Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1a 12/4/83; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!knight
From: knight@rlgvax.UUCP (Steve Knight)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: why not iapetus?
Message-ID: <1898@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 6-May-84 21:08:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.1898
Posted: Sun May  6 21:08:52 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 9-May-84 03:28:06 EDT
References: <317@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 24

> there was a very specific reason why bowman & poole & hal & co. went to
> jupiter and not iapetus in 2001.  doug trumbull did up a
> saturn for kubrick and kubrick didn't like it--wasn't colorful enough for
> him.  so trumbull made up a jupiter, turned up thehue and intensity a
> little, and kubrick decided jupiter was better.  i always resented the
> guy for that.  the switch greatly damaged the credibility of the movie as
> sf, and all for the sake of bands on a plaster planet.  urrkh.

> this from a book by jerome agel (i think; it's been years) called 
> the making of 2001 or something like that.

Did we read the same book?  As I recall, the problem was that they simply
could not come up with a believable way of representing the rings, and it
was a collective decision (on both Kubrick's and Trumbull's parts) to
switch to a planet that was easier to produce *believably* on film (i.e.,
better a good Jupiter than a poor Saturn).  I have a difficult time
believing that someone like Kubrick, who approached making "2001" with
as much integrity as he did, would turn fickle over whether he liked the
colours or not.
-- 
"If you lived here, you'd be home by now."

	Steve Knight
	{seismo,allegra,some other sites}!rlgvax!knight