carey@uiucdcsp.UUCP (12/11/84)
> 3) The ad for Pan Am Airways. ("Take our daily non-stops to space > station L-5. Now on Pan Am, the sky is no longer the limit.") Wasn't there also an ad for Pan Am in the first few scenes in 2001? Or was Pan Am the "airline" that Floyd took to the Moon?
kevin@voder.UUCP (The Last Bugfighter) (12/15/84)
> > > 3) The ad for Pan Am Airways. ("Take our daily non-stops to space > > station L-5. Now on Pan Am, the sky is no longer the limit.") > > Wasn't there also an ad for Pan Am in the first few scenes in 2001? > Or was Pan Am the "airline" that Floyd took to the Moon? The Pan Am Space Clipper is what Floyd took to get to the double-wheel space station, from there he took another ship (the sphere-shapped one) which landed on the moon. Incidently, did you notice that when they show that Pan Am add that the space station STILL has one wheel under construction!?! -- Kevin Thompson {ucbvax,ihnp4!nsc}!voder!kevin "It's sort of a threat, you see. I've never been very good at them myself but I'm told they can be very effective."
raiche@dartvax.UUCP (George A. Raiche) (12/17/84)
> Incidently, did you notice that when they show that Pan Am add that the > space station STILL has one wheel under construction!?! > -- > Kevin Thompson {ucbvax,ihnp4!nsc}!voder!kevin > I may be mistaken, but I think that clip in the "Pan-Am ad" was actually lifted from "2001" itself. George Raiche Dept. of Chemistry Dartmouth
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (12/21/84)
> Incidently, did you notice that when they show that Pan Am add that the > space station STILL has one wheel under construction!?! > -- > Kevin Thompson {ucbvax,ihnp4!nsc}!voder!kevin > (So, you expect that in a lousy 25 years there won't be budgetary and funding problems? The folks running that space station are probably lucky to get AIR, much less enough men and materials to finish construction, what with all the budget being eaten up for Lunar exploration and excavation and Jovian expeditions... :-) I always did think that "2001" was far too near a date to use; I vote for 2051 or 2071 for the new edition. (:-) Anybody have any better or more rigorous reasoning for a realistic date? Will
carlton@masscomp.UUCP (Carlton Hommel) (12/25/84)
In article <6703@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes: >I always did think that "2001" was far too near a date to use; I vote >for 2051 or 2071 for the new edition. (:-) Anybody have any better >or more rigorous reasoning for a realistic date? > Sure. How about the following set of sequels? 2001 - A Space Odyessy 2010 - Odyessy Two 2100 - Odyessy Three 3000 - Odyessy Four 12000 - Homer Rolls Over in His Grave Wife: I'm tired of being dragged to all these boring SF movies! Husband: You're right; lets go see a boring Dudley Moore movie.