just a confusion with 2001(space odyssey)

[Maksutov]

I would say the worst fault is the billowing dust on the Moon. No air, no billowing.

For me the worst error(s) is the phase of the Earth as seen from the Moon. The gibbous Earth keeps rotating 180^o. I picked this up when I saw the movie at its initial release in 1968.

The second worst error(s) is quite similar. Over a limited flight time by the Aries to the Moon, the Moon changes phases out of proportion to the amount of time involved, in some cases going back in time. Leave it to an ALPO member to pick that up at the premier.

Plus the impossible visual angle of the crescent Earth/Moon over the monolith.

But compared to the usual space scifi dreck (except for Forbidden Planet and This Island Earth), it was such a leap technically and philosophically that these lapses were easily (if temporarily) forgotten.

BTW, I always thought it was a nice touch to have Aries (the ram) bring humans to the Moon.

[Disinfo Agent]

BTW, I always thought it was a nice touch to have Aries (the ram) bring humans to the Moon.

I missed the symbolism in that. Could you explain it, please?

[Maksutov]

I missed the symbolism in that. Could you explain it, please?

Aries is the historical location of the Sun when the Vernal Equinox occurs, indicating the start of spring, a time of regeneration. Of course, due to precession, it's now in Pisces.

Plus a ram is the male of the species. The entry of the Aries into the sublunar base could be seen as it impregnating Selena, resulting in an eventual birth. The Aries even assumes a semi-human appearance as it performs this deed.

Finally, this particular ram was sacrificed, and provided the golden fleece after which Jason et al, quested. This quest was a precursor to the quests of Odysseus, from whom the name of the movie derives.

There are many procreant symbols throughout the movie. For example, think of the overall appearance of the Discovery.

[Disinfo Agent]

There are many procreant symbols throughout the movie. For example, think of the overall appearance of the Discovery.

Apart from the most obvious Freudian reading, I was always impressed by how most of the ships in the movie seemed to have human faces. Man makes his tools in his own image. Just look at an automobile.

[Grand_Lunar]

I'm afraid the movie didn't age well. .

I don't agree.

On certain space facts, I do agree it lagged behind the times. The lunar landscape, the dust issue, the appearence of Earth from orbit (too many clouds, not enough land), and the appearence of Jupiter and it's moons are a bit dated.

Storywise, however, it outdoes the majority of films that are released today.

[Grand_Lunar]

Man makes his tools in his own image. Just look at an automobile.

Most of the time, to me they look angry, or at least stern. Just look at a semi head on. "Grrrrrrrr."

[Disinfo Agent]

Here's a happy face for you.

On certain space facts, I do agree it lagged behind the times. The lunar landscape, the dust issue, the appearence of Earth from orbit (too many clouds, not enough land), and the appearence of Jupiter and it's moons are a bit dated.

Storywise, however, it outdoes the majority of films that are released today.

I don't even find most of the special effects outdated. Oh, sure, space experts may notice that the phases of the Moon change too rapidly, and things like that, but how many people actually pay attention to such details even in films made today?

As for not getting the lunar landscape right, that's an unfair criticism. We didn't know what it was like when the film was made. When you take the chance of making a predition, you risk being proven wrong -- duh! But that's all part of the fun of good science fiction. And it sure beats making no predictions for fear of being contradicted in the future. (*cough* New Battlestar Galactica *cough*)

[Grand_Lunar]

I'm not criticising the film, Disinfo Agent. I whole heartedly think '2001' is a great film.

But you are not quite correct in saying we didn't know what the lunar surface looked like by the film's release. Close ups from the Lunar Orbiter probes were available in 1966, and they showed enough detail as to the nature of the lunar landscape.

Despite the dated look of it, I don't let it ruin the experience of the movie for me.

Don't be so quick to judge; that is foolishness.

[Disinfo Agent]

I'm not criticising the film, Disinfo Agent. I whole heartedly think '2001' is a great film.

I was agreeing with you, mostly.

[Dr Nigel]

Yes I see, but it would make far more sense if you were designing a ship like that to just make the whole think revolve and then if they had to send out the pod they could stop the spin for a while. What is the point of making a carrousel?

Frog March, if you made the whole ship rotate, it would act as a gyroscope and generate a force that would send you off course, if I have understood correctly. Plus, as other posters have mentioned, the view out the windows would be unsettling. The best way is to rotate two portions of the ship in opposite directions, but as others have pointed out, the parts of the ship you spin should be kept to a minimum because it requires energy to impart the spin.

You really would not want your pod garage rotating, because (a) when you opened the door, the pod would just "fall" out of it, and (b) docking would be extremely difficult.

[Dr Nigel]

Man makes his tools in his own image. Just look at an automobile.

Or go and see the movie Cars.

[ToSeek]

Frog March, if you made the whole ship rotate, it would act as a gyroscope and generate a force that would send you off course, if I have understood correctly.

That's not possible - you can't change the course of an object without some sort of external influence. Numerous spacecraft (unmanned) spin in order to maintain their attitude.

[Chip]

...I whole heartedly think '2001' is a great film. But you are not quite correct in saying we didn't know what the lunar surface looked like by the film's release. Close ups from the Lunar Orbiter probes were available in 1966, and they showed enough detail as to the nature of the lunar landscape.
Despite the dated look of it, I don't let it ruin the experience of the movie for me...

If we mean the more jagged areas (alla Chesley Bonestell paintings,) – yes. There are however some jagged, craggy steep areas on the moon. The astronauts never went there as these regions are too dangerous to land near. Steep jagged mountains are found in the highlands and between maria. "2001" horizons give the impression that big mountains on the moon are uniformly more Earthlike in terms of peaks and edges. That's probably where the criticism of it being inaccurate comes from. Also the consistently dramatic, stark lighting of the moon base, near the shadow terminator is not what people are used too from the generally more bright and sunny Apollo pictures. The film's art directors were wise I think.

Some folks (not saying you do,) also get the wrong impression that the moon is overall consistently like a sandy smooth, hilly desert, based on the landing areas seen in some of the many Apollo pictures. Even these actual landing areas are deceptive as there were also impressively large boulders and in one case the amazing Hadley Rill. Seeing all the available Hadley Rill images leaves one with the feeling that this feature would fit very well with the "2001" landscapes. In cropped photos, the lack of atmosphere can also make large objects in the distance look closer and smaller than they are

[MrClean]

Movie is no match for 'Battle Beyond the Stars' The John Boy Star Wars.

[Doodler]

If I had to rate this one, I'd say it comes just below NASA TV's coverage of a space shuttle mission in terms of its capacity to induce a pseudocomatose state...