User talk:WickerGuy/Archive3

Barnstar awarded

		The Literary Barnstar
		This Barnstar has been awarded to WickerGuy for the knowledge, time, and effort you've spent, and hopefully will continue to spend, on William Blake's article. Awarded by Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:PDVD 007.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PDVD 007.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thank you

Hi hi hi Mr Deltoid er I mean WickerGuy. I hope that you are well. My belated thanks for the YouTube link. It was a hoot. Oscar Wilde said, about portrait painting, that looking at a given painting would tell you more about the artist than the subject. This can definitely be applied to (over)interpretations of SK's film. I am as susceptible to it as anyone. Doing it with a sense of humor is the way to go. Was Kubrick's secretary names Lincoln or Kennedy? I forget.

On a different note I had a remarkable film experience tonight. I recently picked up the Criterion Collection (Barnes and Noble has a 50% of sale on their titles occasionally and it is one of the best times to buy on the planet!) "Eclipse Series" of Sacha Guitry films [1]. To be honest I had never heard of him before. Well I watched The Story of a Cheat with my jaw on the floor for most of the time. It was as fun a film viewing experience as I have had in a long long time. This man was breaking the rules of film storytelling five years before Citizen Kane. I don't want to go into detail so that I don't give anything away should you be interested in searching it out. As ever, it may not be as enjoyable viewing for you as it was for me but I am certainly glad that I stumbled upon it and I wanted you to be aware of it. I guess that the best praise that I can give it is that if I had seen it in as a youngster in the 60's and 70's I feel sure that, as I did with so many special films, I would have driven miles to see it at any theater that it was showing be it matinee, evening or midnight showing.

The summer heat is only just letting up here but, as we often say, at least it isn't humid. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 07:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention. I received a bluray as a b'day gift. Naturally I ordered 2001 as my first disc. Amazon had it for $7.99. Amazing to think that in 1968 the ticket price to see it here in Denver was $4.50 (considered an outrage at the time.) MarnetteD | Talk 07:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Nukes

Thanks for that! It means so much more when said in Russian. To paraphrase a certain Heuristic ALgorithmic computer, I know I've made some questionable decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help. Shirtwaist (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edits

Good work there. The "Military nature" section is shaping up nicely, thanks to you!Shirtwaist (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Eyes Shut

Thanks. It was too weaselly for my taste. I think Kubrick was certainly influenced by Surrealism, but know of no critic who has explicated the topic. In general, "surreal" is an overused and misused adjective, meant to describe something that is simply weird or mysterious. I created the list of Surrealism films article, and it is constantly being bombarded with nonsense. Apparently, every anime film is somehow surreal. Alas... Anyway, thanks again for the comment. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vinyl

Hi WG. I saw you edit summary about the change that 8mmfilm! made on the Clockwork Orange page. I took a look at other edits made by this person here [ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/8mmfilm!] and found that they were on something of a crusade to change all references to Warhol's film to CO. They don't seem to edit very often and this may have just been a one day thing but I have put Vinyl on my watchlist just in case. Kind of a funny set of edits so I thought I'd share what I found with you. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 00:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:KubrickStare.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KubrickStare.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:KubrickWalls.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KubrickWalls.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:CRM114Kubrick.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CRM114Kubrick.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:KillingShots.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KillingShots.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:2001Montage3rd.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2001Montage3rd.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Shining gross

If the current numbers are correct, why are they not sourced? I do not know what the correct numbers are, all I knew is that an anon. editor changed them, and offered no explanation, something I find very bothersome. Furthermore, what was the source for the previous number, which was considerably different? If people would simply explain and source their changes, we would not have such problems, right? And, as the saying goes, "If ifs and ands Were pots and pans..." Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Surrealist films

You might be interested in this discussion. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow eyes open

OK, I am very pleased to hear that, and I'm sorry to leap to conclusions. It was a very special film, wasn't it. Tony (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious denomination categories

On Wikipedia a person must self-identify with a particular denomination before being categorized; and the only way to know if they self-identify is a source indicating that the person is currently Catholic (or Baptist, or atheist, or whatever). That standard is frequently violated because many people think they can put anything about a person's religous beliefs in an article without reliable sourcing. That is what is unsourced in the article. If someone grows up an atheist but is now a Christian (see William J. Murray), do we put that person in the "Atheists" category?" MANY people grow up in a particular denomination (or lack thereof in Murray's case) but do not end up claiming that perspective when they are adults. This is a simple matter of following one of the very cornerstones of Wikipedia: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Orson Wells may very well have been a Catholic as an adult, but the article doesn't state that. Also note that the phrase "or were" is used in the category description because "are Catholic" makes no sense for deceased person; in any event, the phrase in a category description does not take precedence over a Wikipedia policy. If you want to restore the category, please find a sourced statement to that effect. And remember, the responsibility for sourcing is on the person who adds or restores information. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Regarding a possible "ex-Catholics" category, I'm not sure but I doubt it. But if you find one please let me know. There are categories for "converts" to or from religions, but I've never seen an "ex" category. I would even hesitate to put someone like Welles in that category simply because we don't know if he left the church. There are just some things we don't know about people and are unable to categorize. It might be easier to find a source that he self-identified as Catholic as an adult, then restore that category. Even if he had a Catholic funeral or is buried in the cemetery of a Catholic church, I'd be satisfied with that. Happy editing! Cresix (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree Frank Zappa and Bill Maher's ex-Catholicism could be notable facts in their lives. It's probably easier to source that they are ex-Catholics than it would be Welles. I think you might have problems setting up a category of "Ex-Catholics", however, because there may not be many public figures who could clearly be sourced as leaving their Catholic upbringing and the effect of that on their identity. But I could be wrong; there may be more of those people than I think. Cresix (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita

As an editor of dab Nikita, your input is invited at the merge discussion there. --Lexein (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

15 minutes

What?! You only gave fetus IP 10 minutes (which was 10 minute more than it deserved). :-) Yworo (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: Lolita Redux

A lot of the unreferenced material that is sourced from the novel but not cited in the article can be tagged with the page & reference using Template:Cite book. Page numbers would address the unsourced tag as well.

The section would be better suited written as a narrative rather than a bulleted list. For example, with regard to Lolita's age and appearance, the following change could be made:

Lolita's age was raised from twelve to fourteen in the film to meet the MPAA standards, and Kubrick had been warned that censors felt strongly about using a less-developed actress to portray a sexually active girl that was to appear at least fourteen.[1]. In addition, Sue Lyon was chosen for the title role partly due to her more mature appearance. In the novel, Lolita's name is frequently referred to simply as "Lo", "Lola" or "Dolly" by the other characters, as "Lolita" was Humbert's personal name for her. Her hair color was also changed to blonde in the film from brunette in the novel. Sue Lyon portrays Lolita as attractive girl, but in the novel, both Charlotte and Humbert comment on Lolita's lack of conventional attractiveness^[citation needed].

Comments about what's "hinted at" regarding suspicion related to Lolita's appearance sounds like it's left open for the reader's/viewer's interpretation. What hints were made by the author, or other characters in the novel? Also, the hair color really doesn't have as much weight as the other items in the description of differences, but it may play a part in her "attractiveness", so leaving it in or taking it out wouldn't make much difference.

The other sections can be rewritten to remove some of the trivial notes (e.g., "The first and last word of the novel is 'Lolita'. The first and last word of the screenplay is 'Quilty'.") and all of the bulleted formats. All of the differences related to Humbert should be included in one single section instead of the three presently used. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the section about the term "nymphet" could use some work, but since the term is not used throughout the film as prevalently in the novel, it's use within the article should be limited to that section. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we move this to the talk page of the article? I'm happy to work on it with you or with another editor, but input from some casual contributors might also be beneficial. What are your thoughts? Sottolacqua (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work on That Hideous Strength

Good work on the "mythos" paragraph. There is that special monograph on the Space Trilogy entitled, "Planets in Turmoil" or something. I don't have it here at home, but that could be a good source. Keep up the good work. Have you tried your hand on Perelandra and Out of the Silent Planet? It's too bad that he left off writing The Dark Tower.--Drboisclair (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: Planets in Peril: A Critical Study of C.S. Lewis's Ransom Trilogy, David C. Downing--Drboisclair (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too have an M.Div. as a professional degree and I have an S.T.M. or M.S.T. "Master of Sacred Theology" too. Good to have you aboard on Wikipedia.--Drboisclair (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are interested

You may already be aware of this but, just in case you weren't, I wanted to let you know that the Criterion Collection released Paths of Glory on DVD this week. This is a cleaned up version over the one that has been available for years and the CC usually has interesting and well done extras and essays with the film. I also wanted to let you know that two or three times a year Barnes & Noble has a 50% off sale on the Collection's DVDs and the next one is coming up on Nov 1st. According to the gentleman who manages the music department at my local B&N it will run through the 20th. The sale also applies to the "Eclipse Series" box sets that have been coming out over the last few years. This is one of the best savings on getting new DVDs that I know of and I have tried to learn to wait on getting any titles I want until this sale is going on. On another note I think I saw you mention on a talk page somewhere that you had moved to a new job sometime in the last few months. If so congratulations - if I mixed you up with someone else then accept my apologies for the mistake. I hope that your autumn is going well and that you are healthy and happy. Cheers until next time. MarnetteD | Talk 16:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and all of the info! It brings up a couple of interesting connections. Between my high school history and the bicentennial I felt I had enough U.S. history to last awhile so I took European history courses in college. UNC (Greeley CO - not Chapel Hills NC) had a very interesting man teaching Russian history and I think I took every class that he taught. Then, after graduation, I was a substitute teacher for several years and experienced the same Jekyll/Hyde nature of different schools that you descibe. The S. F. Digital Film Institute news is very exciting. I hope that it works out one day. I share the budgeting for DVDs woes. The 50% off sale has been going on for a couple of years now so it will probably occur again in the future. You might want to sign up for the Criterion Collections newsletter. They always send me a notice when the sale is going on. It also has info about their new releases and various filmmakers talk about their favorite films that are on CC DVD's. Thanks again for filling me in. MarnetteD | Talk 15:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Pic

Hi again. Just in case it gets hidden by other edits an anon IP added a new pic to the A Clockwork Orange film page here [2]. It probably needs a fuller caption to explain its relation to the film so that it doesn't get deleted. I defer to your talents in producing a more concise description since the only things that I can think of at the moment are too long. In another unique coincidence in last nights new South Park episode they parodied the very scene from the film that was shot at the location in the pic. Cheers. 01:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

PROGRAM ALERT-Hi again. I wanted to make you aware of a new program that began last night on Turner Classic Movies. It is entitled "Moguls & Movie Stars" and follows the history of film form the late 1800's to the late 1960's. The first episode was very impressive - lots of detail, pics and clips. Most notable were strikingly cleaned up and sharp prints of some of the famous Edison and Méliès shorts. Here is a link for more info [3]. It is a seven part series with new episodes airing on Monday nights and then repeats occur several times through the rest of the week. If this doesn't fit your schedule I am sure that it will be released on DVD or will be available on the net eventually. Well worth viewing if you are interested. MarnetteD | Talk 19:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I thought it might not fit your schedule but maybe it will fit down the road and only if you are interested, of course. I had noticed your revert of the Billy Boy stuff before. When the edit showed up again I checked and it was the same IP so I took the time to go to their talk page and point out the book v film fact. I even gave them a link to the differences section in the article in the hope that they might read it and realize their mistake. Who knows if it will work (big shoulder shrug). On another note the Paths of Glory DVD is nice - interesting new interviews with Jan Harlan, James Harris and Christiana and a very interesting but brief interview with SK circa 1966. Hope the rest of your week goes well

License tagging for File:MatchCut.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:MatchCut.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:2001 MATCH CUT COMP A.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2001 MATCH CUT COMP A.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2001 music

If this[4] wasn't lifted from liner notes or a website, I'd be very surprised. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it even accurate? I don't remember ever reading about "extensive" use of synthesizers. Indeed one of the joys of experiencing the film on bluray a couple of months ago was that the sound was so clear that I would actually hear individual instruments and voices in the sections using Ligeti's music. Hope you are well. MarnetteD | Talk 23:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even way back when, on the CD, I could hear occasional background noise on those recordings. I don't know that there was a lot of electronic stuff going on. In Clockwork Orange there certainly was, but that was later. Also Sprach Zarathustra, which occurred at least 3 times in the film; the Blue Danube; the Gayane; all those were stock orchestral works as far as I know. The moon bus sequence sounded like it had some electronics in it. The version in the film was much shorter than the version on the album. They might have messed with the Ligeti stuff, but it was primarily and orchestra and a choir, as far as I know. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the only electronic stuff in SpcOdy is the background stuff when Dave is wandering around the Victorian room. This is an electronically altered version of a 4th Ligeti piece that was uncredited entitled "Adventures". Ligeti successfully sued SK over it. The 1990s CD of the film soundtrack includes both the film-altered and original version along with 12 minutes of HAL dialogue. The moon bus stuff ("Lux Aeterna") may sound electronic but I don't think it is. I've heard alternative recordings from various symphonies of this and it sounds the same. It's all singers (no instruments at all) and uses weird harmonics like cluster chords.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See 2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)#Soundtrack_album for both info on Aeterna and Aventures and two versions of Zarathustra.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's coming back to me. That longer version of Lux Aeterna hit an ear-piercing note somewhere in the middle of it, and fortunately they faded it out in the movie track itself before it got to that point. The Zarathustra situation was kind of bizarre, and the article clarifies the matter. The original movie version has a fade-out at the end, while the original soundtrack album had a version that ended on a definitive "stop". The music used with the monolith (Requiem) was orchestral, while the other piece, called Atmospheres, vaguely sounds electronic, but in any case there's no chorus with that piece as I recall. The original soundtrack album cut short the Requiem music by having it fade out. The later CD had the whole thing, including a single distinctive note from a horn or woodwind at the exact moment you see the "t" shaped alignment of the monolith and the other planetary objects, just before the "star gate" opens up. (Maybe you can tell I've seen this movie too often.) ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was also "electronic distortion" of HAL as he was singing "Daisy Bell", but that audio trick is about as old as sound recording itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in Atmospheres is electronic. However, throughout the piece, no two instruments are ever ever ever playing the same note simultaneously, and there's nearly 60 string instruments in there.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After you see 2001: A Space Odyssey 2001 times, the subliminal cues in the music effect you and you will be able the inscription on the monolith that reads "Star Child of Bust" :)--WickerGuy (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good one. On either the DVD commentary for How the West was Won, or in the excellent documentary about the history of Cinerama that is part of the deluxe DVD box set, there is a mention that one of the factors that went into the length of the Overture, Entr'acte and Exit music in films shown at Cinerama theaters was the amount of time that it took to open (or close in the case of the Exit music) the curtains that stretched across the massive screen. I have often thought that there is a doctoral thesis out there about the number of different technological formats that this film has been shown in. I was lucky enough to see it at the Cooper Theater Cinerama#Venues here in Denver on its initial release. Movie theaters large and small followed over the years. On TV we've gone from analog to HD broadcasts. For non-broadcast viewings we've had VHS, DVD and now blu-ray formats. Combine this with the changes in the listening technology (mono, stereo and 5.1 DTS) and I am probably wrong, all of this would be too much for one thesis. Cheers to each of us that have seen this film too many (is there such a thing?) times. MarnetteD | Talk 04:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the film on opening night on my very last evening of residence in Dallas, Texas. I have since then lived for 9 years in Philadelphia, 6 in San Francisco, 10 in Cleveland, and 17 more in San Francisco. The last time I saw in on a large screen was in 2005 at the Castro Theatre in downtown SF (a very large screen). Last year, a mom-and-pop theatre in Alemeda (an island just off of Oakland, CA) showed 2001 during the week preceding the release of Jerry Bruckheimer's 2012, but I missed it then.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't quite see it opening night, but it was in that vicinity. I wonder if your reaction on first seeing it was the same as mine: WOW! ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your mention of a showing at the Castro set some bells ringing so I did some digging and here Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film)/Archive 2#70mm showing in San Francisco is an old talk page thread that I remembered. I don't think it is the showing that you mention since the date is 06 but I thought I'd direct you to it anyway. I do feel sorry for the generations that may never see it on a huge screen. It will be hard for them to understand the full experience and impact of this film. I've come to describe my first reaction to seeing this film, at age 11, this way - I knew that I did not understand everything that I had just seen, I also new that I would never look at a film (or life for that matter but that was too philosophical for an 11 yr old) the same way again.MarnetteD | Talk 05:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MD, I'm sure I meant the '06 viewing at the Castro, not '05.
BB, Well, the last of my 10 years in Dallas (age 13) was the most unpleasant of them, so I viewed it as sort of symbolic of leaving the town. Also WOW! 1968 was a good year for science-fiction. Planet of the Apes was out earlier that year, and Star Trek was just wrapping up its second season. I was in a Cinerama theatre that had been converted from one of the old silent movie palaces. It was a humongous screen, and I was just enchanted. My father was a bit flummoxed by the film at first but it grew upon him. He and I have fairly similar tastes with the notable exception that he has never especially cared for sci-fi.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Even just from the filming standpoint, it set the bar much higher for realism. The B-movie style of shows like Lost in Space and even (sorry) Star Trek suddenly looked primitive. And you're right, it has to be seen on a big screen to be appreciated. I'm thinking now of the spacecraft nearing Jupiter, and how tiny and vulnerable it looked, with the Requiem music filling the air. It seems so sad that the actual year 2001 turned out to be such a nightmare. (One side note: Where I saw it, in Illinois, when HAL said he became operational in Urbana in 1992 or 1997 or whatever, that always evoked a cheer.) ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2001 was a sci fi film that actually dared to be a sci fi film, if that makes sense. It defied many conventions, not the least of which is that it didn't have some nice neat wrapup ending. It made you leave the theater wondering about many things. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Urbana cheers" is a neat memory thanks for sharing it with us. I just realized that I left out TV screen sizes in my earlier post. So we have gone from 19" to 54" tube screens to widescreen HDTV's. WG, I think you've mentioned watching it on your computer. Who knows what formats there will be in the future! MarnetteD | Talk 05:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I should point out that we didn't have cinerama in our local theaters, but I made up for it by sitting near the front row. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution team

Greetings! Please excuse this intrusion on your talk page, and allow me to invite you to participate in the newly-formed Wikipedia Contribution Team (WP:CONTRIB for short)! The goal of the team is to attract more and better contributions to the English Wikipedia, as well as to help support the fundraising team in our financial and editing contribution goals. We have lots of stuff to work on, from minor and major page building, to WikiProject outreach, article improvement, donor relations, and more—in fact, part of our mission is to empower team members to make their own projects to support our mission. Some of our projects only take a few minutes to work on, while others can be large, multi-person tasks—whatever your interest level, we're glad to have you.

If this sounds interesting, please visit WP:CONTRIB and sign onto the team. Even if there does not appear to be anything that really speaks out as being work you'd like to do, I'd encourage you to join and follow the project anyway, as the type of work we'll be doing will certainly evolve and change over time. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me, or ask on the team talk page. Regards, ⇒DanRosenthal ^Wikipedia Contribution Team 22:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is a human edit (not a bot). I'm specifically contacting you as you expressed interest in the Campus Ambassador position, and the Wikipedia Contributions Team has a lot of commonality in working along with the Campus Ambassadors. You can reach me on my talk page, or by email at [e-mail] with questions; I can't guarantee that I'll be checking back on your talk page often enough to hold a sustained conversation there. Regards, ⇒DanRosenthal ^Wikipedia Contribution Team 22:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2001 funnier than...

If a critic says 2001 is funnier than a supposed spoof of it, that's definitely not a good sign. According to the Agel book, there was only one intentional joke in the film, which was the "zero gravity toilet" with its megillah of an instruction manual (whose contents are reprinted in the book, by the way). There was some unintentionally funny stuff, especially HAL saying things like, "I know I haven't been quite right lately", after having just murdered 4 of the 5 crew members. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also enjoyed HAL stating that it "always comes down to human error" after the twin 9000 computers on earth diagnose HAL as the problem. On a side note I remember a period of time - roughly the late 70's through the early 80's - where, every time I saw the film, some in the audience would laugh nervously just after Moonraker walloped the leader of the other group of simians. This disappeared as time went on but I have wondered what the zeitgeist was behind this phenomenon. MarnetteD | Talk 23:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, IMO Kubrick in a very overt/foreground way satirized over-mechanized bureaucracy in Doctor Strangelove, but faint background echoes of the same style of humor are in most of HAL's dialogue in Odyssey, much of Jack Torrance's dialogue in The Shining, and some elements of both the various official's dialogue (Prime Minister, doctor, jailer) in Clockwork O.

HAL's "Dave, this mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it" and Jack Torrance's "Have you ever thought for a single moment about my responsibilities to my employers?" strike me as fairly similar lines. Both characters, while bearing the responsibility for maintaining an entire environment in an isolated location, cut off communication to the outside world while keeping secrets from their co-residents and eventually rationalize murder by way of stopping folks from "prevent"ing them from "doing their duty" (Grady's line). Both characters are actually kind of funny in similar ways, though HAL may take a bit longer to grow on you. Some critic whose name I can't remember thought Jack Torrance to be essentially a cross of Alex DeLarge and HAL.

Woody Allen's casting of Douglas "HAL" Rain as the computer in the climactic scene of Sleeper I think shows the comic side of HAL, IMO. ("Excuse me, I think it's time to check the cell structure" is still my FAVorite line from that movie!!)

My good friend MarnetteD, I think you mean MoonWatcher. I also enjoyed the James Bond film Moonraker but the two are at least 4 degrees of separation apart. Let's see, MoonWatcher was in a film by Kubrick. Kubrick handed over his last project to Steven Spielberg. Spielberg directed a film called Jaws. A villain named "Jaws" is in Moonraker. Unless you count both Odyssey and Moonraker having circular orbital space stations, but they don't look very much alike. (The space station in Moonraker has all the human action in the central sphere while ships dock around its perimeter- more or less the exact opposite of Odyssey) :) --WickerGuy (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh - Thank you so much for fixing my faltering memory - especially when I could have gone to the article to get the name right. I typed that in and after I saved it I thought Does that look right? then I was off to do other editing. As to the joys of Sleeper the house recently sold for a pittance compared to what was spent on finishing it. Here is an article for your perusal [5]. It is always a trip to see the film and remember when that part of the "hills" where I grew up had almost zero development. There are a couple of shots looking down the valley from the house and I-70 hadn't even been completed yet! There is a brief scene where we see the top of the atrium at the Denver Botanic Gardens [6] but most of the other locations are long gone. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 04:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've touched on some of Kubrick's recurrent themes which appear in many of his films. As to the nth-degree stuff, here are some semi-connected facts: Roy Scheider played Dr. Floyd in 2010 and Bob Balaban played Dr. Chandra. Both of those guys were in other Speilberg movies. Also, Spielberg directed a segment of the Twilight Zone movie which featured Scatman Crothers, and Crothers had a significant role in The Shining. The original Twilight Zone had a famous episode with Richard Kiel (the "Jaws" character in Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me). Another segment in the Twilight Zone movie featured John Lithgow as the guy who sees a gremlin on the airplane wing. Lithgow was a major character in 2010. That was a remake of the TV episode which starred the young William Shatner, who of course played Captain Kirk. Kirk died in one of the Trek films at the hands of Malcolm McDowell's character, McDowell of course being the star of Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. Yet another segment in the Twilight Zone movie (the segment with the infamous fatal helicopter accident) was directed by John Landis, who directed the young Kevin Bacon in Animal House. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, to make it shorter, Kubrick turned a project over to Spielberg; Spielberg co-produced The Twilight Zone with Landis; Landis directed Bacon. How many degrees is that? ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as Austin Powers said after a complex response to Basil Exposition's complex speech on time travel "Oh, now I've gone all cross-eyed".--WickerGuy (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Cite error: The named reference imdb was invoked but never defined (see the help page).