2001: A Space Odyssey
- Thread starter Sentience
- Start date
I was watching 2010 again last night and it hit me:
When Ghost Dave first appears to Floyd on the Discovery bridge, there are walls to the left and right of Dave (just like in 2001, except this time the walls are pretty much blank).
But when Dave turns and walks away, the walls have disappeared, and there's LIGHT shining through the resulting spaces!
I wonder what's up with that.
As I said, in 2001 it seems clear that the way to get from the bridge to the podbay is to go through the door at the back, then go down a ladder. In 2010 it looked like Peter Hyams changed it so that Access Way 1 is now the way from the bridge to the podbay. So what are we to make of THIS inconsistency?
Perhaps the monolith aliens, whom Dave is now a part of, were sort of messing with the interior of the ship for some reason. Don't know why they'd do that, though.
(interesting, in that in 2001 we never actually find out what's on the other side of Access Way 1! We only ever see Dave using it when he's on his way to the podbay, to go out and replace the AE-35 unit. I suppose that Dave is meant to be coming from some kind of supply locker, where he got the replacement unit...)
When Ghost Dave first appears to Floyd on the Discovery bridge, there are walls to the left and right of Dave (just like in 2001, except this time the walls are pretty much blank).
But when Dave turns and walks away, the walls have disappeared, and there's LIGHT shining through the resulting spaces!
I wonder what's up with that.
As I said, in 2001 it seems clear that the way to get from the bridge to the podbay is to go through the door at the back, then go down a ladder. In 2010 it looked like Peter Hyams changed it so that Access Way 1 is now the way from the bridge to the podbay. So what are we to make of THIS inconsistency?
Perhaps the monolith aliens, whom Dave is now a part of, were sort of messing with the interior of the ship for some reason. Don't know why they'd do that, though.
(interesting, in that in 2001 we never actually find out what's on the other side of Access Way 1! We only ever see Dave using it when he's on his way to the podbay, to go out and replace the AE-35 unit. I suppose that Dave is meant to be coming from some kind of supply locker, where he got the replacement unit...)
Pretty sure Hyams was just taking dramatic license there for the sake of ease of filmmaking (since he didn't have time, budget, and/or interest to try to replicate that many low gravity shots) and was betting that folks would be too gobsmacked by Dave's appearance to notice.
Detailed blueprints of the inside of Discovery? I don't know if any exist, but I'd freaking LOVE to see some if they do.
(for instance I'd really like to know where Access Way 2 - shown in one scene in 2010 - is supposed to be.)
Is Lora Johnson still on here? I’m pretty sure she did a set not too many years ago. (Don’t think it’ll be free, mind you.)
Roughly a billion years ago I found scans of a tabletop RPG based on 2010 on-line that seemed to have pretty accurate floorplans of the Discovery (though based on 2001, so it doesn't have the extra corridor Curnow was hanging out in when Bowman and Floyd were talking, for instance).
Yeah, IRC I got the FASA(?) plans of Discovery at the same time as Lora's. There were differences but I don't know which one was more accurate. (But I have a guess.)
I just found my copy of Lora's plans. The one thing the FASA plans had that Johnson's didn't was detail on the centrifuge.
I just found my copy of Lora's plans. The one thing the FASA plans had that Johnson's didn't was detail on the centrifuge.
There's a link to interesting article on the tablet they use int he film, the Newspad, that I ran across this a few weeks ago.
https://www2.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/features/did-stanley-kubrick-invent-ipad
https://www2.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/features/did-stanley-kubrick-invent-ipad
Minor quibble: I would argue that 2001: A Space Odyssey is not Kubrick's first classic. I would argue his first classic was Spartacus and his next classic was Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
Yeah, whether it's Spartacus or Paths of Glory might be a bit subjective. I was thinking in particular of how pervasive the influence of Spartacus is vis a vis the famous "I am Spartacus" scene -- I'm not aware of an analogous scene or level of influence with Paths. And obviously Dr. Strangelove is just an absolute classic, no question.
It's been a while, but the biggest message is hidden in plain sight and it's quite the knee-slapper of a message as well: The rectangular obelisk, right down to the pedantry of the zero-G toilet placard, is a metaphor turned 90 degrees as its dimensions are an aspect ratio of roughly 1:2.35... Or 2.35:1 once turned to landscape mode. It's not a mobile phone, either... its a metaphor for what's on the other side... or, most literally, what's that thing everyone gawks at in the movie theater while shoveling tons of popcorn down their throats in anticipation of finding said zero-G toidy roughly twelve hours later?
I'm more impressed by the visuals and filming, making a prehistoric landscape look so authentic without any CGI, and where and how they filmed it. At least from the one making-of documentary I recall... it's been so long that I need to see it again. I need the voice of
On edit: Woops, he didn't do HAL - but he surely could have...
Currently, I like the theory that the movie is really about deception of the masses by people in power, and that we in the audience need to be reborn to see through the lies and gaslighting. Kubrick deliberately dressed 2001 in the clothing of a high-tech fantasy yarn to get the funding. Supposedly, IBM discovered the ruse and wanted the company's logo removed from the movie. Presumably, IBM failed to notice the simple one-letter shift in the name of HAL. Bowman has his revelation when he sees himself in the aliens' recreation of a hotel suite's bathroom mirror. On his deathbed, he reaches through the screen and is made anew.
Clarke denied that to his dying day, I believe. It's even explicitly mentioned in his novel 2010.
It was also denied by Kubrick. Clarke claimed the name was derived from "Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer", which has always seemed a very contrived explanation to me. However, I wonder if it was a subliminal thing. Of course, we'll probably never know know unless some note is uncovered in Kubrick's voluminous archives. I do like the notion that Kubrick hid a deeper meaning in the movie that he didn't even tell Clarke about.
HAL also stands for hardware abstraction layer, but I don't know if that concept was around in 1968.
Probably not - at least not to the Film's production team; (the film started fpre-production in 1964).
I say that because the first version of the UNiX operating system, which was one of the first unified computer operating systems didn't come online until 1969, a year after the completed film was released.
Similar threads
