Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey/Archive 8

Notes on Redeletion of material on French copyright controversy
On both August 3rd of this year and today (Sept. 28th), User: Elnino38 added material to this article from the French Wikipedia about a controversy as to whether Kubrick took the design of the monolith from paintings by French-American painter Georges Yatridès. (All of this user's contributions to Wikipedia are Yatridès-related.) On the first try, I deleted it as a hopelessly bad translation from French to English. On the second try, I decided to give this user the benefit of the doubt. He claimed in his edit-summary "Finally managed to find a professional translator to help me translate this paragraph. Hope the English is good enough now!". Actually only the last few sentences were changed slightly. It still needed a lot of work! However, I was willing to give this user benefit of the doubt and try to massage it. I even reverted another editor's deletion of the new material (as pedantic or as User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz put it "axegrinding") and then proceeded to try to spiff it up.

However, the only thing that gives this controversy the ability to pass Wikipedia's requirements for WP:notability is the claim made in the text that an important French institute (Société des auteurs dans les arts graphiques et plastique- ADAGP) devoted to copyright considerations has weighed in on the matter. Unfortunately, this pivotal claim is entirely uncited!! And I can not find anything on the web anywhere to support it. And that same claim in the French Wikipedia article has a "citation needed" tag on it, omitted when the material was ported over here to the English Wikipedia. Yet, as I say, this is the pivotal claim required for this to pass WP's requirements for WP:Notability.

Finally, the Yatrides site which is cited (for the controversy) never mentions the ADAGP weighing in and seems to be a self-published "fan" site which is written in very poor English by someone whose native tongue is obviously French.

At any rate, until we have independent sourced evidence that ADAGP has weighed in on the issue, this material cannot go in this article, IMO.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. But I like the fact that someone thought they could somehow get away with taking clearly unsourced text from FrWP and putting it here. Shirt  waist &#9742;  00:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of British Attribution of Film (for Now)
The guidelines at Template:Infobox film overtly state (emphasis added by me)

"The nationality of the film should be backed up with a reliable source. The source must clearly identify the nationality in a descriptive capacity, as in describing it as an American or a French film/movie etc, or in a contextual capacity such as the BFI's list of top 100 "British films" or as an example in a published work on German film etc. Sources that simply identify the country of origin as France, or the production country as U.S. etc such as is the case with resources like Allmovie and IMDb is not sufficient identification of the film's nationality."

The AFI source cited doesn't mention the nationality of the film. The Rovi source clearly falls in the purview of sources that provide only "simple identification". While the New York Times normally fits our criterion of "reliable source", it in this context puts the nationality only in a format similar to our own infobox, in a way that is neither "descriptive" nor "contextual" per the required WP guidelines. I would therefore suggest that for now the nationality be retained as merely American. (Also, much of the filming in England took place in studios owned by American companies, though not the bits filmed at the Shepperton sound stage.)--WickerGuy (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest if the sources I supplied are not sufficent, then we should remove both nationalities as per Fill in the nationality of the film as identified in the lead of the article. The nationality of the film should be backed up with a reliable source and  If there is a conflict between nationalities, then the nationality should not be stated and the country field should not be filled in. Furthermore, the infobox guidelines only govern the infobox, they don't determine the content of the lead, which is subject to Wikipedia's standard policy on Verifiability.  All the sources I have supplied represent the film as a Anglo-American co-coproduction, so I don't see what the problem is with documenting that. Betty Logan (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * EDIT: The AFI lists the film as a UK/US production in the credit blurb at the bottom. It isn't contextual, but acknowledgement that it was an international co-production by the American Film Institute is good enough for the lead I think. Betty Logan (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)Agree with WG. Where does the NYT review say anything about "nationality" of the film? Also, I'm sure I could find a dozen reviews that list it as a "US" production. Are we to rely on certain publications, each apparently with its own criteria for nationality, to decide which country 2001 belongs to? I say we go by nationality of the financing entity (MGM). Does the fact that Hyundai makes some of their cars in the U.S. mean an Elantra is a U.S./Korean car? Shirt  waist &#9742;  13:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)Talk page consensus doesn't trump Wikipedia's policy of Verifiability. If you can find an authoritative source that says that financing solely determines a film's nationality then fair enough, I'll stand corrected. However, a couple of Wikipedia editors deciding this is the sole factor is WP:Original research. The fact remains every source I can find includes the UK—even the American Film Institute—so until you come up with something better then both countries should stay with the current sources, or if these aren't good enough then both countries should come out until one or the other can be explcitly sourced as a film of that country, since there isn't a policy based reason for retaining one over the other. Betty Logan (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be interesting to see if WP has a policy saying that the source of the money is how we determine the nationality. I will check on that. I think there is a temptation to see 2001SO is co-British because it coincides with the time that director SK decided to permanently settle in England. His previous two films were made in England, but he had not yet made up his mind to semi-permanently relocate. Other American-born directors who eventually chose to live in England are Richard Lester, Terry Gilliam, and Tim Burton (much later in his career). I will check WP policy in MOS:FILM. Stay tuned--WickerGuy (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:FILMLEAD states Ideally, the nationality of the film should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is ambiguous, clarify the circumstances at a later point in the first paragraph.. I agree that the source of the money is a factor (and the sources I added seemingly do too, which is why they acknowledge the US), but it's beyond the scope of Wikipedia policy and guidelines to determine to what extent it is a factor. That's basically what WP:Verifiability and WP:Weight is for, to make sure that all points of view are those found in published works, and not those of editors, and to also ensure that they are represented in proportion to the coverage they receive.  If you think it's important to identify the nationality of the financier, then I think the gist of the MOS is to break it down i.e. the financier is American, it was filmed in Britain etc.  However, I agree that contextual claims are superior to sources that just list a country of origin, and wouldn't argue against the replacement of the sources I provided with some that are contextual i.e. a source that calls 2001 "an American film" correllates better with the claim than one that just gives a country; better yet, a source that provides a rationale for why the film is American (or British come to that) is the best kind, since they provide an explicit context for those claims. Betty Logan (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And actually, Space Odyssey was (I believe- should double check) co-funded by "MGM British", a distinct entity with the MGM name, and !*some*! of the films they produced (such as "Goodbye Mr. Chips") are listed in WP as....British films. Further investigation called for, but seems a case for dual nationality.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, where does the NYT article mention nationality? Shirt  waist &#9742;  21:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Answer to NYT query: in a sidebar similar to WIkipedia's Infobox.
 * Question1: To what extent is the subsidiary "MGM British" (a separate corporate entity) a contributor to Space Odyssey (the film used their studio space)?
 * Question2: The other production company was "Stanley Kubrick Productions". By this time, did they have a UK street address, as SK had been in England since 1961?
 * Would either of both of the contributions of "MGM British" or "SK Productions" (surely by now being run mainly out of England) be a case for stating this is a US/UK film?--WickerGuy (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Worth noting Encyclopedia Britannica sites "Space Odyssey" as a turning point in American film history. This is exactly the kind of specifically contextual discussion that WP prefers over simple database listings.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also Worth noting The film was released in the USA several months before being released in America. This is unusual for a co-production. Contrast the Harry Potter films, several of which were released in England before the USA, or the Narnia films which were released almost simultaneously in both markets. I have for this reason (and the issues of funding) reversed the order in the Infobox, USA first and Brit second. Remain still somewhat uncertain if by Infobox rules Brit belongs--WickerGuy (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just Noticed Betty Logan's New York Times source lists the movie as only Brit, and the 2nd and third source list Brit first and US second. This seems a tad peculiar to me, personally, but then WP goes with verifiability, not editor's opinions.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)WG - I think you mean "The film was released in the USA several months before being released in Europe/internationally."
 * I must also point out that the reasons various sources use to list a film's country of origin as "US", or "US/UK", or "UK" is unknown to us. So even if a particular source's choice is "verifiable", the reliability of that source's choice is in question because of the differing assertions of various sources. For example, why would the NYT call 2001 a "UK" film, and EB call it an "American film" EDIT:("2001: A Space Odyssey, American science-fiction film..." -- Encyclopedia Britannica)? Since we don't yet have a definitive source one way or the other, the use of conflicting sources as now exist seems improper to me. Better to remove any mention of nationality in the lead and infobox until such time as we can, as WP:FILMLEAD states, "clarify the circumstances at a later point in the first paragraph." I really don't think text saying "some sources say X country, others say Y country" is a viable option. We need to help the reader's understanding, not confuse it. Shirt  waist &#9742;  05:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also - hasn't a defacto consensus been established by now in WP that a film's country of origin in the lead corresponds to nationality of the studio(s) that produced it? Shirt  waist &#9742;  05:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have already attempted to add clarification in the footnote, but actually later in the paragraph is really the better way to go. I kinda thought so as well about the country of origin, but am wondering if it is documented in any specific place, say in the talk pages of Wikiproject film somewhere or other? (I was invited to join many moons ago, and am regretting I didn't.)--WickerGuy (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are discussions on the "Template talk:Infobox film" page: Sept 2010, Oct 2010, Nov 2010, and Jan 2011. Shirt  waist &#9742;  05:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think clarifying the roles of the different countries is probably the superior approach. Maybe something along the lines that it was made in Britain while Kubrick was living there, and was financed and produced by US based MGM. That pretty much spells out the roles of the two countries. Most sources clearly recognize the involvement of both the countries, no reason why Wikipedia can't go one further and spell it out. That would certainly be preferable for the lead I think. As for the infobox, then if we don't explicitly have sources denoting the nationality in the lead, in accordance with the guidelines then the countries probably should be pulled.  Betty Logan (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As for Wickerguy's question, there is no "defacto" definition imposed by the Film project (I know the guidelines back to front because I've been over them many times). In fact, it is the single most contentious subject and is periodically under discussion. The best approach is to make the information as useful and as verifiable as it can be to readers. Anyway I'm ok with the approach suggested by Shirtwaist. Betty Logan (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, but I meant a defacto consensus as far as editors determining nationality in the lead sentence of film articles, not any standardized definition. Am I correct in assuming that most if not all film article lead sentences go by nationalities of production companies when assigning country of origin? And in the case of multiple studios based in different countries, aren't they listed together, as in "American/British/French"? Shirt  waist &#9742;  07:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think the most common practice is to simply copy the countries from the IMDB. You have something like Harry Potter which is produced by Warner Bros, but is listed as a UK/US film. Dr Zhivago is also an MGM production, but was listed solely as a UK film (although I removed that yesterday since there is no agreement among the sources on what nationality that film is). I think generally it's probably not wise to follow precedents on other articles (in which case we would still ironically end up with a UK/US listing by just copying the IMDB countries), because they all have different standards of editing. I much prefer the alternative solution put forward, in saying what is American about it and what is British; it feels much more encyclopedic to me. Betty Logan (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sidenote- I see now why I was initially confused when re-reading the infobox instructions for "Country": it used to say something like "use nationality of the major production company here" didn't it? It must've been changed since the last time I read it.

Anyway, I'm having trouble with "Allrovi" currently being used as one of the sources claiming nationality. The template says "Sources that simply identify the country of origin as France, or the production country as U.S. etc such as is the case with resources like Allmovie and IMDb is not sufficient identification of the film's nationality.", but Allrovi is the equivalent of Allmovie, infact Allrovi used to be Allmovie. This creates a problem for the AFI and NYT sources as well, which merely ID 2001 as UK/US and UK respectively. If it's good for Allmovie, it should be good for AFI, NYT, and all similar sources, shouldn't it?

OTOH, I've got the National Film Registry - "showcasing the range and diversity of American film heritage" and according to  Dr. James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress: "films in the National Film Registry represent a stunning range of American filmmaking" - listing 2001 on it's list of "American" films. Does that not qualify NFR as being in "a contextual capacity such as the BFI's list of top 100 British films"? Shirt waist &#9742;  12:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

OTOOH - There's AFI's "Top 100 X" specials, where "Each special honors a different aspect of excellence in American film", which includes "100 years...100 movies" with 2001 at #22. Shouldn't that qualify as another contextual source for American origin?

With Encyclopedia Britannica, NFR, and AFI as contextual and descriptive sources for 2001 being an American film, that seems to me to be conclusvie. Thoughts? Shirt waist &#9742;  13:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the more contextualized sources seem to lean towards "Americanizing" Space Odyssey. However, I agree with BL that a nuanced text explanation in the lede is the best way to go. Sidenote: Often folks perceptions on this are colored by the nationality of directors and lead actors regardless of studio. Doctor Zhivago is entirely American-financed, but the director (David Lean) lived in and worked out of England his whole life, as did the two female leads. The male lead (Omar Sharif) lived in either France or Egypt his adult life, but never USA. So, naturally, everyone thinks of it as a British film, American funding willy-nilly. I'm still curious as to why Olivier's Hamlet was one of the first British films to get nominated for a regular Best Picture Oscar as opposed to Best Foreign Film Oscar.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, text explanation is fine, but what do we do about the lead sentence (and infobox)? Do we change it to "American" or eliminate mention of nationality in both places?
 * I also have doubts about "Largely financed and produced by the American studio MGM" being in the lead. Are we sure MGM-British is a "British company"? Or is it a subsidiary owned by MGM, which would make it part of MGM and therefore also a US company? Shirt  waist &#9742;  13:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that sources like Allmovie/NYTimes are perfectly adequate if they are just citing a single country, but in the case of conflicting claims I do agree that sources that contextualise the claim are stronger. In truth, I think there is scope for a combination of the two approaches.  I think the NFR source is the type of source that the guidelines advocate and is perfectly acceptable for sourcing the claim it is an American film, but I think the further clarification in the lead added by WickerGuy benefits the article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * On that note, I'm not sure we need a whole paragraph dedicated to the subject. The key elements here are that it was produced by US based MGM, and filmed at Shepperton in England.  I think that essentially captures the constributions of the two countries.  I think along with the NFR reference proclaiming it an "American film" would be sufficient to capture the consensus of thsi discussion.  I appreciate that some effort is being taken to represent boths side of the debate, but it reads a bit too much like dispute resolution now.  To clarify, my side of the debate isn't that it's British, it's that I want the claim to be tied to a source, rather than an editorial interpretation.  Betty Logan (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll try to trim this at lunchtime (in 1.5 hours), but just to clarify, Shepperton and MGM British are two !*different*! Brit locations. Shepperton is entirely independent of MGM. !*Both*! studios were used by SK, depending on whether you are talking moonscape or spaceship. And I'm pretty sure the Dawn of Man sequence was in a London studio that was neither Shepperton nor MGM. The deeper disagreement can be trimmed and/or moved out of the lede.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "MGM-British" is indeed a subsidiary of MGM(US), but I think would still be considered a "British" studio, since a subsidiary is -->!*different*! from a "division"!!!<-- Subsidiaries are separate, distinct legal entities for the purposes of taxation and regulation, although being a subsidiary formally means that at least half of its capital stock is owned by the parent company. (There are also "operating subsidiaries" and "non-operating subsidiaries" and the subsidiary is a "limited liability company".) MGM(US) owned "MGM British" in the same legal sense that Time-Warner owns HBO and Berkshire Hathaway owns Dairy Queen and Acme Brick. The "owned" companies are legally separate companies from the former, in a way that a company "division" is not. By contrast, the printer and computer manufacturing areas of Hewlett-Packard are "divisions", and not "subsidiaries" and fully integrated into the ops of HP and are legally one separate corporate entity. However, Compaq computers is a "subsidiary" of HP.
 * The upshot is that since "MGM-British" was a legally separate "subsidiary" (a la Hewlett-Packard and Compaq) and NOT a "division" (a la Hewlett-Packard printers and Hewlett-Packard computers) with MGM(US) simply owning over 50% of the stock, then indeed "MGM-British" most definitely IS a British company!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Betty - This discussion has been productive and enlightening, hardly "dispute resolution". After reading your arguments here, and those debating this issue at Template talk:Infobox film(you included), I'm seeing the wisdom of not relying solely on studio nationality to decide if film X is "American" or "French", etc, and instead using RS for this purpose. Now, I'm not so sure the "Country" infobox field needs to be used at all in ambiguous situations where a film's "nationality" is unclear. Nobody would dispute that Casablanca (film) is an American film and should be noted as such, but The Terminator, for example, doesn't mention nationality in the lead or the infobox because of just such ambiguity, which seems fine to me. In this case, though, I agree with you that NFR (and EB, IMO) is sufficient support from a RS to determine that 2001 is an American film. I'm not sure why AFI would label 2001 "US/UK" on one hand, and also imply that it was an "American film" by including it on its "100 Years...100 Movies" list of top 100 American films. As an aside, I think it's telling - but not worth mention in the article - that 2001 does not appear on the BFI Top 100 list.
 * WG - There's no question both locations were used, and that we should (and do) make that clear. But for us to imply some financing came from other sources than MGM, we need evidence for that. If there is none, shouldn't we assume all funding came from MGM, and all profits went to MGM? I don't doubt what you're saying, but I'd rather see a source for this, since it seems to me there is still some question as to the exact relationship between MGM and MGM British. There doesn't seem to be any refs in the MGM-British Studios article at all, not even any refs saying it was a "subsidiary". For all we know, maybe it was a division and not a subsidiary! Shirt  waist &#9742;  23:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the WP article on MGM-Brit says it was a subsidiary as does . But it was MGM-US who put up the money, and simply used the Brit's studio as they did Shepperton.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I hate to quibble - no, really!;} - but I'm not sure if the WP article used that site, or the other way round. The wording looks very similar and that source was not used in the article. I'll look for better sources for this since I'm now intrigued enough to find out what the truth is about MGM-British. Shirt  waist &#9742;  01:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I can 100% guarantee that the Brit "section" of Disney that produced the live-action Robin Hood that no one has ever seen was indeed a subsidiary. According to the book "The cinema of Britain and Ireland" By Brian McFarlane published by Wallflower Press, 2005 (See page 96), MGM British is indeed a subsidiary.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Googlebooks doesn't preview pg 96. What does it say? And how did you find it so quickly? Shirt  waist &#9742;  04:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And if there are no further objections, I'll go ahead and change the lead back to "American epic", and the infobox back to "US". Shirt  waist &#9742;  06:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that, provided it's accompanied by the NFR source. Betty Logan (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Whoa. My Googlebooks did indeed preview p. 96. Maybe the blocked pages vary from one region to the next. I went to Googlebooks and googled '"MGM British" subsidiary' (include double quotes in your search- single quotes for delineation). Top result is "The cinema of Britain and Ireland - Page 96" (full title of link). Link's URL is . Text says "MGM, as befits a studio with an opulent image, did things slightly differently, setting up a British subsidiary in 1936 with a commitment to a production of 'quality films' as opposed to the low-budget films typical of the British arms of companies such as Fox and Warner Bros."--WickerGuy (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried your link and 96 is still blocked on my googlebooks, but I'll take your word for it. I thought maybe you had the actual book at hand or something. Now that we know MGM-B was a "subsidiary", the next question is: "Was it a wholly owned, jointly owned, or altogether separate entity?" Shirt  waist &#9742;  20:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I wonder if Amazon.com similarly blocks different pages for different regions/users. Well, I believe to be legally a "subsidiary", it simply is necessary that the parent company owns at least 51% of the stock, thus always having a majority vote in any business issues that come before the shareholders. It would be legally (for tax and liability purposes) absolutely a "separate entity" in any case (as is the case with any company with simply human shareholders), so the question is really just how much of the stock did MGM(US) own. The book "The cinema of Britain and Ireland" is on the shelf at the Stanford University Library which is about a mile and a half from my house.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Stanford library? Lucky you! All I got is the internet and a lousy podunk "Lybarry". Shirt  waist &#9742;  22:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The American National Film Registry (NFR) does not trump other sources, it is just ONE source. The British Film Institute (BFI) lists 2001 as a UK film. The NFR also lists Lawrence of Arabia in its registry, but that film is also on the list of BFI's Top 100 British Films. I would like to reiterate the following text from Wikipedia's Template:Infobox film:
 * The source must clearly identify the nationality in a descriptive capacity, as in describing it as an American or a French film/movie etc, or in a contextual capacity such as the BFI's list of top 100 "British films" or as an example in a published work on German film etc.

Inclusion in the US National Film Registry does not strictly mean that a film is entirely American, as proven by the inclusion of Lawrence of Arabia. Elsewhere, there is overwhelming evidence that 2001 is a British film (or, at the very least, predominantly so). The AFI (American Film Institute) lists 2001 as British and American. Halliwell's Film Guide lists it as British. American financed perhaps, but entirely British made (and Wikipedia's film guidelines do not give preference to the nationality of a film's financial backers in this matter). I have no problem with the lead and the infobox stating it as a joint UK/US production, but I strongly object to it being listed solely as an American film because it's simply not true. And adding a sentence about the disputed nature of its nationality but while still maintaining an American bias in the opening sentence will not cut it. 88.104.27.206 (talk) 04:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear 88.104.27.206, It's not necessarily of that great importance, but the consensus above was that sources discussing nationality in the context of a broader discussion about film production or film history trump sources that are simply...lists of films. We felt that there was a greater predominance of the former that id'd 2001SO as American, and we went with it for that reason. However, for the time being, I am leaving as is.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * IP88.104 - Consensus on this issue has been established, as clearly spelled out in the above lengthy discussion. Ignoring consensus by continually reverting constitutes If you continue to ignore consensus and revert in the future, that would constitute edit warring and disruptive behavior on your part. Do not revert again unless and until a new consensus to do otherwise has been established. I will revert it back for now, but I suggest we follow the template's advice "If there is a conflict between nationalities, then the nationality should not be stated and the country field should not be filled in." by removing mention of nationality in the lead sentence and infobox "Country" field. Does this sound acceptable to everyone? If not, "American" in the lead and "United States" in infobox will stand. Shirt  waist &#9742;  20:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think so, though over time I will do an even wider survey of sources. However, I think calling this editor "disruptive" is a bit of an overstatement. That adjective should be reserved for editors who display a habitual pattern over an extended period of time, and one revert doesn't quite make an "edit war", although it IS true that this editor disregarded WP:CONSENSUS--WickerGuy (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Post ammended. And for future reference: WP:TALKDONTREVERT - "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.(my bolding) Shirt  waist &#9742;  22:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Soundtracks
Im surprised that the soundtrack(s) don't have a separate article. I assume the original one was a bestseller, in addition to how notable the music is. Any reason I shouldnt go ahead and create an article for MGM S1E-13?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's record on this fairly spotty. While there are good articles on the soundtracks of Vertigo, Goldfinger, and Star Wars, unaccountably there is none for the soundtracks of Citizen Kane, Henry V (1944 film), Taxi Driver, Spartacus or the Oscar-winning The Lion in Winter, all of which are of historic importance. (Virtually all of John William's blockbuster scores have been covered from the already-mentioned Star Wars to the Harry Potter films, but even there oddly Superman has been omitted.)


 * Some of these soundtrack articles go into great musicological detail about instrumentation, music cues, and the composition process, etc. while others seem to be lengthy "stubs" (The article on Goldfinger (soundtrack) (a historically important film score) makes a few interesting observations in the lede about the musical motifs for the character Oddjob, but is otherwise very unrevealing, mostly just a listing of tracks.)


 * To the best of my knowledge, WP has no soundtrack articles on film soundtracks using pre-existing music, but there is certainly no rule against one.


 * I would say, go for it, if you can make the article really revealing about the musical choices, the selection process, and their role in the movie, but I wouldn't want to see it be just a lengthy "stub" article which is mostly a soundtrack listing.


 * The original vinyl soundtrack did indeed sell very well, though I don't know if it was at "bestseller" status. A few years later there was an "Odyssey Two" soundtrack that was simply a collection of relatively similar sounding pieces by the same composers. The latter I am certain has never been released on CD and remains relatively rare.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

TOC
I'm finding the Table of Contents a little long for an article about a movie. I would recommend that some of the subsections be merged or somehow reorganized. If this is not possible, I suggest someone look at how to limit the TOC depth for some code into how to hide sub-subsections. It just seems a little excessive to me. Other movies don't seem to have this issue. One thing that caught my eye is how some of the subsections have similar labels ("Depiction of _____" and "Influence on ____" are examples). I think fixing this would make the article much more organized and easier to read. Thanks. Jessemv (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There actually is a WP template for hiding subsections which I only recently learned about. Will look it up and apply it. Thanks.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I linked to it. I would still recommend that those repetitive sections be merged somehow. The TOC limit thing will help though. Jessemv (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Orbiting satellite
The "Military nature of orbiting satellites" is excessively long, in relation to the film as a whole. 173.212.94.121 (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It should be probably split off into a separate article. It was the result of a long protracted argument.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. New sections typically go at the bottom of the page. You should click "New Section" at the top instead of "edit".--WickerGuy (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

!note in "Parodies and homages" section
I've noticed quite a few unsourced additions to the IPC section over time, and I think it might be a good idea to put a !note in there stating our intention to maintain a level of quality by keeping out any unsourced and obscure refs that don't meet that standard. Thoughts? Shirt waist &#9742;  09:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Add:And by "In popular culture" I meant "Parodies and homages"(section title changed) Shirt  waist &#9742;  19:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Couldn't hurt.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Shirt  waist &#9742;  19:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually the entry you reverted could go (with source) in the "Influence on Technology" section of the article. It's certainly one of the more promising attempts to add to this list I've seen in a long time, one I'm motivated to look for sources for (doesn't always happen).--WickerGuy (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Couldn't hurt!:) Shirt  waist &#9742;  19:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Off topic
 * The recently reverted edit attempting to establish the satellite as a military weapon was made by the brother of film director Andrew Birkin and actress Jane Birkin, and brother-in-law of French musician Serge Gainsbourg. Sorta sorry it needed to be reverted.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

MW may have a point on film categories

 * UPDATE 2: OK, not all of these were deleted. One was renamed and you cannot link to the other categories from talk pages, or I'm doing it wrong.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * UPDATE 3: Figured out how to link to category without categorizing--WickerGuy (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The film studio categories in WP are inconsistently defined. "Category:Warner Bros. films" includes films whose producer OR main distributor at ANY time was WB. Category:Universal Pictures films" is films that were produced or released (release is I believe a bit narrower than distribution- and would cover initial first-time distribution) by Universal. "Category:Paramount Pictures films"  is defined the same way as WB. "Category:20th Century Fox films"  is defined the same way as Universal.

Although invited nearly 2 years ago, I never joined Wikiproject film. Are those folks minding the store to see that all these categories are being consistently defined? Am I right or wrong about the distinction between release and distribution?

My personal opinion is that ALL the studio categories should be split into TWO categories, production and distribution. Space Odyssey would re production be listed only under MGM. Under distribution it could be listed under MGM, Warner, and Turner--WickerGuy (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. The wording should be consistent across all such "Category:______ films" temps. It's up to Wikiproject film to create a consensus about this and fix it. Until then, MW doesn't have a good enough argument in this case because of the imprecise wording. I went through the list of "Category:Films by studio" and they're all over the map. Some say "released by", some "produced by", some add "distributed by" to "produced by", and some even say "associated with". What a mess.
 * BTW, you don't have to "join" WPF, just go there and speak your mind! That's what I do. (Hardly anybody listens to me, but that's another story) Shirt  waist &#9742;  11:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Epic film
I don't think this film should be categorized as an Epic film. A user who has contributed to the article has suggested that the themes are large and expressive and that constitutes it to be one, but just because a film has ambitious themes, I don't think it fits the genre appropriately. Here are definitions of the genre I have found: A film done on a large scale, involving massive set pieces, big-budget production values, and a cast of thousands. The emphasis tends to be on large events of historical importance, myth or heroic figures, and the setting is usually ancient times." (Allrovi), "AFI defines “epic” as a genre of large-scale films set in a cinematic interpretation of the past." American Film Institute, "Epics are historical films that recreate past events. They are expensive and lavish to produce, because they require elaborate and panoramic settings, on-location filming, authentic period costumes, inflated action on a massive scale and large casts of characters." (Filmsite.org). Other book sources agree as well: . I do think 2001 epic in scope, but not in terms of genre. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So by your definition, something like, say, Star Wars would not be an epic - even though most would say that it is. As is 2001. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, and while I'm not using this as a reference, given that the tag directed to Epic film, I have no problem referring to it as an epic, a "film that emphasizes human drama on a grand scale". Certainly applies to 2001. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting that definitions from? Epics are generally "bigger than life" and do not focus on human drama as seen from the films above. I would not use the definition in the wikipedia article at all as it has no citations. I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to be just using your own personal definition of the genre. To be fair, the filmsite.org definition does use the term "science fiction epic" but it only compares it to Star Wars which does use large sets, large casts, and pseudo-historical settings (people living in a alien past that's not too disimilar to ours). Unless you provide sources otherwise, I don't think we should use the genre epic. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't even bother to read the link, did you? The very first line of Epic film is "An epic is a genre of film that emphasizes human drama on a grand scale." If anything, you appear to be using your own limited definition as well, nor do your references appear that reliable. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say that 2001 does not emphasise "human" drama, but its scale and scope are definitely "grand". I think if "epic" is to be used here as a genre in the lead, it might warrant a citation; on the other hand, citing genres specifically like that is ugly and annoying. I'd probably say to go without it, especially given how vague a term it is. For what it's worth, when I hear "epic", my reactions are usually to think of Ben-Hur, or how terrible outdated internet slang is. GRAPPLE   X  22:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The wikilink? Or are you referring to another? I've provided several links form the American Film Institute, Allrovi which is a database used by the New York Times, and filmsite.org a site from AMC. Not to mention a book that defines the genre in similar terms at the above that is strictly about the epic film genre. You are using a wikipedia article that needs a re-write and personal opinion. If you have no further arguments, I think it should be removed based on my definitions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey is an epic, it's been listed as such in the article for close to a year, and is referred to as such in many places by many people: your own sources Filmsite and [AllRovi, but let's also look at The Museum of the Moving Image, The BBC, The Guardian, Time, Rotten Tomatoes, Wired, The Sundance Channel, The Oscars, The New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, NASA, Chicago Sun-Times, MSN, |104718/2001-A-Space-Odyssey.html Turner Classic Movies, Bloomberg, Flixter, Blockbuster, Hollywood.com, AMC, DVD Review, and what the heck, a few more for good measure: . The issue is closed - the "epic" description and categories belong in the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are taking them out of context. Just because they are calling it an "epic film" doesn't mean they are referring to the genre. Filmsite.org says "this epic film" but then go on discuss the "spectacular imagery (about what space looked like) and special effects)". Epic is hard to define because people will use it as a term to of praise, rather than a genre. And none of your citations refer to the genre. Allrovi has a genre for epic, but they certain don't place it in their own genre field. This site doesn't even say who wrote it and a program description form a cinema is a poor source. Ditto for the Guardian article. Time is not using it as a term of genre either. Rotten Tomatoes pulls it's genres from IMDB which is not a reliable source per WP:RS/IMDB. Again calling it a "epic 1968 masterwork" is not referring to the genre as seen . I suggest if you are going to include the word Epic, do not link it to the epic film article and do not include the category. And even if you did that it might be called into question under WP:PEACOCK. I'll admit I didn't browse all your links but if you can point out to which ones discuss the films in terms of the "epic genre" without just labeling it in praise, I'll take a real look. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The BBC does refer to it here as it, but if you have no definition of the genre, you shouldn't use it. It is misleading to put epic in the main link when it will go to a link that describes the genre I've mentioned above. It should be removed.
 * A poor justification on your part - you don't like the use of the word because it doesn't fit your narrow definition of the term, even when they all call it an epic film? Good luck justifying that. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No it's very just. Their use of the word makes no sense of the definition. You got your definition from an uncited wikipedia article. I'm not trying to argue with you personally or bring in my own personal views. But if you can't find a definition of a term, than why are you applying it? My definition isn't narrow, I can be cute and add seven links saying the same thing previously, but I've made my point that having that link in the beginning makes no sense. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How on earth have you made your "point that having that link in the beginning makes no sense" when I've given you a plethora of links where people call it an epic film? Whether they agree with your definition or not doesn't enter into it, nor does whatever definition I might ascribe to - the movie is widely considered an epic film by a wide range of sources - your refusal to accept that appears to just be stubbornness on your part. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No i've addressed it on two points. Those people are referring to epic as the second defintition of the adjective here, opposed to the genre. And for the third time, this is not "my definition". This is scholarly sources I'm pulling from that showcase that others are using the term incorrectly. You have yet to show me a definition of what an epic science fiction film is, nor why my sources are incorrect. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet somehow you know for a fact which definition all these other sources are using when they call it an epic film? I wasn't aware that they had communicated this to you - oh right, they haven't, so you're just making stuff up now. Nice. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's called reading a sentence. Remember to remain civil, I don't appreciate you saying i'm making things up. I've asked you for a definition of the genre, and you have just called me a liar and mocked me. Either you are just trolling me now or have no serious interest in keeping the statement in the lead. If that is the case, I'll remove it as it currently links to nowhere. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say that 2001 is an epic in the sense that literature scholars use it, but not as most movie marketers use it.
 * The dictionary definition includes a series of events "appropriate" to the ancient Greek format of epic. I would say 2001 qualifies, as does Star Wars and Planet of the Apes.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Literature is not the same as film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Its genre conventions are to a large degree identical, however. GRAPPLE   X  05:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is also is that "epic" is both an adjective and a genre. As an adjective it can mean "heroic or majestic". While we speak of "romance" as a genre and "romantic" as an adjective, we use the word "epic" in both senses. In the strictest sense only poetry is epic, so even "Lord of the Rings" doesn't qualify, although it is widely referred to as "epic". I suggest keeping the word, but not wikilinking anything to it.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If any film is epic, it is probably 2001, certainly in terms of its scope! That said, 'epic' is a type of film, it's not really a genre. I may be wrong, but off-hand I can't think of any film database that uses 'epic' as a genre classification. The AFI has its genre down as "science fiction". In the lead we are supposed to provide the basic genre of the film, and 'epic' isn't really a genre descriptor, at least not in terms of its general usage by film literature. On that basis I think it should probably come out. Betty Logan (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 2001 is most definitely an epic film - I don't think that's seriously in doubt, and there's a wealth of reliable sources out there to back that up. As for movie marketers, IIRC correctly, even the original film posters marketed it as an epic drama of adventure and exploration. I have no problem referring to it as such. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've provided several sources above that it should not be considered part of the genre. Also, I don't think we should take advertisement in posters as serious genre classification. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But your sources against are greatly outnumbered by those for the genre; and the poster shows a clear intent by the studio to present the film as belonging to the genre. GRAPPLE   X  20:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Studio's definition of a genre is not expert opinion or should be taken seriously as it's just marketing. We need third party sources either way. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which have been supplied in abundance. GRAPPLE   X  20:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We need sources now that define what this genre means. Because I've provided my sources that don't match what is said here. I'm repeating myself...Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're only repeating yourself because you refuse to change your view based on how both policy and sources discount it. WP:V simply states that we need to provide verifiable sources. We do not need to create our own definitions of words, phrases or concepts; simply to report on their use in other sources. So given the plethora of sources provided which class this film in the given genre, that's how we present it, validating this presentation with those sources. If you wish to source a concrete definition of a genre, use the article discussing that genre and cite your points using reliable sources. However, an individual film is categorically not the place to dispute what a genre actually means; nor does the definition or scope of a genre change the fact that a large number of sources class this film within that genre—irrespective of what "epic film" actually means, 2001 has been shown to belong by virtue of secondary sources coming to an overwhelming consensus on the matter. Simple as. GRAPPLE   X  21:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's contradicting another article, which it will be with epic film and it's definition. Then This article will be slapped with a Template:Contradict-other with the epic film article. That's the problem, regardless of how many critics who will say anything if it sounds good (harsh, but I roll my eyes when critics discuss something out of context). I don't even see how anyone would lose knowledge of the film if you just lose "epic", people will still get what this film is about if they read it. Genre should be simplified in the lead anyways. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what the other article says or doesn't say, if this one uses reliable sources in a valid manner then that's all there is to it. The problem is best brought up at Talk:Epic film, given that that is what you're actually harping on about. GRAPPLE   X  22:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to me the WP article epic film has the bulk of the problems. What if we keep the word but remove the wikilink?--WickerGuy (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting how originally the epic film tag redirected to an appropriate part of the Epic film article. Now, however, Andrzejbanas has edit-warred to gut that article of anything that disagrees with his narrow definition of "epic", including the sections that the link originally went to - very WP:POINTy (considering this discussion) and bad faith, if you ask me. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mike, I admire your persistence, but please don't read into my edits as something else. I saw an article that needed cleaning, you reverted and called me a vandal. I want to stick to discussing the article, not how good or bad of an editor you think I am. WickerGuy, I brought that up before but it was ignored. I'm fine with that, but I'd remove the category as well for the same reason. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I never called you a vandal - I issued you a warning for edit-warring - as did another editor. You reverted again anyway. However, you claimed in this revert that removing "cited material without discusisng it first" was vandalism - but in your revert, you removed some cited content, lumping it in with all your other removals. By your own words, what you were doing was by your definition vandalism. I did not call you a vandal - I just pointed out the interesting fact that your own definition had backfired on you. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This has little to do with this article now, but I've re-added it as those URL's were dead. And you said that site is un-notable anyways. Do you have further opinion on the topic at hand Mike? Or can we remove the link on epic in this article? Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to removing it, or the category, as it's simply another way to weasel out of the fact that it's heavily supported by reliable sources. GRAPPLE   X  00:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not getting out of it, it's having it not link to an article which will no enhance the understanding of the genre in relation to the film. As the article stands, it's not appropriate to have it linking there. Do you disagree? It still will say epic, it just won't link to something that's linking to an incorrect definition. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Who's to say that's the "incorrect definition"? You, after you vandalized epic film? I'm sorry, but that's what that it looks like to me - you got into an edit dispute, then tried to rewrite the article that disagreed with you to suit your definition. Sorry, but that kind of antic won't fly on Wikipedia. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I really would appreicate if people look at my history and see that I'm cleaning up an article that has to have been cleaned up since 2008. I added citations, fixed dead links, and removed uncited material. This is cleaning an article. Not editing to suit my needs. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Epic classification
An editor has started removing references to "epic" in regards to this film, based on this reference, apparently. Leaving aside personal preferences, how is this a reliable source? It's just an arbitrary definition from come website, one which does not look like a WP:RS to me. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Whups! You beat me to it, see the above sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say that 2001 is an epic in the sense that literature scholars use it, but not as most movie marketers use it.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The film's title itself gives away its ambitions: the word "Odyssey" deliberately evokes Homer's epic poem. The word "epic" is derived from a Greek word that simply means "word" or "story" (epos), but the implication is that the epic is *the* story of a culture or people: the heroic deeds of the protagonist are both metaphor and symbol of that particular culture's struggle to be born and to survive. Although not made explicit in the dialogue, the implication is that the action of the film is crucial to the future of the entire human race. Astronaut Bowman's journey, ending in an unknown destination, with him ultimately transformed into a new kind of being, is an epic if anything is, and was deliberately intended to be perceived as such by the filmmakers. - Dylanexpert (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear!!! I would say the same re the fact that the lead astronaut in the original novel (though neither film version) of Planet of the Apes is named Ulysses.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * All well and good, but this is WP:OR. Anyone have a reliable source to say that this is an epic?  Without it, the use of "epic" should be removed.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Look in the section above - I provided at least 25 references calling it an epic. It's not WP:OR. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * also note that calling it an epic goes against the definition of the genre that i've provided. linking it would make it disagree with the other article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Never ever provide a new definition of a word to win an argument. It is the essence of Orwelllianism!!! As I have pointed out above, "epic" is a word that has been historically employed in a variety of ways- originally applied simply to poetry like that of Homer and Virgil, now routinely applied to the operas of Richard Wagner, to Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings". (See book "Tolkien's art: a mythology for England by Jane Chance") and so forth. If the definition originally confined to Greek poetry then broadens to encompass opera and fantasy novels, it can do so to accompany movies. If it fails to satisfy some people's definition who want to stabilize the word, one can debate the word, but the fact is Space Odyssey is de facto described as an epic.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note on flexibility
 * Genre words like this have a habit of changing over time. In Shakespeare's day The Tempest was considered a comedy just because of having a happy ending although it is not a laugh riot. The term "romance" used to be applied to high adventure. In Conan Doyle's day his Sherlock Holmes novel The Sign of Four was considered a romance. It is not so classified today. These terms tend to morph over time. Once again, it is acknowledged that "epic" has several different usages and de facto the case Space Odyssey is widely referred to as an "epic" regardless of it failure to satisfy one particular definition.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A further problem
 * Some controversy may apply to this due to the fact that currently "epic" is a massively overused word in pop culture. Today we even call haircuts "epic", so I can understand the motivation for Andrzejbanas to want to track it down, even if I don't agree with him. However, even in the more traditional sense, an epic is generally regarded as pertaining to the journey of a hero whose conflicts have significance for a whole culture. Space Odyssey clearly fits the bill.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Epic" is not a genre of film and, as such, including the word "epic" in the lead sentence is not warranted. I think we would definitely be violating OR if we start classifying films as belonging to the epic genre when no other sources or film authorities do so. Yes, I do understand that there are many reliable sources that use the word epic in the same article where this film is reviewed or otherwise discussed but it's a misinterpretation and a leap in logic to then apply it here as proof that the film indeed is part of the epic genre. It's simply a description, not a categorization. Citizen Kane's poster calls the film "terrific" and I'm sure we can find references that call it a "terrific film." Neither of this qualifies Citizen Kane as belonging to the terrific genre nor calling the film terrific in the lead sentence. I'd find it perfectly acceptable to use the epic description further down in the article, or maybe even the lead section, but in the proper context, ie that it was described as such by film critics. But we can't make it a genre if it's not considered that by the outside world. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is true that classically, epic was a genre of poetry and nothing else, and also true that it also denotes a quality of writing beyond poetry. However, the American Film Institute's Top 100 list contained 10 films in each of 10 categories. They listed Space Odyssey under their science-fiction category, but another category was indeed "epic" which included Gone with the Wind and Titanic. They limited epic to movies about the past, the only criterion by which Space Odyssey fails, but clearly people do in fact speak of it as genre.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * They don't, actually. The film may be an epic but it does not belong to the epic genre. If we use AFI as an example, even though the film is listed in the list of best epic films, AFI's own catalog entry for this film lists the genre as science fiction. None of the films in the best epic films list shows up as an epic genre in the catalog entry. Such a genre simply doesn't exist by AFI's standards. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK we are clear I hope that AFI does NOT classify Space Odyssey as an epic, but DOES classify 10 OTHER films as "epic". However, you are not flat out wrong when you they don't have a genre of epic. If you go to their search-page, one of the "genres" you can search for in the "genre" search-box is epic. It will not show up if you click on a movie in the resulting list because it's the "abbreviated listing" but if you get the "detailed listing" of any of those movies (such as "Ben-Hur") down near the bottom of the page its says "Genre:Epic". AFI listing of Ben-Hur
 * This is the second time in one week that a Wikipedia editor has objected to either an edit or a comment of mine by giving just plain flat-out false info that something does not exist. Yesterday it was someone saying a book doesn't say that- I supplied the exact page number the first time and the exact quote the second time- the book said exactly what I said it did. Today it's you saying AFI has no "epic" genre when they just plain da*n !@#$%^& well DO have it. I wish folks would be more careful in asserting negatives!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, AFI lists exactly 27 films as being in the genre(!!) of epic. They are

Antony and Cleopatra (1973) Ben-Hur (1925) Ben-Hur (1959) The Big Fisherman (1959) The Buccaneer (1959) Demetrius and the Gladiators (1954) The Egyptian (1954) Esther and the King (1960) Gangs of New York (2002) Gladiator (2000) The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) The King of Kings (1927) Land of the Pharaohs (1955) Nero (1922) The Pride and the Passion (1957) Queen of Babylon (1956) The Queen of Sheba (1921) Richard, the Lion-Hearted (1923) The Robe (1953) Samson and Delilah (1950) Solomon and Sheba (1959) Spartacus (1960) The Story of Ruth (1960) The Ten Commandments (1923) The Ten Commandments (1956) War and Peace (1956) Waterloo (1971) --WickerGuy (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems I'm not the only person who feels it should be removed. If it's such a controversial statement, it should be removed, or at least have the link removed as the link is not supporting this article as it stands. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, with edits like this one, I think it's getting clearer that people are getting confused by this link in this article. We don't leave an article with incorrect uncited information just because you think an editor has some sort of motive that you have hunches over. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have just added the following paragraph into the middle of the lede of epic film. (The last sentence was added on a later edit).

"In its classification of films by genre, the American Film Institute limits the genre to historical films such as Ben-Hur. However, film scholars such as Constantine Santas are willing to extend the label to science-fiction films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey and Star Wars.[2] Nickolas Haydock suggests that "Surely one of the hardest film genres to define is that of the "epic" film, encompassing such examples as Ben-Hur, Gone with the Wind....and more recently, 300 and the Star Wars films...none of these comes from literary epics per se, and there is little that links them with one another. Among those who espouse film genre studies, epic is one of the most despised and ignored genres"[3] Finally, although the American Movie Channel formally defines epic films as historical films, they nonetheless state the epic film may be combined with the genre of science-fiction and cite Star Wars as an example.[4]"

I think this establishes the ambiguity of the term, while IMO giving us just enough grounds for keeping the Space Odyssey article as is.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a need for such an in depth treatment.  None of the sources specifically cite 2001 as belonging to the epic genre, even though many sources cite it has having epic qualities, or being from the tradition of epic film-making. If you do a word search on 'epic' in the article, its epic qualities are touched upon several times, and in the appropriate context, which is absolutely fine. I think we could resolve the issue by simply splitting the 'epic' descriptor away from the genre, and introduce it at a later point in the lead. For example, in the current third paragraph we could state: "Thematically, the film follows the traditions of epic story-telling and deals with elements of human evolution, technology, artificial intelligence, and extraterrestrial life." Something on those lines would solve the problem I think. Betty Logan (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hopefully, it was clear that this "in depth" treatment was in the article epic film, not in this article here. It would be grossly out of place here, but IMO can stand there. I think your recommendation here is a very good one.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Epic" is not a film genre! It merely refers to the length. I moved the word out of the first sentence and added a sentence to the end of the first paragraph. I hope all hell will not break loose now. Unlike Noir, Screwball Comedy, Horror, etc., "epic" is not a genre, certainly not taught in film school, at least not when I was there. I really don't think it belongs in the first sentence as part of the description. It is true that this film is often called "epic" because of its length and scope, which is what the sentence I put in says (in slightly different words). I left the wikilink in so people can navigate to the list of other epics.--TEHodson 10:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with your last edit and I also would have agreed with Betty's proposal. In my mind, that resolves the issue adequately from both perspectives. In that sentence, though, I wonder if "epic" should link simply to Epic film or to a specific section as it does with the currently formatted link (Epic film). Before the term "epic" was moved from the lead sentence, it immediately preceded the term "science fiction" so I can sort of see the logic in linking directly to the science fiction section of the epic film article. As it is now, the term epic is stand-alone and generally defined. Would it, perhaps, make more sense to change the link now to a general article link? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * May I again remind you that in the eyes of the American Film Institute epic film most certainly IS a genre, and it has ALWAYS been considered a genre of poetry.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Epic" is not a genre, it is a category (they're not the same thing). The word is a modifier. You still have to say "Epic _____" as in epic adventure film, epic sci-fi film, epic drama, etc. We're not talking about poetry here, we're talking about films. I'm not qualified to make any declarative statements about poetry, but I should think that even in poetry and stories in general, "epic" merely refers to length...you'd still call The Odyssey an "epic adventure" or an "epic myth" or whatever, and it seems logical that the term was coined as a response to the fact that, generally, modern poems are short. Also, the Greeks wrote everything in verse, plays and poems, so maybe it was coined to describe the great scope of things like The Illiad in order to make sense of a literary form, poetry, that includes both Idyls of the King and e.e. cummings. Or maybe not. In any case, the AFI makes lots and lots of lists and categories of all sorts. Each film "genre", at least in film school when they're teaching film history, means that certain kinds of things are done, certain kinds of issues are explored, or it means style and point of view, or it means something substantive (I'm not being very articulate here, sorry). What "genre" never refers to is length. Short films are not a genre--they're a category of film determined by length, within which one may work in any genre (short comedy, short experimental, etc., etc.) I hope that makes sense (I just got up).--TEHodson 20:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the word "epic" is far more loose and open-ended than you allow, and part of the problem we are having is the word's history is its slippery history. We are in fact faced with a situation comparable to the late 1990s when one dictionary (Merriam-Webster) stated that "irregardless" had become so widespread in prestiguous print publications it has become a de facto synonym for "regardless" while another dictionary stated it was an incorrect colloquialism for "regardless". There were duelling dictionaries over this. The same situation holds somewhat for "epic".
 * Epic is in fact considered a genre of poetry not just because of length but because (while remaining poetry) it contains dialogue as in a play and it switches from scene to scene, and finally the prevalence of the subject matter of a hero's journey. Length is not the only criterion. The motif of the hero's journey is part of what makes Star Wars and Space Odyssey and Lord of the Rings qualify as epics, not merely their grandeur and scope.
 * Plato, Aristotle, and Horace, divide literature into three genres, lyric, drama, and epic. Period.
 * Secondly, American Film Institute most definitely regards "epic" as a genre. Period. So does the American Movie Classics website which speaks of it as being combinable (though it might NOT be) with "other genres". Period!
 * In poetry, Encylopedia Britannica regards "epic" as a genre. So does the online "Literary Encyclopedia" Period!
 * There's a seminar taught at Barnard college entitled "Epic: The Genre, Its Characteristics". Period!
 * I rest my case.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you put in a citation for your assertion on the article. You seem very, very passionate about this, which is great, but it's still a very debatable topic in film--I think we can all agree that Plato, Aristotle, and Horace didn't see many of those, but no doubt they'd have had opinions on them, too (known for their opinions, they were), and let's not forget that their opinions were formed back before the invention of, for example, the novel or the sonnet, and they knew nothing of Haiku. My point is, their opinions aren't terribly relevant to modern and extra-European forms, though they give a certain light on the subject. The Hero's Journey appears in many, many story and other art forms, not all of them "epic" (see Joseph Campbell). There are also those who don't consider 2001 to be a narrative piece at all, arguing it as a "tone poem." My overall point is that debatable stuff should not be declared factual; there are plenty of points of view to go around and they're all valid, no matter how many "Period!'s" you put at the end of your sentences, and no matter how many others you bring out to back you up (AFI and AMC are entitled to their opinions, too, but we don't have to adopt them without questioning them). That's why the citations are necessary in the article, and why we talk about things on these pages. --TEHodson 23:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for a good sense of humor. My point is that we can't categorically or unilaterally state that "epic" is not a genre (as you did) as clearly the Encyclopedia Britannica says it is, and I think your guesswork about the Greeks was wrong- it was after all you who brought them up, whether or not Plato saw any movies or not (I hope he would have liked how he was portrayed in Hercules: The Legendary Journeys- Aristotle was played by Christopher Plummer in Oliver Stone's Alexander- I think he would have approved). IMO, the hero's journey is one of multiple elements of an epic, essential but not solely defining. (Not sure how Wagner's Ring of the Niebeling would stand up here. There is no central character to Part I Das Rheingold, and the central characters of the remaining three are different people, Brunhilde in Part II, Siegfried in Part III and the pair of them- in Part IV.)--WickerGuy (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Much more germaine
 * As I noted above, while we have the words "romance" (Jane Eyre) and "romantic" (a romantic comedy like As You Like It) and "comedy" (Buster Keaton's The General) and "comic" or "comical" (much of the James Bond film Moonraker although not usually classed as a "comedy"), we simply don't have two words "epic" and "epical". "Epic" is used both as a noun-genre and an adjective. This is the main source of much of the confusion.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think I can ever consider Epic as more than a category, not a true genre. There's little in common between them besides length (Doctor Zhivago, Lawrence of Arabia, 2001). It's certainly true that it's not taught as a film genre (I can vouch for that personally). Even comedy is a category, while screwball comedy, for example, is a genre with very, very specific elements that, if not included, make a film merely a comedy, rather than a screwball comedy. Anyway, the problem is solved in this article with the sentence we wrote between us, so here, at least, it's moot. Good work on the refs.--TEHodson 06:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Your best point yet, and is noted already in my modifications to article epic film. It seems it is used intermittently but not consistently used as a film genre, and your point about comedy is especially well taken.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yatrides material
The recently added and reverted material about the alleged derivation of the Odyssey monolith from the artwork of Yatrides has been on the French Wikipedia article about Space Odyssey for some time. Unfortunately, the only thing that would make it notable or inclusion-worthy is the claim that a French copyright committee of some kind looked into the matter. However, this claim on French Wikipedia is entirely unsourced, although the notability of that claim is pivotal to making it inclusion-worthy in Wikipedia. Someone tried to put a poor translation of the material from French WP here around 2010.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

PS The vast majority of this user's edits have been to the article Georges Yatridès--WickerGuy (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a moot point given the source for it didn't meet RS anyway. However, there are two approaches one can take for including the material. A parallel between the film and the art can be added if sourced to a credible expert and an RS.  To take it further and state it is an "obvious inspiration" one would require proof that Kubrick or the production designer had been exposed to the work or had acknowledged its influence. It was obviously a POV edit anyway given the editor's edit history, but that doesn't preclude him from adding the material provided it meets the various policies. The Georges Yatridès has some serious issues if you ask me. Betty Logan (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm the author of the yatrides material added on the 2001 page and I don't know exactly what do you mean by a credible expert and credible references. What I can say is that there is several people and references talking about this topic : He has written two books where he speaks about the anteriority of Yatrides work versus the film 2001 : "Interstellar Icons" and "Yatrides, l'anti-picasso" http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Conte
 * Sacha Bourmeyster is a university professor specialized in semiology who has written more than 15 books, he has worked more than 10 years with a french newspaper Le Figaro with film critics http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Bourmeyster.
 * Arthur Conte an historian, former french ministry of culture, has made a similar analysis in his book about Yatrides : "Yatrides, maitre du temps"

For me these people are credible experts, are they considered not experts in the wikipedia chart ?

These people have written books talking about this topic, are these book not credible sources ?

So perhaps the article do not mention correctly the references, but the references seems to me credible. Advice welcome
 * Moreover it is written in the specific publication "2001 a space odyssey" of 368 pages by Piers Bizony (a specialist of science fiction films) published by "Les cahiers du cinema" (ISBN 978-2-86642272-1) that Kubrick and Clarke have visited the art galleries looking for inspiration. This has been confirmed by Samuel E Johnsonn, director of the Chicago Galeries where Yatrides exhibited between 1956 and 1973.


 * Why did your original edit fail to mention these sources?? The only sources cited in the original edit were an Yatrides catolog (which seems to not mention Space Odyssey- correct me if I'm wrong) and a self-published source which doesn't fit in with WP's definition of WP:RELIABLE. If Professors Bourmeyster & Conte have indeed mentioned this, then by all means cite him with book, publisher, and page number and put the material back in. However, even so this material seems slightly speculative. Avoid mentioning that you know Kubrick took the design from Yatrides. The mere fact that that K&C visited art galleries is suggestive but doesn't quite prove the contention. WP is not a crystal ball.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The source you added for the content was attributed to http://greatfilmdirectors.com/en/Stanley-Kubrick/2001-space-odyssey-1968. This website does not look like a reliable source as per WP:SPS. Who is the publisher of this website? What are their credentials for being a reliable source?  Moreover, even if it were it does not substantiate the claim the art was an influence on Kubrick since it provides no evidence of Kubrick being exposed to it.Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Also please keep in mind as I already noted above that French Wikipedia states that a French copyright board of some sort has looked into the matter, but no source is given for this, so that material should not be included.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to include in my edit only references that were available and linkable easily in English, I though that it would be easier for you to consider the sources, perhaps it was not the best way. Kristoguy (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have understood that you consider http://greatfilmdirectors.com/en/Stanley-Kubrick/2001-space-odyssey-1968 not as a WP::SPS source, so I will not use it
 * What you call the "Yatrides catalog" that I have listed is not a self-published source, as it has been published by the "Organisation and counsel society for Plastic Arts S.A. Geneva", a company that prints the Who's who in international art. This is a special edition extracted from the full edition 1987-1988, and I have used it as a reference as it contains page 150, the translation in english of the Arthur Conte book content that speaks about 2001, so I should keep it.
 * I will add the references of the book and the pages


 * Correcting a possible confusion and a real one
 * I never doubted the provenance of the Yatrides catalog, only that I couldn't casually locate the reference.
 * An SPS source is one we do NOT use, and the problem is the "greatfilmdirectors.com" source IS an SPS source, not that it isn't one.
 * Looking forward to the new material.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have put in line the new version, as it was not easy to read on the Yatrides catalog version the page due to the scan resolution, I have done a special scan of the page, that I have divided in two parts, in the same document I have added the scan or screen copy of other references. Please check and tell me if it is now more compliant to WP rules. Thanks Kristoguy (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is still far too much reference to self-published sources, notably the YouTube video. Almost anything on YouTube can only be used with extreme caution on Wikipedia- its source must be tracable to a known expert. And there is still too much speculation in this version. The fact that Bizony mentions Clarke and Kubrick generally visited art galleries without mention of any specific art gallery puts this in the realm of speculation which Wikipedia never engages in, as I have already mentioned in previous posts here. Finally, the English syntax and sentence construction are atrocious and awful. The only thing that can really be said is that there are reputable art critics who have noticed a similarity between the slab/monoliths of Yatrides and the slab/monolith of Kubrick and Clarke. Also what's left should go in a different section of the article. Will re-edit and re-locate.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed it myself, as I found it wanting - it appears to be speculation from a WP:SPA in an attempt to either promote the artist or his work, and mostly based on questionable references. The online references are almost all from primary sources or YouTube - as for the others, without some serious sourcing that directly ties them to the film (and not someone using weak language like "suggests a connection" - we need solid connections), random speculation from art critics doesn't hold much water in my book. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about my shortened version which is more limited and conflates it with material about a Russian movie?? You are quite right that this comes from a WP:SPA and most of the references are questionable. Merely noting a similarity --WickerGuy (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)without speculation in a very brief reference seems passable to me as long as it doesn't turn into a WP:coatrack.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

False inaccuracy
Geophysicist Dr. David Stephenson in the Canadian TV documentary 2001 and Beyond notes that "Every engineer that saw it [the space station] had a fit. You do not spin on a wheel that is not fully built. You have to finish it before you spin it or else you have real problems".

Even if it is a circular rotating object, an orbital space station is not a wheel: it has no axle. So it is probably not a big issue to make it spin even though it is not fully built yet (no gravity, no frictions, no wheel balance needed). So it could even be seen as an accuracy: they purposedly made it uncomplete to show that it is possible to make it spin even if it is not finished. And it is very likely that Athur C. Clarke was aware of this. (a geophysicist is apparently not a good engineer!) 88.179.202.15 (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Length
This article seems to me much too long - it's an article about just one film, after all. Just for comparison's sake I looked at the article for my favourite comedy, Bringing Up Baby, which is massively shorter. It may be there is more to say about 2001 A Space Odyssey because of its science fiction elements, but still the basic point remains. An article like this should give a broad overview to inspire further reading rather than descending into the level of detail that's given here. For example, there is a very large section on critical reaction to it, which could be massively pruned. This level of detail is more appropriate to a book or perhaps a very long-form, New Yorker style feature. I would be very happy to have a go at editing it if that was thought appropriate? 80.69.30.249 (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It may be "just one film", but it is an extremely significant one. It broke major ground in filmmaking, storytelling, special effects, and score.  The film stumped many critics—and audiences—some of whom still debate aspects of the film.
 * The Article size guideline suggests that 6,000 to 10,000 words is a comfortable upper limit; the article currently has 16,132 prose words. If anything, the article might be split to address that guideline, but doing so does not serve any useful purpose.  If you find it too long, I suggest you take it easy—maybe take two days to read it.  If a reader is not interested in the subject, she won't read all of it anyway.  One who is interested will read all that is there.
 * Articles and reviews about comedies are necessarily short: There usually is little of substance in them and they rarely have long-lasting cultural effects, let alone change the way filmmaking is expected to be done.  Comparing 2001 to Bringing Up Baby in any dimension is laughable.
 * I don't understand why you say This level of detail is more appropriate to a book. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia—traditionally a book—which aspires to provide complete knowledge.  There is no requirement, nor even any expectation, that we dumb down or abridge topics because they are presented online.
 * The page has been rated by 45 people (to date) for attributes of trustworthy, objective, and complete, and 55 people for well-written. It gets a perfect 5.0 on all measures!  —EncMstr (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sure that some of what you say has merit, but you won't be able to shake me from my initial impression that it is bloated. For example, I would draw your attention to the section on 'parodies and homages'. If it's necessary to have a section on this at all, which I doubt, I don't see why that can't be done much more economically in the form of a one-paragraph list.

I can't say I am impressed by your notion of 'complete knowledge'. Do you want to know what Kubrick was wearing on Day 4 of the shoot? That is the reductio ad absurdum of your argument. One has to make decisions on how much detail to include and I think there's too much, pace your 45 people.

By the way, you can't read all of the Britannica entry without a free trial, but you may be interested to know it's 471 words :) 80.69.30.249 (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What we really want here is complete notable knowledge which obviously doesn't include what SK was wearing Day 4 (though the fact that irritated Kirk Douglas by wearing the identical suit for nearly two weeks on Spartacus may be notable). There's been an enormous amount of material rejected from the parodies section concerning which much effort was made to included only the most signficant parodies. It is a motto around here that WP:Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This is a film about which entire books have been written which is not true of many other films.
 * What WP sometimes recommends is splitting material off into fork articles. For example, I would support forking off "Special effects" and "scientific accuracy" into separate articles!! Especially egregious is that there is already a separate article on the soundtrack, while the material on the soundtrack here is extremely long!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Greatest films list
2001 is featured in the news here, with two lists compiled by Sight & Sound.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Satellite or Missile Platform(s)?
Apologies in advance if I am rehashing an old argument. I recently re-watched the film with the script in hand and the satellites (there are 7 shown in total?) do appear to be missile platforms as indicated in the script. Does someone in the film actually have to refer to them as missiles to put it in the entry? Here is an online version of the script. http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/2001.html. --HullIntegrity (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC.
 * The 1965 screenplay states that they are orbiting nuclear bomb platforms, but Kubrick decided to downplay this in the final version, as he thought it was too similar to Dr. Strangelove. Nothing in the 1968 film clearly indicates that they are bombs, and this is an example of how Kubrick developed and changed ideas during the production.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. Would not their very design (based, if I recall correctly, on actual plans for the retched things) justify calling them more than just "satellites"? However, that said, if I understand correctly, if it is not positively stated, or demonstrated, in the film as shown on the screen then it is not appropriate for the article. Would it also be inappropriate to add a parenthetical reference to the script or a note? The whole bone to bomb to (nuclear) spaceship to (incidental) starship arc seems vital (to me) for future research on the film. --HullIntegrity (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The section in the article "Military nature of orbiting satellites" looks at this in some detail. Although the possibility that the bone-shaped satellites are nuclear bombs remains, the 1968 release version of the film decided not to state this explicitly.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That clarified it for me. Again, thanks! --HullIntegrity (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Search the Talk archives and you can find a HUMONGOUS and acrimonious debate between myself and another user which eventually compromised in the "Military nature of orbiting satellites" section of the article a collaboration between the two of us (I think I wrote about 3/4ths of it). The more research I did on the issue, the more it was clear Kubrick got nervous about the military nature of the satellites, both because of the Strangelove comparisons and the banning-space-weapons treaty that was signed just a few months before the release of the picture. To NASA experts, at least some of the satellites (in the final picture there are four) do in fact look like weapons platforms, and they were designed with that in mind, but we need RS to say so.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, at least you finally worked together! And on my end this whole discussion has helped with an article on SF film I am trying to finish. If there is no clear agreement on the satellites being missile platforms here, then I'd certainly better hedge my bets on that score as well. --HullIntegrity (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Notes on recent civil edit-skirmish on Dawn of Man sequence
Recently, User:SummerPhD (rightly) reverted some material clarifying the Dawn of Man sequence that was bordering on WP:synthesis regarding the timing of the Dawn of Man sequence and the emergence of tool-wielding hominids.

To address these concerns, I cited two strong sources (two well-known Kubrick scholars) to the effect that the jump-cut from bone to space-satellite is one of millions of years (in spite of the fact that Homo Sapiens properly speaking emerged only thousands of years ago.) I then restored the overly verbose scientific material which was then deleted on the grounds that it is "off-topic". I then did three things:

a) shortened the remaining material, also

b) I further restored the assertion of four-million years to the picture caption but moved the footnote-reference to the left as it is merely a clarification of the term match-cut and as SummerPhD rightly notes says nothing about the time-span.

c) restored a shortened version of the remaining originally deleted material that I felt was phrased in a way more focused on its relevance to the film.

To my surprise, then all three of these changes were reverted. I have now restored only a and b, and will now try to make the case for both b and c.

Regarding b) if we have already adequately footnoted (now citing two Kubrick scholars) in the main body that the interval between Dawn of Man and the orbiting satellite is millions of years, we can surely also say so in the picture caption, as long as we do not misleadingly imply we now have a third source that says so. As such the ref-note in the picture caption does indeed need to be moved forward a few words, but there is no need to remove "millions of years" from the picture caption. The cited sources in the main body (Webster and Nelson) back this up. That should be sufficient.

Regarding c, there is a widespread misconception among viewers of the film that this is intended to depict the emergence of Homo Sapiens. This includes editors who have tried to change "millions" to "thousands" in the past, and at least two bloggers which don't qualify as reliable sources unless I push the rule of citing sources as sources on themselves. (That wouldn't really qualify either as strict interpretation of that rule.) As the (still) deleted material indicates, tools emerged in hominid evolution long long before the emergence of Homo Sapiens. Now to note this borders on violating WP:SYN but you can kinda sorta get away with it as long as you don't spell out the conclusion that the monolith has not triggered the emergence of HomSap. Also, there isn't any way to mention the misconception that this is HomSap without citing sources generally failing WP reliability tests. However, I don't think it is entirely correct to say as SummerPhD says that this is "off-topic".

The material I would like to append to footnote 24 reads "The key motif of the film's opening sequence is proto-human usage of tools known to have occurred over 2 million years ago. However, Homo Sapiens emerged only thousands of years ago, being distinguished by language, erect body posture, and so forth, but not by tools per se."

This is short, sweet and to the point, far less verbose than the old version (verbosity is a vice of mine). It does not directly state a conclusion about the sequence- thus it skirts the edge of WP:SYN without blatantly going there, and it is focused on the relevance to the film.

An example of a blogger that has erroneously pegged Dawn of Man as the emergence of HomSap is as does this school essay --WickerGuy (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, blogs and school essays get things wrong. That's why we don't cite them. However, including material about evolution is rather pointless, IMO. This: "However, Homo Sapiens emerged only thousands of years ago, being distinguished by language, erect body posture, and so forth, but not by tools per se" says nothing about 2001. Yes, you can cite numerous reliable sources about proto-humans using tools. We can also cite reliable sources about the temperature of the Sun, the discovery of helium, various theories put forth by Arnold Toynbee, etc. None of them, however, are on-topic. If you have a source stating that the key motif of the film's opening sequence is proto-human usage of tools known to have occurred over 2 million years ago, we can certainly say that "The key motif of the film's opening sequence is proto-human usage of tools known to have occurred over 2 million years ago." If it's two sources, though -- one discussing the motif of the film's opening sequence and one discussing the age of proto-human tool usage -- that is synthesis. Heck, you wouldn't want someone discussing the apparent conflict between the film showing proto-humans using tools 2 million years too soon (four million years ago vs. two million years ago)... - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is hard to say what the time span of the match cut is. All we know is that the book gives the age of the monolith on the Moon as three million years, and the film four million. The apes in the Dawn of Man sequence are clearly not Homo Sapiens, so this is not an issue.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Point mainly conceded. One could easily find a RS that the main motif of D-of-M is the discovery of the tool. Obviously, they are not clearly HomSap since quite a few people think they are, but until a RS emerges that says that Moonwatcher and Company are not, I guess we have to leave it alone. To include is at least implied synthesis, which one of WPs examples of improper synthesis is. I have twice before gotten implicit synthesis into an article (allowing the reader to draw the obvious conclusion), but here WP:Consensus seems to be against it. Cheers--WickerGuy (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, ha. WP guidelines say (emphasis added by me) "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."--WickerGuy (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * None of my immediate relatives look like the characters in the Dawn of Man sequence. Anyone who thinks that they look like Homo Sapiens needs to go to Specsavers.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * More specifically, the 1965 screenplay says of Moonwatcher (Daniel Richter) "As he looks out now upon the hostile world, there is already something in his gaze beyond the grasp of any ape. In those dark, deep-set eyes is a dawning awareness-the first intimations of an intelligence which would not fulfill itself for another two million years." This confirms the view that the Dawn of Man is intended to be seen as occurring millions rather than thousands of years ago. The Homo Sapiens interpretation is just plain wrong, and the 1965 screenplay does not describe the match cut scene at all.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The only published screenplay is a rough draft to which Kubrick made many changes. The match-cut was "improvised". Kubrick had been working on the D-of-M sequence and at the end of the day he himself idly picked up a bone and tossed it in the air, and then a light-bulb figuratively went on.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: "to the effect that the jump-cut from bone to space-satellite is one of millions of years (in spite of the fact that homo sapiens properly speaking emerged only thousands of years ago.)" Huh? Time measured in "thousands of years" is less than 10,000 years. Anthropoligists state that Homo Sapiens had been around a lot longer than that: 50,000 to 100,000 years. The creatures of 2001 were at the time of the transiton from ape-men to men-apes: two to four million years ago. Still, the men-apes of 2001 were far more primitive than homo sapiens. They had a long, long way to go. The "Dawn of Man" was literally the dawn of men-apes, and not of homo sapiens, so don't get the two confused.
 * Furthermore, the names of species are common nouns, and not proper nouns, including homo sapiens, gorilla gorilla, and pans trogdylites. The exceptions include names of species that contained proper nouns already, such as Neanderthal man, the Pacific bottlenose dolphin, the Norfolk Island pine, and the Siberian wolf. This is not so hard. 98.81.2.69 (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Literature that I have seen usually capitalizes "Homo" but not "sapiens" as in "Homo sapiens". The original purpose of these footnotes was to forestall repeated attempts by WP editors to re-edit the plot sum and change "millions" to "thousands", and I simply used the phrase they were using. Dictionary.com defines "thousands" as "thousands. the numbers between 1000 and 999,999, as in referring to an amount of money:", although Collins and Free Online Dictionary (following Collins) differ saying

"3. (often plural) a very large but unspecified number, amount, or quantity they are thousands of miles away

4. (plural) the numbers 2000-9999- the price of the picture was in the thousands"

American Heritage and Merriam-Webster give no indication of the usage of "thousands"--WickerGuy (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Stating that HAL was being deactivated by removing its memory....
Stating that HAL was being deactivated by removing its memory is foolish indeed, and the statement lacks knowledge of the basic workings of computers. A pile of digital (or other) memory is precisely no computer at all. A computer requires processing units (sometimes referred to as "ALU"s) to do anything at all. In the motion picture, HAL 9000 was clearly being partially deactivated by removing some of its ALUs as well as some of its memory units. You could see this by observing that Dave Bowman was removing some of the units from their sockets while leaving some of them in place - ALU and memory units. HAL was being paritially deactivated because some of HAL's processing and memory had to remain in place and operational in order to carry out basic tasks like these: running the "Discovery One's" life-support and waste-disposal systems, its attitude-control and navigation systems, its radio communication system, its electric power system, and its rocket-propulsion system in case Bowman ever needed to use it. Dr. Clarke and Mr. Kubrick deliberately left a lot of the details of the propulsion system unspecified because they had no idea what would really be available in the late 1990s, 2000, and 2001. I believe that Clarke favored thermonuclear propulsion for the spaceships of that time, though he was careful not to say. A good idea because as we know, controlled thermonuclear fusion hasn't even been developed in 2012. Furthermore, we are even further away from artificial intelligence as in HAL and SAL. In fact, we do know that as of 2012, we have not developed anything but "artificial stupidity" by now, and the prospects of improving this are grim. On the other hand, the Discovery One did not have as much as local area networks. LANs take a lot of work to design, build, and run. In 2001, such labor was unnecessary because all of the LANs in the spaceship were incorporated into HAL, designed, operated, and maintained by it. If you dislike the name "Discovery One" for some reason, you need to be told that the phrase "X-Ray Delta One", which is im the film, is just phonetic language jargon for "Discovery One". It might be hard to understand if you don't know much about the standard NATO Phonetic Alphabet, which is used by all of the American and British armed forced, of course, the F.B.I., and many police forces. 98.81.2.69 (talk) 05:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When Frank and Dave are discussing disconnecting HAL in the pod, Dave says "We'd have to cut his higher brain functions without disturbing the purely automatic and regulatory systems." They do not talk specifically about removing HAL's memory.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoever wrote that may have been basing this on labels in Hal's control room. The door says "Logic Memory Center", and the bits that Dave are removing is in a row labeled "Memory Terminal", but Dave then also disconnects some bits in the next set labeled "Logic Terminal". I suppose that if we are talking specifically about persistent memory that contains firmware and not talking about all-purpose RAM, the idea of a memory disconnect makes some- however, the film isn't very specific, and the removal of this is an improvement.--WickerGuy (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

An IMPOSSIBLE claim? This must be a cinematography thing!
"This highly reflective, but extremely directional, screen material is capable of reflecting 100 times the amount of light that is projected onto it"

You cannot reflect more light than is projected onto something. Reflection is a number between 0% and 100%. No material is perfectly reflective and the only perfectly non-reflective material would be a black hole. Perfect reflectivity is 100%. The above claim that has been tagged "citation needed" is physically impossible so is false, I'm going to delete it. I think the author of this sentence probably misinterpreted "nearly 100%" to be "100 times". I don't know what the fact is on the material in question so won't edit it, but will just remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.246.210 (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is correct, see Albedo. No more than 100% of the light can be reflected from any surface. The explanation of Front projection effect in this article needs a rewrite, because it is stating something that is obviously wrong.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A foot candle is a measure of luminescence (light falling onto a surface) not a measure of radiance (light being emitted). Various sources on cinematography state this is entirely possible. In addition to new sources cited in text, see --WickerGuy (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "A foot candle is a measure of luminescence (light falling onto a surface) not a measure of radiance (light being emitted). Various sources on cinematography state this is entirely possible." The above is nuts. Whoever wrote that about his "foot candles" and "radiance" doesn't know anything about the physics of light or the electrical engineering of illumination. Furthermore, the "foot candle" is a unit that is completely obsolete, so why would you ever want to do anything with that one? In any case, when you shine X amount of light onto a surface, you always get less than 100 percent of it back, just as the writers above stated. Wicker Guy, please go to college somewhere in the highly technical fields. I happen to know what candelas and lumens are - the international units in light. D.A.W., M.S. in electrical engineering, Georgia Tech, and a B.E.E. elsewhere, too 98.81.2.69 (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The term foot-candle appears to be widely in use as WP puts it "in photography, film, television, conservation lighting, and the lighting industry." (I have no background in electrical engineering, but have done some amateur photography here and there- the term occasionally comes up.) However, the sentence as baldly stated appears to be (to put it kindly) very misleading. It is in fact exactly what a major source on the movie states (Schwam's "Making of 2001"), but as stated is obviously wrong. More work needs to be done unpacking the cited sources.--WickerGuy (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with WickerGuy. We need to contact a cinematographer. I might be able to arrange that. Will check. --HullIntegrity (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Follow up: I emailed a director who is a friend of a friend, a technical film professor I work with, and an SF film scholar I also know. We should have an answer pretty soon. I have asked them to check the accuracy of the questionable paragraphs and give us further references if possible. --HullIntegrity (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC) (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Where we might have been confused: as I have just been reading, that light can be "dispersed" (particulated? widened?) any number "times" pretty much indefinitely (ie a light beam versus a sort of soft glow). A crude example would be to take a flashlight that can widen and tighten its beam and shine off the bathroom mirror with the lights off. The lens of the flashlight disperses the light in one order of magnitude (whatever that may be) and the mirror disperses it to another order of magnitude. You just lit the entire room with a flashlight without increasing it by "percentage" but dispersing it a number of "times". The room gets "brighter" with the same amount of light. Another example might be how people on the beach that tan with those reflectors seem to "glow". There is no less light than is hitting my face, they have just dispersed it in a different way. Ergo, I think this discussion took a wrong turn somewhere. Perhaps there should be a more clear note differentiating between the cinematic terms and traditional scientific ones. The problem might be with the phrase "reflecting 100 times the amount of light" which perhaps should be something more like "reflects and has the potential to disperse and widen the light over 100 times for lighting effects". --HullIntegrity (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

A Definitive Source: One of my colleagues gave me this reference from American Cinematographer. We probably should include it and massage the wording a bit, but the paragraphs seem to me to be essentially accurate. Thoughts? I will re-read it again today and see if I can suggest corrections to the wording. However, I am not going to change anything in the article yet as I am new to Wikipedia. --HullIntegrity (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The answer may be in the source mentioned above. It says "exposure of the entire scene must be gauged to the extremely brilliant image reflected from the screen and which, because of the incredible reflectivity of the 3M screen material, is 100 times brighter than any light image reflected from the foreground subject". This makes sense, and avoids the obviously wrong suggestion that more light came off the screen than went on to it. The factor of 100 seems to refer to the difference between the light coming from the screen, and from the subject. The large ratio means that any light falling on to the subject from the projector is for all practical purposes invisible, otherwise the illusion of front projection would not work. The main exception to this in 2001 is the scene with the leopard, which has shining eyes as a result of the front projected background.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 14:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes total sense. So, should we just insert the quote? --HullIntegrity (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The explanation of how front projection works was rewritten in line with Herb A. Lightman's article. In this screenshot from the Blu-ray, the mosaic camouflage effect on the screen at the rear of the actors is clearly visible. It may be that this was shot was closer to the screen than the others, because most of the shots do not have this effect.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)