Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1exp 10/6/83; site ihlts.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe From: rjnoe@ihlts.UUCP (Roger Noe) Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: Re: 2001 Message-ID: <219@ihlts.UUCP> Date: Mon, 10-Oct-83 13:14:56 EDT Article-I.D.: ihlts.219 Posted: Mon Oct 10 13:14:56 1983 Date-Received: Wed, 12-Oct-83 20:28:28 EDT Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il Lines: 29 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