The Classic/Retro Pop Culture Thread

[The Old Mixer]

_______

50th Anniversary Cinematic Special

_______

2001: A Space Odyssey
Directed by Stanley Kubrick
Written by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke
Starring Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, William Sylvester, Daniel Richter, and Douglas Rain
Released April 2, 1968

The film, which follows a voyage to Jupiter with the sentient computer HAL after the discovery of a mysterious black monolith affecting human evolution, deals with themes of existentialism, human evolution, technology, artificial intelligence, and the existence of extraterrestrial life. It is noted for its scientifically accurate depiction of spaceflight, pioneering special effects, and ambiguous imagery. It uses sound and minimal dialogue in place of traditional cinematic and narrative techniques, and its soundtrack is famous for its inclusion of a number of pieces of classical music, among them Also sprach Zarathustra by Richard Strauss, The Blue Danube by Johann Strauss II, and works by contemporaneous composers Aram Khachaturian and György Ligeti.

Disclaimer: Discovering this site years ago (I think somebody posted a link to it in these parts) greatly informed my interpretation of the film, so I freely parrot some of its points below.

The overture, György Ligeti 's "Atmospheres" (somebody correct me if I'm misidentifying any of the pieces that I'm less familiar with), sets the mood that you aren't in for any ol' garden-variety popcorn flick. Following that, we get the film's first use of Richard Strauss's "Also sprach Zarathustra"--which has since become iconically identified with the movie, for the brief and majestic title sequence:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The Moon/Earth/Sun alignments will be a recurring motif in the film, but also note that this simulated Earthrise is brought to us shortly before man had actually seen the Earth from the Moon.


The Dawn of Man

It's quite bold to open the film with an extended sequence that has no dialogue...and comparing it to that other recently viewed sci-fi classic, quite the contrast to Taylor's expository intro in POTA. Very good makeup on the hominids...more naturalistic...and one might even argue expressive, at least for what's required of it...than that used in POTA.

I read that the glowy eyes on the leopard were a happy accident

The first music in this section of the film, Ligeti's "Requiem for Soprano, Mezzo-Soprano, 2 Mixed Choirs and Orchestra," heralds the arrival of the Monolith, which causes quite a stir among our ancestors...millions of years before the Beatles, Elvis, or even Frank, we had Monolithmania! As with nearly all major appearances of the Monolith, this is accompanied by another Earth/Moon/Sun alignment, this time seen from the vantage of Earth.

"Also sprach" returns for Moon-Watcher's discovery of the tool...appropriately enough, a weapon.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

With this development, early man becomes an omnivore...and a conqueror.

Now there's definitely a monolith connection here, as conveyed by Moon-Watcher looking from the Monolith/alignment to the pile of bones when the figurative light bulb pops over his head. I believe Clarke's novel--developed parallel to the film, differing in many details, and containing very literal explanations for the story's events--had the Monolith directly conveying information to Moon-Watcher. In interpreting the film's version of the scene, I prefer a more subtle explanation. I think that the very presence of the Monolith had an "observer effect" on Moon-Watcher...that seeing something so alien...something artificially constructed, before any creatures on Earth had a concept of such a thing...sparked the neurons that caused our furry friend to see the world differently, without any direct alien transmissions involved.

Moon-Watcher throws his bone into the air, and shades of the chicken transforming into a guitar on Sgt. Pepper...the movie transitions millions of years into the future as the bone is replaced in mid-air by a spacecraft in orbit.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

And not just any spacecraft, either...though not identified in the film, the first craft we see is meant to be one of several nuclear weapons platforms in Earth's orbit. Is it happenstance that the pre-Jupiter Mission segment in...i assume it's still the year 2000 at this point...doesn't get its own subtitle? Or is it deliberate? Is Kubrick saying that on the cosmic scale, we're still in "The Dawn of Man" millions of years later?

Next up, perhaps the most visually striking scene in the film, as Johann Strauss II's "The Blue Danube" gets the best classical music video ever:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The practical space effects...a substantial leap ahead of anything done before that I'm familiar with...are still breathtakingly beautiful. No CGI here, kiddies.

Note that the orbital station is apparently still under construction. In this sequence, we see that while tools have enabled man to conquer the Earth, he's now finds himself reduced to relative infancy in space. The floating pen symbolizes man losing control of his tools (foreshadowing the film's major conflict); and man needs help walking. We get more examples of this on the journey to Clavius...man eats what might be considered "baby food," and using the toilet now involves a steep learning curve.

We get our first dialogue over 25 minutes into the film. And it's...pretty banal...perhaps deliberately so.

The seeming motion of the Earth in the background as seen from inside the station shows great attention to detail. On the station, we get our first hints that something's up on the Moon.

Apparently the craft that takes Heywood Floyd to Clavius is supposed to resemble a face or a skull...that's a connection I never would have made if I hadn't read it. At Clavius, we get our first real expository sequence, over 40 minutes in. We learn that the story of an epidemic on the Moon is a cover, and that something very big is up that will cause cultural shock...yet it's all conveyed very matter-of-factly.

In discovering the Monolith on the Moon, man really is back at square one...rediscovering something that his primitive ancestors first encountered millions of years ago. The choral music conveys a sort of religious significance...but the occasion is still marked by banal human behavior. One thing Kubrick got right about the 21st century...something monumental is happening that will change mankind's place in the universe forever, and the first thing people want to do is get themselves in a picture with it. The Moon personnel's group selfie is ruined when the Monolith (aligning this time with the Earth and Sun as seen from the Moon) finally does something overt...it sends out a signal. But to where...?


Jupiter Mission: 18 Months Later

This section of the film opens with the original Star Destroyer shot (accompanied by Aram Khachaturian's "Gayane Ballet Suite (Adagio)"):

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Aboard the original USS Discovery, we meet astronauts Frank Poole (who's getting a little exercise by jogging around the gravity-simulating centrifuge section of the ship) and Dave Bowman, and are treated to our first glimpse at the ever-watchful eye of the true star of the show, HAL. Early in this sequence, we get some more exposition in the form of the astronauts watching a TV interview of themselves...another example of banal human behavior, underscored by the astronauts eating what resemble TV dinners.

HAL is man's ultimate tool...man has created a new form of life. While HAL demonstrates that he may be more relatably human than actual humans have become, man, as personified by Frank receiving his birthday transmission, seems bored and unsatisfied; and Frank's unsuccessful chess game with HAL perhaps signifies that man is hitting a figurative wall; coming to the end of his abilities, being outperformed by his own creations...and in competition with them.

In his discussion with Dave, I'm not clear on how much HAL really knows about the mission. Is he just testing Bowman, or trying to learn more himself? Why does he make the false diagnosis of the antenna? Is it a genuine error, or just a very dangerous attempt to change the subject? If the latter, is he deliberately trying to shake things up...in effect throwing down the gauntlet?

Note that the only sound we hear in space is what our POV characters can hear inside their spacesuits. The monotonously measured breathing during the antenna EVAs is likely meant to contrast with Dave's later breathing when his primitive fight-or-flight reflexes kick in.

Ah, lag in space communications...exactly as at it should be. Here we're dealing with light-speed communications travelling interplanetary distances, but the same thing should apply to FTL communications traveling interstellar distances...something that TOS got right, but has been lost in modern Trek and other sci fi. Space feels too small when our characters can always call home in real time. Apparently today's viewers can't handle the concept of a future without omnipresent Wi-Fi.

I'm not sure what they're using for gravity in the parts Discovery where the astronauts can face forward while standing up, like the pod bay. Is it meant to be in zero gravity with the crew using grip shoes? That's implied by the way they walk so carefully in that part of the ship, but not made explicit...and their footwear looks more like boots than the soft slippers that the Pan Am stewardess was using. Magnetic boots?

The astronauts' developing rift with HAL isn't just over the fact that he seems to be in error, but that he refuses to admit it. They conspire against him...unaware that he's reading their lips....


Intermission

And...To Be Continued.

The production values of this film really make contemporaneous Trek look like the budget-crunched weekly TV series that it was.

I think it's safe to say at this point in the film that this is a movie that just grows more and more for me with rewatching. I see that they're planning to do a limited theatrical re-release in May, but I can't find any information about specific venues yet. I've gotten to the point where I hate going to the theater for various reasons, but I'd love the chance to see this on the big screen.

_______

Aw, poor Joe. "What do you mean, where have I gone? I'm still here!"

His actual argument was that he was doing Mr. Coffee commercials at the time!

If you look at history, the expansion into new frontiers doesn't generally take off until a government finds a private partner that's willing to absorb the financial risk needed to develop the frontier commercially and bring back a return on the investment, e.g. the various East India Companies or the fur trappers in North America.

The transcontinental railroad would be another example of that, wouldn't it?

 

[Christopher]

In his discussion with Dave, I'm not clear on how much HAL really knows about the mission. Is he just testing Bowman, or trying to learn more himself? Why does he make the false diagnosis of the antenna? Is it a genuine error, or just a very dangerous attempt to change the subject? If the latter, is he deliberately trying to shake things up...in effect throwing down the gauntlet?

As the novel of 2001 and both versions of 2010 made clear, HAL had been informed about the true nature of the mission but was under orders to keep his crew in the dark. That's what caused his breakdown, because he was built to provide accurate information but was compelled to lie, and the inner conflict and guilt were too much for him.

I'm not sure what they're using for gravity in the parts Discovery where the astronauts can face forward while standing up, like the pod bay. Is it meant to be in zero gravity with the crew using grip shoes? That's implied by the way they walk so carefully in that part of the ship, but not made explicit...and their footwear looks more like boots than the soft slippers that the Pan Am stewardess was using. Magnetic boots?

The pod bay, and everything else except the centrifuge, is meant to be in free fall, so yes, they would be using grip shoes. (This is something 2010 fudged, because they didn't have the budget to rebuild the centrifuge, so they had people moving about in the pod bay as if under gravity.)

The transcontinental railroad would be another example of that, wouldn't it?

Hmm, that was well after the frontier had been settled and was a way of improving the connection between the old and new parts of civilization. I'm talking about what enables the systematic entry into a frontier in the first place. Governments are reluctant to take too much financial risk on a frontier whose potential for gain is not yet established, so they tend to rely on alliances with private partners that are willing to take on that risk for the sake of the potential profit.

 

[The Old Mixer]

As the novel of 2001 and both versions of 2010 made clear, HAL had been informed about the true nature of the mission but was under orders to keep his crew in the dark. That's what caused his breakdown, because he was built to provide accurate information but was compelled to lie, and the inner conflict and guilt were too much for him.

My aim was to interpret the film as its own thing uninformed by Clarke's very literal explanations for things, but that does seem like a good one.

Hmm, that was well after the frontier had been settled and was a way of improving the connection between the old and new parts of civilization. I'm talking about what enables the systematic entry into a frontier in the first place. Governments are reluctant to take too much financial risk on a frontier whose potential for gain is not yet established, so they tend to rely on alliances with private partners that are willing to take on that risk for the sake of the potential profit.

I've heard the building of the railroad referred to as that century's equivalent of the space race. A cross-continental journey that had taken months by wagon became one that could be made in a handful of days. Communities sprang up along the rail paths. People were already out there, but the railroad played a big role in "taming" the frontier.

 

[Nerys Myk]

And provided quick transportation for our top Secret Service agents.

 

[GNDN18]

 

[The Old Mixer]

You can't hear it, but I'm doing the theme. That's my contribution.

 

[Christopher]

My aim was to interpret the film as its own thing uninformed by Clarke's very literal explanations for things, but that does seem like a good one.

I read the book maybe a dozen times before I ever saw the movie -- and I don't really care for the movie. My prior knowledge of the book was the only way I had any clue what the hell was going on.

I've heard the building of the railroad referred to as that century's equivalent of the space race. A cross-continental journey that had taken months by wagon became one that could be made in a handful of days. Communities sprang up along the rail paths. People were already out there, but the railroad played a big role in "taming" the frontier.

That's giving way too much credit to the space race. The Transcontinental Railroad was a far more permanent advance. They didn't just use it for a half-decade or so and then let it rust. No, the space analogy for the Transcontinental Railroad is still a long way in the future. We're not even at Roanoke or Jamestown yet, let alone San Francisco. And we won't even be able to begin the journey in earnest until private space enterprise becomes profitable enough to drive further and faster advances -- a point that seems to be only years away now, but that's taken a long time to get to. I'm not talking about the long-term projects, I'm talking about what it takes to begin the process of expanding into a frontier in the first place. And it usually takes a partnership between government and private enterprise, sharing the risks and rewards.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

That folk influenced folk rock is obvious...it's right there in the subgenre name. Influencing something is not the same as establishing it.

So, anything that followed did not really create it. Modified--yes. Evolved it--certainly.

But all of those examples put the futuristic space technology decades in the future.

Then take Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea: the 1964-68 TV series was set in the 1970s (I think it begins in '73), but it featured the Flying Sub, a ship that had no technological parallel in the 60s, 70s, or even now in 2018--some 53 years later, so I would say that's an example of sci-fi tech being just as "out there" as the POTA ship existing in 1972.

They said as much right there in the film. Twice, IIRC.

Taylor said:

"Did I tell you about Stewart? There was a lovely girl--the most precious cargo we brought along. She was to be the new Eve..with our hot and heavy help, of course."

That's not listing her actual duty. Taylor--along with being misanthropic--was being both flippant and sexist, assuming that sex was just going to happen in their group, but officially, that's not Stewart's purpose on the mission.

 

[RJDiogenes]

(somebody correct me if I'm misidentifying any of the pieces that I'm less familiar with)

That won't be me, because I have no clue.

Very good makeup on the hominids...more naturalistic...and one might even argue expressive, at least for what's required of it...than that used in POTA.

Clarke once wrote of his disappointment that 2001 got beat out by POTA at the Academy Awards for makeup. He assumed, presumably tongue in cheek, that the Academy thought they used real apes.

...millions of years before the Beatles, Elvis, or even Frank, we had Monolithmania!

Is it happenstance that the pre-Jupiter Mission segment in...i assume it's still the year 2000 at this point...doesn't get its own subtitle? Or is it deliberate? Is Kubrick saying that on the cosmic scale, we're still in "The Dawn of Man" millions of years later?

The title is more about the beginning of a new century (and, metaphorically, beginnings in general) than the actual date. Was the Monolith discovered in 2001 or was that the date of Bowman's ultimate trip? You can't tell from the movie, and I forget if the novel has an explicit timeline. I think the lack of a subtitle is probably an oversight or a desire to not detract from the transition, since Discovery does get a subtitle.

Note that the orbital station is apparently still under construction.

Yup, everything is beginning.

We get our first dialogue over 25 minutes into the film. And it's...pretty banal...perhaps deliberately so.

Definitely deliberate, and that was Kubrick, not Clarke. It's one of my least favorite aspects of the movie-- the general flat affect of the humans.

Why does he make the false diagnosis of the antenna? Is it a genuine error, or just a very dangerous attempt to change the subject? If the latter, is he deliberately trying to shake things up...in effect throwing down the gauntlet?

He's literally setting up Poole.

Space feels too small when our characters can always call home in real time. Apparently today's viewers can't handle the concept of a future without omnipresent Wi-Fi.

Agreed. Modern Sci-Fi (in TV and movies) lacks that almost mystical feeling of the deep universe that TOS captured so well (as did Forbidden Planet and a handful of other things).

They conspire against him...unaware that he's reading their lips....

I love that.

The production values of this film really make contemporaneous Trek look like the budget-crunched weekly TV series that it was.

And yet it (deliberately) lacks the warmth. As monumental an achievement as 2001 is, TOS is where I'd rather live.

I see that they're planning to do a limited theatrical re-release in May, but I can't find any information about specific venues yet. I've gotten to the point where I hate going to the theater for various reasons, but I'd love the chance to see this on the big screen.

I got to see 2001 in a theater in 1971 for my 10th birthday. The reason I know it was my 10th birthday is that my Mother was quite pregnant with my Sister.

That's not listing her actual duty. Taylor--along with being misanthropic--was being both flippant and sexist, assuming that sex was just going to happen in their group, but officially, that's not Stewart's purpose on the mission.

That's a good point. Taylor is not exactly a reliable witness.

 

[Christopher]

The title is more about the beginning of a new century (and, metaphorically, beginnings in general) than the actual date. Was the Monolith discovered in 2001 or was that the date of Bowman's ultimate trip? You can't tell from the movie, and I forget if the novel has an explicit timeline. I think the lack of a subtitle is probably an oversight or a desire to not detract from the transition, since Discovery does get a subtitle.

Here are a couple of timelines I found, based on evidence from the movie and novel:

http://www.mach25media.com/2001tl.html
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/2001-a-space-odyssey

They differ by a few days here and there, but agree that TMA-1 is discovered on the Moon on April 12, 2001, the Discovery launches in September 2002, Poole is killed in February 2003, and the Jupiter portion covers June 7-13, 2003.

 

[The Old Mixer]

That's not listing her actual duty. Taylor--along with being misanthropic--was being both flippant and sexist, assuming that sex was just going to happen in their group, but officially, that's not Stewart's purpose on the mission.

That's a good point. Taylor is not exactly a reliable witness.

If you guys wanna reinterpret literally the only thing we're told about her in the film. I don't think those lines (and between the two of you, you found both) were put there accidentally, or to portray Taylor as a sex fiend. He seemed, if anything, as cynical about her purpose on the mission as he was about everything else.

I think the lack of a subtitle is probably an oversight or a desire to not detract from the transition, since Discovery does get a subtitle.

I think that very little in this film was done accidentally. If Kubrick had wanted a subtitle for that segment, he could have put in onscreen after the transition. I think that the subtitles mark distinct segments of the film, and that "The Dawn of Man" encompasses millions of years ago and the scenes set in 2001.

He's literally setting up Poole.

Once again, it took a couple reads....

I got to see 2001 in a theater in 1971 for my 10th birthday. The reason I know it was my 10th birthday is that my Mother was quite pregnant with my Sister.

I saw The Empire Strikes Back on opening day when I was 10.

They differ by a few days here and there, but agree that TMA-1 is discovered on the Moon on April 12, 2001, the Discovery launches in September 2002, Poole is killed in February 2003, and the Jupiter portion covers June 7-13, 2003.

Good to know. At this point, I might not be getting back to 2003 until the coming weekend.

 

[The Old Mixer]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Yes, its the Byrds as "one of these things" that do not belong in the origin of how folk was married to pop/rock.

Genesis!, Mixer, genesis!

 

[The Old Mixer]

So the Weavers started the Folk Rock subgenre before Rock & Roll was even a genre. Right....

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

If you guys wanna reinterpret literally the only thing we're told about her in the film. I don't think those lines (and between the two of you, you found both) were put there accidentally, or to portray Taylor as a sex fiend. He seemed, if anything, as cynical about her purpose on the mission as he was about everything else.

Its not reinterpreting his dialogue--the way he's talking to Nova cannot possibly be considered his being anything other than being sexist & flip, which is in keeping with his personality. He makes a low down reference to Stewart in light of his being forcibly separated from his newfound "girlfriend" Nova, so the idea of female companionship (or facing the possibility of it not happening) was weighing on his mind. The script makes no firm statement supporting the idea that Stewart was officially the mission's would-be colonial mother.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

So the Weavers started the Folk Rock subgenre before Rock & Roll was even a genre. Right....

What?? Rock was already a genre when The Weavers were performing. When--exactly--do you think rock started?

 

[RJDiogenes]

If you guys wanna reinterpret literally the only thing we're told about her in the film. I don't think those lines (and between the two of you, you found both) were put there accidentally, or to portray Taylor as a sex fiend. He seemed, if anything, as cynical about her purpose on the mission as he was about everything else.

I think part of it is that the purpose of the mission wasn't really thought through-- or deemed irrelevant to the plot. From what we see of the astronauts, it was an exploratory and research mission-- yet it was obviously a one-way trip. What good would the knowledge do if it would not get back to Earth for centuries, if at all? If it was a colonization mission, it was seriously understaffed (and ill-prepared, since they didn't know what they were going to find). Given the nature of biological reproduction (and assuming that they were limited to four crew members), it would have been better to have three women and one man. Even with three Adams and years to work with, that outpost of humanity would have been dangerously inbred. I found a Planet of the Apes Wiki that says Stewart was a biologist, so she definitely had a scientific purpose on the mission. Perhaps she did have a secondary assignment as a mother to the other three astronauts' kids or maybe Taylor was just being cynical about the sex-ratio of the crew, or a combination of the two, but no matter how you look at it, the mission doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I think that very little in this film was done accidentally. If Kubrick had wanted a subtitle for that segment, he could have put in onscreen after the transition. I think that the subtitles mark distinct segments of the film, and that "The Dawn of Man" encompasses millions of years ago and the scenes set in 2001.

Possibly. I've never really thought about the subtitles and, now that I am, I find them incomplete and inconsistent. The tone of "The Dawn Of Man" and "Eighteen Months Later" are inconsistent. If Kubrick was breaking the history of man into two segments, it would have been better to label Bowman's descent into the Monolith as "Second Dawn" or something (the name of an ACC short story, and possibly a chapter title in 2001). Establishing the time frame of Discovery, especially in mid flight, seems arbitrary in that context. Otherwise, it would have been better to label the Moon-Watcher segment, the Moon segment, the Discovery segment, and the Ultimate Trip segment.

Once again, it took a couple reads....

I saw The Empire Strikes Back on opening day when I was 10.

Still the best of the Star Wars movies.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Now there's a song that should have cracked the Top Ten.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Considering the film 2001 by itself, I don't think it's of the utmost importance, in technical computer science terms, why HAL malfunctioned.

What's far more significant is how HAL reacts. His malfunction, as it were, leads HAL to murder, which parallels the act of the protohuman tribe that was contacted by the Monolith against the neighboring tribe at the critical resource of the waterhole. In my view, this does not imply that HAL was directly influenced by the Monolith or by a Monolith or by whatever creatures might be behind the Monoliths, as I know that some have speculated. Rather, its significance is that HAL's murder of almost the whole crew duplicates, in the terms of the film, perhaps the most essential action responsible for mankind's survival and success. In stark terms, the choice is to eliminate the competing variables by brute force and leave oneself in control. This is reflected in the dilemma expressed by HAL, when he says that the mission is too important to allow the astronauts to jeopardize it, and it parallels position of the apes at the waterhole. What makes HAL's choice a malfunction is that HAL is obviously not functioning at all as intended. But aside from that, in a kind of irony in its coincidence as malfunction, HAL represents a perfect and perfected reflection of human nature.

The resemblance of the Discovery exterior to a human skeleton is well-known, but I'd suggest that symbolically HAL's actions might well be intended to represent the full legacy of the discovery of weapons in the prehistoric boneyard; murder is a pivotal event in the story of the film, and the ultimate technical achievement is literally shown to be something that threatens people with perhaps even greater effectiveness than people threaten each other (cf HAL creaming Frank in the game of chess).

In my view, the literal explanation, that 2010 so to speak can't seem to help itself from providing, undermines this wonderful metaphor.

 

[Christopher]

I think part of it is that the purpose of the mission wasn't really thought through-- or deemed irrelevant to the plot. From what we see of the astronauts, it was an exploratory and research mission-- yet it was obviously a one-way trip. What good would the knowledge do if it would not get back to Earth for centuries, if at all?

A lot of space research is done with the very long term in mind. Searching for habitable exoplanets and researching interstellar propulsion technologies is done with the full knowledge that it's our descendants, not ourselves, who would get the payoff from the work we do now. So is stuff like ecological and climate research that tells us about the long-term future of the planet.

Many human endeavors throughout history have been undertaken with a long view in mind, for the sake of posterity -- like the European cathedrals that took two or three lifetimes to build. The people who initiated the projects knew they wouldn't live to see them finished, but they did it anyway, in order to leave a legacy to the future. I've often seen it said by people writing about science and space exploration that humanity will need to embrace that kind of long-term, deep-time thinking again if we wish to expand into the cosmos, to invest the centuries or millennia it will take to reach and settle other star systems. We don't do it for ourselves, we do it for future generations.

Given the nature of biological reproduction (and assuming that they were limited to four crew members), it would have been better to have three women and one man. Even with three Adams and years to work with, that outpost of humanity would have been dangerously inbred. I found a Planet of the Apes Wiki that says Stewart was a biologist, so she definitely had a scientific purpose on the mission. Perhaps she did have a secondary assignment as a mother to the other three astronauts' kids or maybe Taylor was just being cynical about the sex-ratio of the crew, or a combination of the two, but no matter how you look at it, the mission doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

It may have been a compromise between the pragmatic considerations of the mission and the prudishness of the politicians and administrators approving its parameters. In real life, NASA has always been in extreme denial about the existence of sex on space flights and refuses to do any meaningful biological or psychological research on astronaut sexuality, because their budget depends on the approval of a Congress whose members are often beholden to religious-right voters. So this could've been the same sort of thing. Maybe the mission planners wanted to include enough women to make reproduction remotely viable (although realistically you'd need a population base of at least several dozen to have a remotely viable colony), but they couldn't get the proposal past the prudes in Congress, so they only managed to get one woman on the mission by justifying it in terms of her role as a biologist.

I'm reminded of the "wives for settlers" program that was the inspiration for the Western Here Come the Brides and the Star Trek episode "Mudd's Women." The real goal of the project was to improve the gender balance of the frontier town so that more people could get married and have kids, but they couldn't come out and say "We're shipping you out there so the men can have sex with you," so they presented it as recruiting schoolteachers and the like to make the community more civilized and livable, and hoped that nature would take its course.

Possibly. I've never really thought about the subtitles and, now that I am, I find them incomplete and inconsistent. The tone of "The Dawn Of Man" and "Eighteen Months Later" are inconsistent. If Kubrick was breaking the history of man into two segments, it would have been better to label Bowman's descent into the Monolith as "Second Dawn" or something (the name of an ACC short story, and possibly a chapter title in 2001). Establishing the time frame of Discovery, especially in mid flight, seems arbitrary in that context. Otherwise, it would have been better to label the Moon-Watcher segment, the Moon segment, the Discovery segment, and the Ultimate Trip segment.

I see your point in terms of stylistic unity, but on the other hand, the transition from bone to orbital platform was a sufficiently vivid illustration of the change of setting that a caption at that point would've seemed redundant. The two time captions they did use were understandably necessary to set the scenes and avoid confusion. All that wordless footage of a bunch of ape-men gadding about would've been confusing to the audience without some sort of explanation; without the caption, some people might've thought it was supposed to be an alien planet or something. And I think the "Eighteen Months Later" caption for the Discovery part is useful to show that the mission is a consequence of the TMA-1 discovery at Clavius, rather than something that's happening simultaneously.

After all, Kubrick's whole approach to the movie was to explain as little as possible. Maybe he would've left those two captions out given his druthers, but he might've compromised to studio notes and put them in for the sake of clarity.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I think part of it is that the purpose of the mission wasn't really thought through-- or deemed irrelevant to the plot. From what we see of the astronauts, it was an exploratory and research mission-- yet it was obviously a one-way trip. What good would the knowledge do if it would not get back to Earth for centuries, if at all?

Perhaps they were going to send information back to earth just to prove they had discovered an earth-like world, which would be the go-ahead for other missions. As we would see in Beneath the Planet of the Apes, a ship of the same capabilities already existed, and (we assume) was put into service earlier than expected when contact was lost with Taylor's crew.

I found a Planet of the Apes Wiki that says Stewart was a biologist, so she definitely had a scientific purpose on the mission.

Yes, and officially, the character was a lieutenant--not a Carry On-esque parody of a 60s flight attendant there to provide the hot stuff for the male crew.

maybe Taylor was just being cynical about the sex-ratio of the crew, or a combination of the two, but no matter how you look at it, the mission doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

He was certainly not being serious. It must be remembered that Taylor goes through several psychological stages in the film--he's still bitter, sarcastic and not yet defending himself as an intelligent being, or defender of humanity overall. By the time he reaches Cornelius' dig site, he's a very different, optimistic person (even as he rails against Zaius). So when explains where in terms of Taylor's mindset, but he's not being serious about Stewart's role on the mission.

Possibly. I've never really thought about the subtitles and, now that I am, I find them incomplete and inconsistent. The tone of "The Dawn Of Man" and "Eighteen Months Later" are inconsistent. If Kubrick was breaking the history of man into two segments, it would have been better to label Bowman's descent into the Monolith as "Second Dawn" or something (the name of an ACC short story, and possibly a chapter title in 2001). Establishing the time frame of Discovery, especially in mid flight, seems arbitrary in that context.

Arbitrary? How so? That title (Jupiter Mission - 18 Months Later) logically follows the effects of the monolith on the investigative team on the moon--not the Dawn of Man. That jump to Discovery One's mission is the result of what happened on the moon. The in-story history is separated into two, distinct periods not by titles, but from the ape-man's evolutionary use of the bone, finally sending it in the air, to the then-future of man actually travelling beyond the limits of his world. That was more transition (of consistent growth) from one era of man to the other, rather than a break regarding man's growth--that's covered in the shift from bone to spaceship.