lew (06/09/82)
With all this interest in Star Wars and Star Trek, I can't help pining for good old 2001. It remains unsurpassed in its depiction of space habitation. I can't think of any other film which has even attempted to depict weightlessness at all, let alone as pervasively as 2001. Other elements of it have been adopted so generally that it is easy to forget their origin. I'm thinking of the "look" of the flat white spaceship with lots of surface detail, the zooming effect in the light show, and the ape costumes. The genius stroke of the movie, though, was HAL. How can R2D2 compare? Lew Mammel, Jr. - BTL Indian Hill
geoff (06/11/82)
I understand that Kubrick is currently working on 2010, a sequel. Geoff Collyer, U. of Toronto Computing Services
rjnoe@ihlts.UUCP (Roger Noe) (10/10/83)
Now let's get a few things straight about "2001: A Space Odyssey." The food in the tube slipped down A LITTLE because of surface tension. This same effect was noticed long ago in the U.S. manned space missions. Of course, in filming the scene one cannot cancel gravity which certainly pulled the food down farther than it would have in microgravity. So the "technical error" is more one of degree than quality. Perhaps they should have used a much thicker "soup" and filmed the scene with the actor upside down. I seem to recall reading in "The Making of 2001" (by Agee??) that fans were used in the moon landing scene both to push the dust up and to drop it down so it would nearly follow the parabolic paths which particles on an airless planet would. In comparing that scene with films of actual Apollo moon landings, I honestly believe that the former shows only minutely more billowing of dust than the latter. I think they did a fine job with this scene. Again, the "error" is one of degree, not quality. And if you're looking for more "errors" you can forget the momentary exposure of an unhelmeted astronaut to space. Clarke covered his ass on that one. I think it's a great movie. It did not portray the future to be dull. Rather, Clarke and Kubrick selected inane dialogue to emphasize the "personality" of HAL. How can the discovery that we are truly not alone be considered dull? I do like the (unforseeable, at the time) incongruity of the old Bell System logo in the space station. What if Pan Am folds or gets a new logo? -- Roger Noe ...ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe
mike@hpfclk.UUCP (10/14/83)
#R:ihuxq:-34200:hpfclk:7600002:000:605
hpfclk!mike Oct 12 09:32:00 1983
Here's another technical error for you. The scene where Dave Bowman must
endure the vacuum of space while transferring from the pod to the Discovery.
(He forgot his helmet, remember.) It appeared that he had no problem
surviving the vacuum for some 5 to 10 seconds which I find impossible.
When there was no pressure, there was nothing to keep the liquids of his
body from immediate vaporization (boiling). He should of been dead in
the first second. Space is cold and empty, and we are not well adapted
to 0 pressure.
Michael Bishop
{hpfcla!hpfclk!mike}speaker@umcp-cs.UUCP (10/16/83)
Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: Re: re: 2001 - (nf) Here's another technical error for you. The scene where Dave Bowman must endure the vacuum of space while transferring from the pod to the Discovery. (He forgot his helmet, remember.) It appeared that he had no problem surviving the vacuum for some 5 to 10 seconds which I find impossible. When there was no pressure, there was nothing to keep the liquids of his body from immediate vaporization (boiling). He should of been dead in the first second. Space is cold and empty, and we are not well adapted to 0 pressure. This was the subject of much debate about a year ago on the net. I dearly hope we don't start into it again... According to Clarke, you can withstand a vacum for about 30 seconds. I think a NASA study on the subject came up with a similar number. AT any rate, he would NOT have died the first second. It takes a while for someone's fluids to ''boil''... unless the fluids are exposed to a raw vacum, why SHOULD they? His eardrums might have burst though. He had his eyes closed so he was covered there. I think the real flaw in this scene is the rock steadyness of the space pod. Remember Newton's laws? I guess Kubrick didn't. The pod should have been blown away from Discovery. Or did the pod's hands have a good grip on the situation (ACK)? -- - Speaker speaker@umcp-cs speaker.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay
alan@apollo.UUCP (Alan Lehotsky) (10/17/83)
Regarding why Dave Bowman's "precious bodily fluids" (my quotes, not yrs.) didn't boil away immediately.... Well, for one thing, he happened to have his skin on, so there certainly was pressure on the fluids. There is a lot of available research on this very issue. I remember seeing somewhere (ANALOG?) a description of a skin-tight space suit which only acted as "support-hose" for the entire body. For the original justification of this, you should go read a short story Clarke wrote which first suggested the idea. It turns out the biggest problem is to exhale as much as possible before exposing yourself to vacuum - otherwise, you can damage your lungs (sort of like popping a balloon, I would imagine.)
rjnoe@ihlts.UUCP (Roger Noe) (10/17/83)
First of all, I think the time Dave spent in the open emergency airlock is frequently exaggerated. (Have you ever noticed how people tend to hold their breaths during this scene?) I think it was no more than 5 seconds, perhaps as little as 3. Secondly, he was not in a total vacuum. Much of the air in the pod would have been blasted into the airlock when the explosive bolts on the pod door blew. For the same reason he was not in absolute zero. Thirdly, where do you get the idea that boiling of bodily fluids (interesting . . . didn't Kubrick direct a film whose main conflict started because of one man's obsession with our precious bodily fluids? Yes, Dr. Strangelove) is instantaneous? As Clarke states, it takes some time for this to happen to these well-protected systems. I refer you also to Agel's "Making of 2001". And I wish people would stop mentioning the HAL/IBM coincidence. Let's take Clarke's word for it that he didn't realize it until someone mentioned it well after release. IBM hasn't even got a plant in Urbana-Champaign, has it? -- Roger Noe ...ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (10/17/83)
that scene of about 15 secs in a hard vacuum was clarke's personal signature on 2001. he wrote a story in which a space station worker leaps to safety through a few feet of hard vacuum and suffers only a bad sunburn from the experience. certainly others will follow up with the title. obviously, most of the story is devoted to this guy's thoughts about whether such a leap is survivable, & the conclusion that it would take a good minute to boil. -- ken perlow ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken bell labs @ naperville, IL
alle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) (10/17/83)
> Here's another technical error for you. The scene where Dave Bowman must > endure the vacuum of space while transferring from the pod to the Discovery. > (He forgot his helmet, remember.) It appeared that he had no problem > surviving the vacuum for some 5 to 10 seconds which I find impossible. > When there was no pressure, there was nothing to keep the liquids of his > body from immediate vaporization (boiling). He should of been dead in > the first second. Space is cold and empty, and we are not well adapted > to 0 pressure. I believe it is indeed possible to endure the vacuum of space a brief interval (less than 20 seconds). Can someone verify this?? Clarke is normally pretty good at checking technical details in his stories and I remember seeing this particular phenomena explained previously. Allen England at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
tjt@kobold.UUCP (T.J.Teixeira) (10/18/83)
I hope I'm as facile with the 'n' key as anyone, but it seems as though it may be time to start up net.movies.2001 as a sibling to starwars and startrek.