm film which I have lost...

I even tried to recreate Cinerama at home (don't hold your breath here.) (Eitaro Kawaguchi)

*

Distortion

The principal photography on "2001: A Space Odyssey" was shot in the Super Panavision process. This is a full- frame, 65mm negative with five perforation tall frames, shot at 24 frames per second. It is not anamorphic (the anamorphic version of Panavision using 65mm negative is called Ultra Panavision and derives from M-G-M's Camera-65 process). Cinerama proper was a three strip process in theatrical use from 1952-1962. From 1963 Cinerama switched to single- strip or "Super" Cinerama which was actually Ultra Panavision, although practically, many of the single strip Cinerama films were shot in alternative processes, such as Super Technirama (35mm running horizontally, 8 perfs per frame - like VistaVision - but with an anamorphic lens on the camera). Films listed under Super Cinerama on my web pages were deliberately intended to be shown on the Cinerama curved screen, although in the case of 2001 this was not decided until quite late in production. Other films, such as "The Last Valley" were merely marketed by Cinerama under their Cinerama Releasing Corporation division and were not originally made with Cinerama presentation in mind.

(In addition to the Casino), two further Cinerama installations, the Royalty and the Coliseum opened in London, the only city to have that many. The Cinerama screen was taken out of the Casino in 1971 whereupon it reverted to theatrical use rather than cinema.

Super Panavision was the photographic process. Strictly speaking, 2001 was only presented *by* Cinerama on their deeply curved screens, not *in* Cinerama (or Super Cinerama). A number of UK cinemas installed hilips DP70 dual format 35/70mm projectors expressly for 2001.

The "Todd" in Todd-AO is Michael Todd who was originally involved with Cinerama, but through dissatisfaction with the process and disagreement with Cinerama's management left to pursue his own widescreen process. Other than Todd's association, Todd-AO and Cinerama are unconnected apart from rivalry between them - there is an amazing similarity between Cinerama's "Seven Wonders Of The World" and Todd-AO's "Around The World In Eighty Days". Early Todd-AO films ran at 30 frames per second to give less flicker.

Anamorphosis is a technique whereby a picture is distorted in such a way as to make it difficult to interpret without some decoding process to take out the distortion. It was well- established several centuries ago in the form of portraiture of people who were politically or religiously controversial. This allowed people to hang such pictures freely in public without being victimised. Its modern usage dates from the late 1890's where it was first applied to photography using curved mirrors. In 1927, Frenchman Henri Chretien invented a lens which he called Hypergonar. This consisted of cylindrical elements which "squeezed" objects in the horizontal plane only when aligned correctly. When such a lens was placed on the camera, the horizontal field of view was doubled and objects on the film appeared tall and thin. On the principle of reversibility of light, placing the lens on a projector "desqueezes" the image so that you get the original rectified scene back again. By this means it is possible to get twice the aspect ratio without being forced to use wider film stock.

Chretien's lens formed the basis of Twentieth Century Fox's CinemaScope system and later, Panavision's replacement 35mm anamorphic process (just called Panavision). Standard anamorphic lenses squeeze (or unsqueeze) the image horizontally by a factor of 2. Ultra Panavision (and Camera-65) achieved the width of a Cinerama three- strip picture by employing 65mm negative (70mm prnt) in addition to a 1.25x anamorphic factor. Super Technirama used 1.5x, if I remember correctly. (Mark Baldock - ref Bradford Pictureville, link in the Places page)

*

SOUND The audio experience

Original pieces

Now, a question for you, if you would be so kind, as I now consider you the Internet's expert on 2001. Recently, I learned that the classical soundtrack we all love was not originally intended to be the film's score. Several original pieces had been composed for 2001. I heard one of them on our local classical music station. It was very good. Unfortunately, I was in my car at the time, and by the time I was able to get a pen, I had forgotten the name of the CD and the composer. Do you happen to know anything about this? (Brian Cundieff)

(My note: yes! Keep reading...)

*

Music

I have had no formal education in music to date... 2001 got me started in appreciating classical music... The performer for the Also Sprach... in the sound track... of 2001 is Karl Bohm conducting (the) Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra. Clearly that is NOT what's used in the movie. I am 99.9% sure that the music in the movie is performed by Von Karajan conducting (the) Vienna Philharmonic. Strangely, the performer for Also Sprach in the movie's credit is missing, where all other pieces of music have their performers identified. It is my understanding that all music except Also Sprach were of Deutsche Grammophon release, where Also... was of London. I can't help wondering what went on when Mr. Kubrick was clearing legal issues of using those music masterpieces...

****

I'm writing this message with the "Alex North's 2001" CD sitting right next to my keyboard...

(My note: more information about Alex North's 2001 appears in the Soundtrack page).

The CD contains 13 very informative pages with some BW pictures (none from the movie, but of people related to the recording). As you can tell, the order in which the pieces appear on the CD is not chronologically correct (re- arranged by the producer of the CD to highlight the musical contrast). And there's no music for the second half of the movie - "This is as far as Alex North was allowed to continue. The composer was told later that Kubrick no longer required his services" - from the CD notes.

After "30 years" of musical "brain washing" it's hard to imagine how it would have affected the movie if Kubrick had used all (or even some) of these pieces!

...I would say that the music would FIT the atmosphere that I enjoyed at the Cinerama theater - the movie, the color of the walls, curtains and floor (Cinerama color = red), ambience, and even the music they played during intermission (I'm sure that the theater staff picked it up, but I have yet to find out what this "easy- listening" piece was)...

I must say that this CD sounds 10 times more "interesting" because of your web pages... (Eitaro Kawaguchi)

(My note: Thanks for that, Eitaro. Martin Macrae has added that the CD was recorded at Abbey Road Studios in London (of Beatles fame, of course), on January 29 and 30 1993, and also supplies Alex North's date of birth as December 10 1910, died September 8 1991.

Please read the Soundtracks page for more information about this and the other scores.)

*

More than genius

..."Also Spake Zarathustra" is one of my favorite themes of all times. Choosing to use it for the opening titles and as part of the monolith's appearance, was more than genius. (Richard)

*

A zero-gee ballet

...no matter how goodNorth's compositions were, Heywood Floyd's trip from Earth to the moon just wouldn't work without the "Blue Danube"... in the background. Those scenes are a zero- gee ballet, after all. (Brian Cundieff)

*

2001 and religion

You 2001 groupies

What is wrong with all of you 2001 groupies? Your arcane questions about the apes and the monolith and the baby at the end of the film, wake up, please!!!

2001 is NOT a science fiction movie at all. It is a RELIGIOUS FILM! You have the word of the screenplay's co-author saying this rather explicitly, so what is it that you don't understand? The reason the pieces make no sense is because Kubrick was not dealing with aliens, but with the greatest FORCE in the entire universe - the immutable, unmovable, all-knowing, all-powerful, omniscient, omnipresent GOD! What the DAWN of MAN depicts is the interference by God in the natural evolutionary process. In other words, this is the CREATION OF MAN. The apes that touch the monolith are soon standing erect, they begin to reason more complex issues such as that the bone can be used as a weapon, not that he is a VIOLENT creature. The apes that touch the monolith evolve into man as depicted by upright stature, advanced reasoning, a grasping jointed thumb and domination and submission of lesser species.

What makes 2001 so profound is that Kubrick dares to ask the awesome question: If this contact happened once and apes evolved into man, what do we get if it happens again and God interferes with the evolution of man as we now know him? The baby at the end is simply the first-born of this new generation of being and the wondrous and remarkable possibilities of what that could bring are left entirely to the viewers' imaginations. That of course explains why there could never be a sequel to 2001. What would it be? More fascinating that each of us imagines our own futures than leaving it up to some filmmaker. Clarke didn't understand what Kubrick did to his story, which was originally named The Sentinel, but he later got it right by calling 2001 a religious film - something even the Vatican has recognized.

By dealing with this academic and boring issue of the possibilities of the next phase of evolution, Kubrick wrapped it all up in a tour de force of accurate state of the art space technology that remains astoundingly contemporary looking - which is what hiring the best experts around can get you. The whole space trip and the man vs. machine and war of human vs. electronic ego was simply an entertainment, a diversion for those whose educational and intellectual capabilities enjoyed and understood the film as a piece of science fiction. But it is so much more. The genius of the film goes beyond the stunning special effects - I have seen this shown full width on an IMAX screen using their $1 million sound system - and the greatest flash forward in movie history - 4 million years from bone floating through air to space ship (a modern bone so to speak) floating through space. Kubrick could have told the story without all the space stuff - although it is a marvellous vehicle for dealing with all this profound thinking. And for skeptics who think this is imaginary religion, please explain the scene en route to Jupiter where the planets are aligned vertically and the monolith floats into the scene horizontally and forms a huge Latin cross in the cosmos. Knowing Kubrick, this was no accident!

Anyway, to all of you, if you simply see the monolith as God and the touch as the act of creation, the whole story makes perfect sense, as does the rebirth of man depicted in the film's astonishing climax. 2001 is not the best science fiction movie ever made, it is the most brilliant and inspired movie ever made - period. And I agree with all the HAL/IBM connections. IBM simply didn't want to have its name on the movie's most catastrophic failure, but just like the brand names that were used such as AT&T and PanAm, etc., the design of the HAL logo and letters are pure IBM knockoffs. And remember, 2001 is the FIRST year of the THIRD Millennium. 2000 is the last year of the second millennium. 99 percent of the public doesn't even have that right, so how can anyone possibly understand Kubrick if they don't even understand the significance of the date in the film's title?

----

... the religious presence of 2001 does not require a detailed debate about such things as the monolith because what Kubrick was doing was communicating in grand gestures and symbols, not that God was or is a monolith. But the black slab made a great symbol of God and all the noise when the planets aligned above the monolith was confirmation that the slab was linked to the cosmos with the power to align elements of the universe.

And for those who still think Kubrick was making a science fiction movie, ask yourself this question: Why is there never any mention of aliens, alien life forms, extra terrestrials, etc., in 2001? That's because Kubrick chose to put us in the presence, instead, of the most awesome force in the universe, not merely with some advanced intelligence or hostile alien lifeform from another planet or galaxy.

Of course the symbolism of the Dawn of Man does not require arcane debates over whether the monolith apes developed their new powers overnight (obviously not, this was part of an evolutionary process that continued through development to man) or, as I see it, a "day" in 2001 was like a "day" in the Bible. As for the non- monolith apes, they remained apes, which explains the simultaneous existence of man and apes even though they evolved to their present state from the same ancestors.

If the monolith is some alien life form, what was its purpose in waiting 4 million years between contacts? The monolith not only created man, it then provided very specific directions to a new existence and even accompanied man on his journey to a new beyond. None of this suggests an alien life form. It does, however, track mainstream theological concepts of God. There is always the possibility, of course, that what we see as God is, in fact, an alien intelligence. But it is a benign, benevolent and passive alien power and it doesn't really matter what we call it, does it?

Anyway, a few more thoughts. David Anthony Richelieu

*

Intellectually liberating

I have been an SF fan for more years than I have a 2001 fan (I'm actually one of the original "behind the sofa kids" with Dr Who :-) ) and I have found that SF has been an intellectually liberating influence on me. It has taught me to view my experience as limited but expanding and to consider possibilities beyond my current experience which I can grow towards. It has also taught me that there are many different ways to view the Universe in which we live. The means by which I explore these different modes is Science Fiction.

...The proposition (that the Monolith represented the influence of God)... is SF and can be explored as such.

This is one of the beauties of Science Fiction (and long recognised as such), that this type of idea can be considered and explored and debated thoroughly (SF has always encouraged dialogue between writer and reader/viewer).

Therefore, in conclusion I would like to say... please do not dismiss the Science Fiction viewpoint, it is far too valuable for that...

Have fun! Andrew Newstead

*

2010 Science- fiction beyond 2001...

Tranquillity

Like you, I also like 2010, though I agree it could have been better. One thing which grates on me every time I watch it, though, is the mission profile stuff at the very beginning, where it says that the TMA-1 monolith was found in the Sea of Tranquillity. Doesn't Hyams know what "Tycho" means? If it was at Tranquillity, it would have been called "SOTMA-1" or something like that! Also, why does he stress that the monolith's sides are in the ratio 1:4:9? This comes from the novel, but the one in the film clearly isn't proportioned like that.

Really enjoyed the site - many thanks (Gordon Davie)

*

Silly things

Now on to SAL. She is not really the next generation of HAL computers. She is HAL's twin sister, "the twin 9000" from 2001... And why is her eye blue? Merely aesthetic, complementary design. While HAL's eye is red, the little plaque at the top of his display reads "HAL 9000" on a blue background. In turn SAL's eye is blue and her little "SAL 9000" plaque is on a red background. I notice silly things like this. :-)

I loved SAL, in fact I loved 2010. I know 2001 fans rag on it pretty bad, but if truth be known, a whole generation of 2001 fans - including me - came to know 2001 by way of 2010. If it weren't for Peter Hyams making this film, I KNOW there would be far fewer 2001 fans. And we can't just say that Mr. Hyams was trying to ride on the coattails of something great. Arthur C. Clarke wrote the book quite a bit before it was made into a movie, and seeing as Mr. Clarke was involved in the writing and filming of 2010, I must find the film just as respectable as Kubrick's...

...the Russian in 2010 is VERY authentic... Helen Mirren IS Russian, as were the rest of the actors who played Russians in 2010. And the Russian who spoke during tense moments in the Hal transcripts from 2010 was Dr. Vasili Orlov... And the voice questioning HAL about the monoliths in the above-mentioned conversation was Chandra. (Virginia)

*

Zipping about

Why did Peter Hyams use ghastly Hitachi TV- screens for 2010? Did you know that he is known in the UK for doing a really awful sit- com? Capricorn 1 was well done, however. I disliked the 'tension mounter bit' in 2010 where Floyd 'tells the wife he's going on the trip'. What's an aging old **** like that doing, zipping about the universe... (Martin Macrae)

*

Certain power

I'd like to comment about your references to Dave's appearance in 2010, to his ex- wife...

I am under the impression that Dave Bowman did "die" and became the Starchild. That this entity, which Dave Bowman is a part of, has tremendous power, is allowed to use certain power. After all, although it wasn't in the film, the Starchild did detonate all the orbiting nuclear satellites over Earth. Dave could have appeared to his ex- wife in any form. He chose the TV, since that was what she was watching at the time. Yes, it's a device to heighten the excitement of the film... and as far as his mother goes, how do you know she died? As far as I know, she was reunited with Dave in some form. Perhaps this was allowed by the "force" which had allowed Dave to use "its" power!?

I view 2010 as more of a way to make money than an event like 2001... 2001 has so many interpretations, for some iewers, it was too confusing. Their problem, I know! And Kubrick himself, after he received a synopsis of the movie from a 12-14 year old female, said that she came closer than anyone to describing what the film "meant". (Richard)

*

Quintessential

I firmly stand on this point: 2001 is the BEST sci-fi movie of all time... I like the story because it is so "generic"... the quintessential sci-fi movie. (It) is to sci-fi and special effects as "Sgt. Pepper" is to rock and roll music. And compare the computer terminal screens in 2001 and 2010: which computer screens look like they have the most advanced computer graphics? (the 2001 computer screens look like they were produced on today's pentium while the 2010 computer screen displays look like they were done on an Atari 2600 - and 2010 was made in 1984!!!). (Ghislain DeBlois)

*

Shortcomings

Let me be among the first to reassure you that there are a few 2010 fans around. 2001 remains my favourite sci-fi movie, but 2010 runs a close second (tied with Aliens). Having read Hyams + Clarke's book - The Odyssey File, I can easily forgive most of its shortcomings. My only regret is that the movie (and the novel) is dated. While 2001 is set in the not too distant future, 2010 will forever remain rooted in the '80's (ie Near End of Cold War Era). (Howard Boettcher)

*

Bad guy

Interesting dialog about 2010... You note that Hyams did not hold true to the Kubrick vision, yet in my opinion, it was not Hyams that did not hold true, but Clarke. Much of Clarke's story stays intact throughout the film and is in fact a virtual copy.

Most of my complaints about the film... derive from the fact that Hyams was too gutless to think that Clarke's vision of the future could not be stomached by Hollywood or the viewing public. Case- in- point... Clarke's predictions of the fall of the Soviet block, a future Russia trying to work with the international community, China taking the role of the "Evil Empire". Instead he had to resort to classic Hollywood dogma of the evil Soviets starting WWIII.

You also noted that Hyams spoon- fed the audience throughout the movie but in truth Clarke did so when he wrote the book years earlier. Clarke wrote 2001 as a mystery, an enigma. He wrote 2010 to be an explanation, 2061 to be a cash cow.

I enjoyed the page... I think that Clarke fans would have become rabid bunnies if (Hyams) diverged too far from the book, and it would have been a real insult to Clarke to boot... To a point I do think that Clarke is something of the bad guy. I believe that Clarke had to dumb down 2010 to make it more acceptable and to make it sync with the first movie.

I admit I wasn't all too thrilled with his 2061, I didn't see much of a point in the story. I've always felt that 2061 was something like the Brady Bunch reunions. Compared to his other works (Childhood's End, Songs of Distant Earth) it didn't compare (actually I would probably say that about 2010 as well). (Charles Engasser)

*

One of the few

I also appreciated your comments on 2010 and Alien3. I happen to be one of the few who enjoyed both films. (J C Oliva)

*

Heated debate

I...had a heated debate with a friend over the merits of ALIEN CUBED when it was released; he liked the film, I didn't. I still don't. (Modemac)

*

Simply trash

For the Aliens 3, you'll have to elaborate on that a bit more (in fact lots of bits). You did not convince that THAT film is good. For me it is simply trash (especially the last scene, when Ripley throws herself into that tank and the creature gets out of her. That is as good as "The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes"), and that is the way I like it. (Andrea Cassimiro Vieira)

*

The worst movie ever made

Mystery Science Theater 3000... has to be experienced. It is made by a bunch of movie freaks who are all science fiction fans. The comedy is more commentary and criticism, very intelligent... The 2001 joke in the last episode went something like this...

...Dr. Clayton Forrester, the evil scientist who tortures Mike and his two robots by making them watch awful movies, finds that he has been totally abandoned. The Satellite of Love which contains Mike and the robots - Crow and Tom Servo - has escaped the gravity of earth... Dr. Forrester's sidekick Frank has left him for that place in Heaven inhabited by all the mistreated sidekicks. Even Clayton's mother has left him. And the company that funded his experiments on Mike and the robots has cut him off. So he sits all alone in his room after the end of his last experiment. When he looks up, he sees himself sitting at a table eating... When he breaks the glass of wine, he looks up and sees himself in the bed as a crusty old man... And when he reaches out toward the foot of the bed, there stands a towering black videotape with a label that reads "THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE." (Virginia)

*

SPACE MISSION The journey, for real

Be part of it

...from my most recent issue of Ad Astra (National Space Society bi- monthly magazine from the Latin "to the stars"), the JPL (Jet Propulsion Lab) is planning on including aboard the Cassini mission a CDROM or video disk that has millions of people's signatures scanned onto it. All you need to do to be pat of it is to send a blank postcard with your signature on it to: Cassino Program, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena CA 91109-8099. There is no cost for you to send your signature to Jupiter/Saturn... and they anticipate receiving over 2 million signatures...

If anyone is interested in the NSS, check out their home page... It is an international membership group dedicated to furthering the exploration and development of space. I joined it about a year ago. Arthur C. Clarke is listed as a National Space Society Visionary Donor and is on the Board of Governors. (Bob Lee)

*

MODELS Do-It-Yourself 2001

Lunar Models

Here are the details in regard to Lunar Models:

Lunar Models
1835 Thunderbolt Drive #C
Porterville, CA 93257
Phone: 209 784 7121
Fax: 209 784 7889

*Discovery One: $134.95 *Orion 3 Shuttle: $124.95
*Aries 1B: $67.95 *EVA Pod: $51.95
*Moon base astronaut with monolith: $112.95 *Moon base astronaut and man-ape with monolith: $167.95
*Discovery astronaut: $112.95 *HAL 9000 faceplate: $44.95
*Extra $15 shipping

As far as I know, all of these models are resin, which is quite difficult to work with, therefore require advanced or experienced model makers. I have the EVA Pod, which I bought about a year ago... it is still sitting in the cupboard waiting to be made... it looks tricky...

Aurora made some plastic kits... which have been out of production since the late 70's, but are still found in some collectors' stocks in the US... very expensive I must add, but also very good. The Moon Bus sells for about $400, and varying releases of the Orion Space Shuttle sell for between $150 - $200. (All prices listed are in US$ and refer to boxed or unassembled kits).

If you look towards the back of Agel's book (my note: this is Jerome Agel's "Making of 2001"), he has Aurora's instructions for assembling the Orion (Pan-Am Space Clipper) kit. Airfix also released the Orion, but it is an inferior model... but also cheaper... $30 - $80. (Travis Trewin)

Splodgy

If you're interested in making models of 2001 spacecraft, these are available to date: Space Shuttle Orion III; Space Pod; Aries 1B; Discovery 1; Space Station; Monolith with Spaceman; Monolith with Apes; HAL 9000 'eye'; Moon Bus...

...I've made the 30-inch long Discovery and the Space Pod. Discovery has a great big metal rod through it, otherwise it'll snap under its own weight, and it isn't well detailed in resin, but is passable. I re-worked a lot of the Pod details and it looks fine, the arms have to be scratch- built from plastic scrap...

No original (2001) props are in existence, the original 54-foot Discovery was rumoured to be in somebody's office here in the UK, but no trace so far. (Great desk ornament?) 16mm films of HAL 'windows' and display screens are supposed to be in MGM/UA archives somewhere in the UK, as is the 20mins or so that Kubrick sliced off... Kubrick holds overall control of all his work and... won't let Clockwork Oange be shown or have video sales in the UK, it hasn't been viewed here since 1972.

Most of the 2001... models were made by model- builders who left the Gerry Anderson production team (Thunderbirds etc.), specifically to work on 2001. (Martin Macrae)

My note

Martin brought my attention to what must be the most comprehensive coverage of spacecraft models of every variety anywhere on the Net, put together by Sven Knudson. Have a look at: http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/space_models.html#classic

I haven't turned that into a "hot" link, merely because once you disappear there you may never come back! But, as a sample, here are some interesting pictures borrowed from Sven's marvellous pages.

2001 Construction Kit Boxes

*

MARKS FOR PRESENTATION Communicating on the Web

You and I disagree

I put some of my thoughts together in an essay... I know, even from my quick read, that you and I disagree on much - including HAL and his relationship to humans. But of course I find your ideas absolutely thrilling, and the intensity of your attention quite inspiring. (Alan Shapiro)

*

Abstract situations

Firstly, I'd like to say that I absolutely love this site and anyone who calls himself a fan should visit.

2001 is, however, my 2nd favorite movie (please don't kill me). My favorite movie is Apocalypse Now, and I was wondering how you liked that (if you've seen it). I often find myself relating real- life situations to Apocalypse Now and abstract situations to 2001. (hauck1 - email id)

*

I like horses

Your page is so huge, I spend already a fortune of online costs to go through it. I now started to DL (download) the pages and got through them offline. You seem to be a real writer. It is rare to find places on the www where it is worth going through all the text. Usually it is something like: "I'm x years old, I like horses, here are my links and e-mail me!"

I used to have a homepage like that, but I gave it up after I realized that the web didn't need another site like that. (The counter stopped at about 100. That was 70 times me and I can name the other 30 as well!) (Jost Huebner)

*

Controversial

I want to take this time to thank you for the wonderful site. 2001 is one of my favorite movies and novels. Your insights are wonderful and compelling and, in some cases, controversial... I can only dream of having a fan this dedicated to my works. I'm sure Mr. Clarke is impressed and flattered. (Kris Denning)

*

I've been looking

Hey there... Man oh man. I've been looking at your 2001 page for about a half hour now and I'm only about a third of the way through. What a wonderful page! In fact, it is so great that I'm going to put a link to your page from mine. (Jonathan Davidson)

*

Beautifully done

Your 2001 page is beautifully done: very thoughtful and nicely presented. It is certainly what such a great movie deserves. If only more web sites were as good as this one! (Oliver)

*

My calling

I am in the film business as a cameraman, all because when I was eight years old, my mother took me to see 2001. And I understood and knew my calling. To create moving images. This film means a lot to me and any site concerning it gets a bookmark. But yours is a delight. A wonderful design job, and very informative. (Ralph Pitre)

*

Provoking

This is a very thought provoking site. (Lee)

*

Impressed

Congratulations on a superb 2001 site. Most impressed. (Mark Pugh)

*

This great film

I've copied, but haven't had time to read all of your pages. The visual design and organization of your site does the film credit and I am grateful that you have invested so much personally in keeping discussion alive for this great film. (Brian Wallen)

*

Newspaper

This page is very cool... I've read about this page in a very big newspaper in my country... I really enjoyed visiting your page. Good luck on anything you do in the future... (Anonymous)

(My note: the country in question was Israel, and I never did find out any more details).

*

A column

The mention was in a column I did at http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/ccarch/cc0422.htm

Enjoy! (Sam Vincent Meddis)

(My note: Sam Vincent Meddis writes a regular column for USA Today. He had a look at 2001 in one column, and the link led to this site, among others.).

*

Off-hand remarks

Please...accept my utmost congratulations on your efforts with this page... Anyway, I think I have said way too much, but I just love these movies and wanted to share a little of what I know and what I think.

...it just mostly makes me angry when someone starts making some off-hand remarks that degrade the efforts of other, especially in film criticism... I think your realization of the efforts of others in their own views is a refreshing change from most of what I see on the internet. (Virginia)

*

Allsorts

Hi there!... you have a cool page that I am viewing at the minute... where are you anyway?... I am also into Star Trek, manga, and allsorts... (Ian M Fisher)

*

Somebody out there

Glad to hear from you, it makes me feel that there is somebody "OUT THERE". HAL talking would be ultra cool thing to do, and thanks for the lead for the sound site. Keep us (001 fans) informed about any changes. Thanks again 4 everything and keep up the good work.

...just stopped by to check the site again and to say hi (Freedman77)

*

Great

This is (a) great page. Congratulation(s). (Anonymous)

*

Stargate

Memories and feelings were woken... up for me - isn't that what good writing is about? Thank you... When first reading your site, my curiosity of the subject at hand, turned to envy toward your writing skills and style... You get through to your reader... I think your '30 year' movie review and analysis has opened a 'Stargate' in a real life movie - and that is REAL science'fiction'... Thank you for the inspiration, Phil!!! WRITE ON !!!... LESS THAN 4.5 YEARS TO GO - TO 2001!!! THAT PAST SEEMS CLOSER NOW, THAN THE FUTURE IT WAS PRESENTING THEN... (Scott Alan)

*

Uncharted sea

Man in the 20th century has been cut adrift in a rudderless boat on an uncharted sea. If he's going to stay sane through out the voyage - he must have some one to care about, something that is more important than himself.

Could you be it?

Keep up with the good work! (Giles Phelps)

*

Commercial breaks

Your site is so extensive that I haven't had time to look over all of it yet, but I must say congratulations on a job well done.

I've just read your "2001: A Space Odyssey - Spectacle" page, and I was well able to relate to much of it.

I have 2001 on video, I taped it when it was on television, the downside is the commercial breaks every 45 mins or so, but the upside is that it is in the widescreen format. (Valentine Hayes)

*

Very nice

Good luck in your site!... congratulations on a vey nice web site... (David G Stork)

*

A younger Dave

Thank you for your excellent page on this great film. In addition, thanks for the comments on Solaris, which I was not aware of previously; now I'm desperate to find it, but am having no luck at local video stores...

I would also like to mention a radio interview I heard with Keir Dullea in which he claims to be the one to have come up with the ending parts where a younger Dave hears a noise, looks around, and suddenly we see an older Dave... (Steven Parsons)

*

Favorite movies

...Your 2001 pages are (excuse my french) **expletive deleted**-A, man!

...2001 is one of my... favorite movies... and I consider myself a movie-buff... (Mike Manion)

*

Interesting

Thank you for an interesting well presented web site on this subject. (Modemac)

*

Too short

There are no words to speak of your page! I wasn't able to sleep till I finished to read it, when the sun was rising... And, like Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings", it's too short!

I have much to say about it, but I will resume in a phrase: it's the best movie I've ever seen! And your page makes a great contribution in helping others to see it in a positive way.

By the way, I went again to your page, you continue to do a great job!!! I like to hear more about Tarkovsky and Solaris, and also to read the original theatre program...

About the brown eye that appears at the end of Bowman's voyage to the "hotel", you can be sure I asked Mulder and Scully to seek more about this weird happening!!! :))

Also, I'm planning to write my HP and would like to ask your permission to put in it a link to your page... have you thought about making a WebRing? (Andrea Cassimiro Vieira)

*

Favourite film

2001 happens to be a favourite film of mine as well.

I'm giving your site another run... it's amazing! :) I loved the film as well... perhaps more for the ambiguity, the questions I continue to ask than anything else...

I'd like to interview you for another online mag I work for called "net update". (Andrew Garton)

*

Captivated

I want to thank you for your wonderful essay on 2001. It captivated me so much that I actually called in sick to work this morning just so I could finish reading it! (J C Oliva)

*

Very plausible

I would like to congratulate you / make you happy.

Congratulations for that excellent page... all these ideas on 2001... very plausible.

I had a little tear drop down while I read your change page - I couldn't believe my luck that I was reading something that had been changed just 4 days ago. (Eduardo Galvez)

*

Impressive

Just a quick note to let you know how much I liked your 2001 page... It's certainly an impressive web site. (Andrew Richter)

*

Quite interesting

I just wandered into your website for 2001, and I found it quite interesting. (Tim Riffel)

*

Pointer

Thanks for your message and the pointer to your site. (Andrew Garton)

*

Great page

Anyway..keep up this great page! (Shannon)

*

Second best

I truly enjoyed it... I've made a link to your page on the 2001 Archive... Your site is rapidly developng into the *second* best 2001 site on the net :-) (George DeMet)

*

Feedback

I'm glad to year that you've gotten a lot of feedback and put a lot of work into the page... Your comments are very insightful and personal, and your writing style very refreshing... There is one suggestion I'd like to make, if I may: use the "alt" statement to include text with your images... people will be able to see important stuff that they would otherwise miss... such as the title of your page. (Modemac)

*

QUESTIONS Things you have asked

The voice for SAL

Do you know who provided the voice for SAL, HAL's descendent?

(My note: I responded: "Would you believe, Olga Mallsnerd did SAL's voice. No, I've never heard of her anywhere else, either." Which drew this response.)

I knew it was an "unusual" name, and when I didn't see it in the credits on imdb.com, I found your site. After listening to her voice several dozen times over the years, I have always speculated that SAL was voiced by Candice Bergen, using the nom de vox of Olga Mallsnerd. My apologies (and compliments) to Ms. Mallsnerd if I am mistaken... Barry C. Everett

*

A much more thorough look

I'd like to say that I'm writing with some wonderful insight but that isn't the case. I do plan to come back to this site and give it a much more thorough look! What I really need, for a project, is a pic (any format) of the embryo floating in space... (Amazon)

*

Wandering around

We haven't talked for a loooooooooong time... I sent once some comments about your fantastic page... I have searched for the wonderful pic of Sun and Earth and Moon, that one from the 2001 overture, but I wasn't able to find it. It took me hours and hours wandering around, all in vain... I came to bother you and ask if you have it... it's a strange thing the pages I saw that contain 2001 pics DON'T HAVE THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR!!!!! When I saw the film this pic was so striking, and afterwards I read the book and the history of how a famous astronaut (I forgot his name) had made a painting very similar to that overture BEFORE THE FILM WAS RELEASED and that Kubrick didn't know about this painting until then. I thought that that would be an easy task. (Andrea Cassimiro Vieira)

*

Suffering

PLEASE end our suffering! What was the name of the Soviet ship that appears in 2010?(Jimmer)

*

Author

Please help asap!!! who was the author of 2001 space odyssey??? (Laurie)

*

My Russian

I was also wondering... whether there is an English- subtitled version of Solaris on the market. I'd love to see it, but my Russian isn't that good. (Brian Cundieff)

(My note: Solaris is available in both NTSC and PAL formats. CDNow will supply the NTSC version and is linked from this site. My own PAL version came from PastelBlue in the UK.)

*

It's got a lot

Can you please tell me your name so I can quote you in a paper I am writing?... It's got a lot of your stuff in it. Thanks. (Alan Griggs)

*

Thank you!

Thanks to you all for taking the time to write.

*

All text: Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998 by Underman and writers identified.

Start this page again.

*

Back to Home Page

*