Talk:2010: The Year We Make Contact

, who passed away in 1995)

This is irrelevant to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.91.122 (talk • contribs).

Commented out weaseling

I've commented out this paragraph because, if it belongs, it needs a serious going-over.

After the visual impact and enigmatic ending of the film of the original 2001 (made in 1968), the more mainstream 2010 was considered by some to be a disappointment . However, other viewers argue that on its own terms, the film is more substantial than most other science fiction films.

It's pretty weasely. "Some", and "other viewers". If someone can come up with a decent appraisal of the long term impact of the movie, let's have it, but this is just too vague. --Tony Sidaway 23:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's useful to know that the film has a very different style. But the comments certainly needs quotes from reviewers to support them. There are some listed here: [1] The Singing Badger 00:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sivasubramanian Chandrasegarampillai

Clearly an allusion to Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. IIRC -mpillai means "son of", though I may be horribly wrong. Someone who knows more about these languages could work this into the article? - ∅ (∅), 21:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

E-mail conversation in 1984?

Clarke's e-mail correspondence with Peter Hyams, director of 2010, was published in 1984. They had e-mail in 1984? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.106.46.84 (talk • contribs).

Yes. - ∅ (∅), 17:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently reading the book 'The Odyssey Files' and it sounds more like Clark and Hyams were using remote access (through dial-up modems) to transfer WordStar documents back and forth - there are occasional references to the fact that one of them is having problems accessing the other's machine. So it's e-mail of a kind, but not as we know it, Jim - Halmyre (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

E-mail was in use as far back as the 1960s. Its use back then was via government and university networks, so access was only within a narrow sector of Society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.132.249 (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Similar to Apollo/Soyuz

I think the whole joint US/Soviet mission is similar to Apollo/Soyuz. Due to being a joint space mission and everything.

Fair use rationale for Image:2010dvd.jpeg

Image:2010dvd.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Differences from the novel: orbit/Lagrange

I'm removing the line regarding the discontinuity about Discovery's location. Floyd's report indicates the monolith is in the Lagrangian point, not Discovery. Discovery is correctly indicated as being in Io orbit.

--Pauley (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Scientific 'impossibilities'

A flaw in the scenario - also present in the book - is the implausibility of creating a "second sun" out of Jupiter without it affecting the orbits of its satellites and other bodies.

The problems with this well-reasoned argument are that a) it is original research, and b) a drastic change in orbit and gravitation could have taken place in both the novel and film - they just weren't mentioned, or shown explicitly. Good reasoning, however. 206.248.158.217 (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Manifestly, you have zero understanding of what you are asserting. None. I don't contest the removal of the section, but please, don't be ignorant. Please. 128.214.133.2 (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who is the ignorant! Clearly I have exactly seven understanding of what I am asserting. Seven. My contention was not that the orbits could not be or were not affected, only that it wasn't mentioned in the film because the film ended almost immediately after Jupiter became Lucifer. Because it was not mentioned it does not follow that it was a mistake, simply an omission (much like most movies omit characters going to the bathroom, or some such thing). What you wrote was absolutely true, and the solar system would be massively changed; however, it was original research and as you hadn't provided a link to a dependable external source, it was removed. -DarrenBaker (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed the whole section, as it was entirely original research, which is not allowed on the Wikipedia. --DarrenBaker (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My recollection is that the multiplying slabs were compressing the gas of Jupiter, both in their construction and internally, thus increasing the density of the planet to the point at which fusion became possible. I don't have a copy of the book, but I thought it said something to that effect.

—WWoods (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow the argument here, the fact that increasing Jupiter's mass by a hundred fold would indeed lead to the inner solar system becoming unstable. In order to get hydrogen to ignite Jupiter's mass would have had to been increased by about a factor of 100. If Jupiter were 100 times more massive the inner solar system would quickly become unstable , I don't think Clarke ever noticed this did he? See this link:[2] This by the way is not original research it is known in the scientific literature.

One notes another thing changing Jupiter into a .08 Solar Mass Brown Dwarf without changes in the state vectors of the Jovian satellites would cause them to fall into Jupiter in about 8 days. Changing their orbital velocity at their same positions may disrupt the dynamics of the satellite system.Aajacksoniv (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You cant make a star out of Jupiter no matter how much you compress it. If it had enough matter,it would already be a star. BUT! you can make a black hole out of a compressed Jupiter..AND THAT would destroy our solar system- tossing planets around if not swallowing them. Also- they got the colors of Jupiter all wrong and garish. "S" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If one were to discreetly spirit away Jupiter and replace it instantly with a black hole of equal mass, it wouldn't make any difference to the orbital dynamics of the Solar System. Even the Jovian moons would continue unabated. The mere presence of a small black hole amongst the Planets doesn't spell wholesale chaos. For radii well outside the Event Horizon, the gravitational field is approximately the same as for any other less exotic body of equal mass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a science-fiction film where black monoliths created by a divine-like race of aliens can turn a planet into a star, I don't see how the "scientific impossibilities" are even to be considered. This is Wikipedia, not the iMDB thread board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.32.65.142 (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2010-poster01.jpg

Image:2010-poster01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Death?

The Soviet astronaut that was pulled into the big monolith.. Was he actually killed or did he just get pulled in like Dave had been? - NemFX (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess nobody knows. But since he's never mentioned again in the film, the novel, or any of its sequels, it's safe to assume the former. Cop 663 (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Most sources states that he is killed.. but for a long time i firmly believed that he was pulled in due to the line of Floys "Do you think that Max knows?" about the monolyth and after his fate.

The only hint the movie gives is the pod spining out of controll.. when in 2001 Dave's pod got teorically pulled in with him.. unless from outside his pod also spined out without his corporeal form.. Still i would imagine seeing Max pod spining that they would recover it to get his corpse.. after all Leonov had more pods

I just completely rewrote the Plot section, and don't quite know how to handle this scene. I personally think Max disappeared into the Monolith like Bowman because the "stars" appeared in it just before the flash of light. I'd ideally want to keep Max's fate ambiguous but can't figure out how to do so in a non-clumsy way, and I don't want to go into a lot of meta detail about how we don't know whether he's dead or halfway across the galaxy. YLee (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes the monolith does open, and we do see the stars in it - but I do not think Max goes into it - he is swept away with his pod. I think it opened to allow the star child (Bowman) to exit and return to Earth - i.e. the final scene of 2001 with Bowman overlooking Earth happened in 2010 - he was in the hotel room for 9 years. Though it seems a strange coincidence that Bowman should be about to leave at the precise moment Max just happnened to be there... Arswann (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

In the movie Dave said "He's with me" about the Russian pilot. I just watched the movie "S" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The reason the Leonov cannot contact Max as his pod spins away into space: he has been taken into the Monolith. Did not get this on the first watching. Not sure who viewers thought was Max later, since Floyd obviously suspects what has happened, that Max has gone into the Monolith. 2600:8807:4800:2130:44E8:51BC:90D9:B1A3 (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC) dfoofnik (not logged in)

Actual title of movie?

This bothers me: the title of the movie as it appears on-screen in the movie is "2010".

"The Year We Make Contact" is an advertising tagline which appeared on the movie posters, one of which was used as the cover of video releases. It was never, and never intended to be, part of the title of the movie. But almost everyone gives the title as "2010: The Year We Make Contact".

If I'm not the only person in the world who cares about this, maybe somebody could fix it here.

-- Thomas G. Atkinson 141.157.14.202 (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've come here 15 years later to echo this comment. Surely "the year we make contact" is a poster and trailer tagline, not a subtitle. I don't think it's even the only tagline - I'm pretty sure "something wonderful is about to happen" was another one. Unless I've gone all Mandela effect, nobody in 1984 was calling the film anything other than '2010', and that's what it says at the beginning of the film and in the credit block at the bottom of the poster (and at the end of the original trailer). Even the first footnote in this article links to a BBFC listing for a film called simply '2010'. I dunno where this crazy confusion started but it's all over the internet now. It seems to have become one of those self-corroborating non-fact facts. Alexistwit (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The movie poster leaves the title ambiguous; is "The Year We Make Contact" a tagline or a subtitle? It's true that the title sequence simply uses "2010", which is how the film is referred to in shorthand. Clarke's novel, which seems to have come out before the movie (my copy has a "soon to be a major motion picture" ad on the first or second page) is subtitled "Odyssey Two". And the soundtrack release has no subtitle. However, MGM seems to have treated "The Year We Make Contact" as a subtitle; it's not just on the movie poster, but on most of the VHS tape covers, where it's placed directly under "2010" as a subtitle; it's also on the tape labels as part of the title—which would not be the case with a tagline. I also saw a release that didn't have it—the packaging wasn't labeled, but from the look of it I suspect it was a copy for UK distribution. A copy under the Warner Bros. label also used "The Year We Make Contact" on the tape label. My DVD—Warner Bros., produced in 2001!—also places "The Year We Make Contact" as a subtitle on the cover, and on the little ring label around the hole. This is significant, both because this disc is a widescreen/standard definition issue that doesn't have any cover art, and so isn't using the movie poster, and because it reads: "2010: The Year We Make Contact", in which it's clearly used as a subtitle.

The IMDb page dates from 2003, which means that it predates this article, and the earliest versions give "Odyssey Two" as the "script" title and "The Year We Make Contact" as a "promotional title". At that time the film was under "2010", but now it uses "2010: The Year We Make Contact" as the official title. Rotten Tomatoes uses that as well—I can't see it on the page, but it's in the URL address for the film's page on Rotten Tomatoes. So it seems that, for better or worse, "The Year We Make Contact" is usually regarded as a subtitle; both the original studio and the subsequent licensee/distributor treat it as one, and so do other sources that people are likely to consult for information (why and when they started doing so is less important, IMO, than the fact that they do).

The fact that other sources just say "2010" doesn't actually refute the subtitle, any more than if they refer to Ben-Hur rather than Ben-Hur: a Tale of the Christ, which is the title of the novel, and so subtitled on the movie poster (I can't remember if it's in the credits, but I think it is). If they actually said something about it being "official" or "unofficial", it might be reasonable to consider that; but you can't infer much from their silence on the topic, which distinguishes them from actual use by the studios. And for Wikipedia, the subtitle provides natural disambiguation; other topics are called "2010" or have "2010" in the title, and the novel can be distinguished because it has a different subtitle—the one used for the movie script, but not in later marketing (I suspect "Odyssey Two" was used at some point, but that's just based on my recollection, which isn't a reliable source). So there are several reasons for keeping the article at this title, and treating "The Year We Make Contact" as a subtitle. It's widely known and identified with the film, and occurs in a number of official sources, as well as familiar reference sites. The only arguments against it seem to be "it's not used in the credits" and "it's not mentioned in some reviews/other sites". On the whole, these arguments weigh in favour of keeping it as it is. P Aculeius (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Walter Curnow bisexual (in the novel)?

"in the novel Walter Curnow is bisexual and has a relationship with Maxim Brailovsky, breaking it off when he learns that Zenia Marchenko is in love with Maxim." Is there some sort of reliable source for this? I wouldn't have a problem with Walter being bi, but I think somebody is reading way too much into the text of the novel. I read it again a couple of weeks ago, and the only episode I recall that might hint at something like this, is when Floyd gives Walter a manly talking-to about his behavior with Max, when Zenia is around. The way I read it, Curnow is genuinely shocked; he hasn't thought along those lines, at all, but it suddenly becomes clear to him that Zenia has. Nerdjob (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose going by reader response theory the answer is there's no such thing as a reliable source here, your interpretation of the text is as valid as any other. That said the exchange between Floyd and Curnow regarding the "one case [where the crew's] adoration had gone too far" in ch. 28 is portrayed as both very uncomfortable and emotionally charged, re-read it with this in mind and see what you think. I'm unsure what Walter could think Haywood means by "your behaviour with Max" other than a sexual relationship which would elicit "a frigid silence" followed by the defensive "I was under the distinct impression he was more than eighteen", or why Floyd would avoid making eye contact if he was simply referring to horseplay. Later at the end of ch. 39 when Curnow and Floyd are described as taking the first step toward genuine friendship by exchanging vulnerabilities, Curnow's is in acknowledging that he's a little saddened to see Max and Zenia cementing their relationship and by extension firmly ending his and Max's fling, echoing an earlier passage in the chapter about spreading himself too thin.

Clarke often made reference to this kind of post-gay flexible and relaxed approach to sexual orientation in the future portrayed in his books, sometimes he's more direct about it than this (e.g. the description of Karl Mercer and Joe Calvert's "apparently stable liason" in ch. 10 of Rendezvous with Rama, or the general attitudes in Songs of Distant Earth where anyone whose preference is purely for one gender or another is considered emotionally unbalanced) but it is certainly one of his recurring themes and (I think) clearly in evidence in his descriptions of Curnow in 2010. The Movie adaptation expunges all the physical relationships between characters (most notably Zenia and Floyd's) which results in characters and relationships that are less complex and adult than those in the novel. While you could easily argue Curnow's orientation is open to interpretation, I think acknowledging this interpretation of the text adds significantly to a discussion of the differences between the film and the book.Splateagle (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be helpful to add a page reference to the comment about Curnow in the article, as it's a subtle moment that is easy to miss. BTW, there's also a brief mention of a gay couple at the beginning of 2061. Rubble pile (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea - any suggestions how best to reference it? Splateagle (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Just add <ref>Arthur C. Clarke, ''2010: Odyssey Two'' ([insert place of publication]: [insert publisher], 1982), [insert page number].</ref> In an ideal world it would be good to add page numbers for each of the things mentioned in this section. Cop 663 (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Reader-response criticism that addresses this question can theoretically be reliably sourced. The real questions are:

1. Can we find a truly reliable source, like professionally published criticism or analysis, or are we just opening the door to the inevitable stream of fan-written web postings?
2. Even more importantly, is such a tangential question worth exploring in this article? Currently, it's mentioned in only a part of a single sentence of a section which itself is completely unsourced and could be construed as forbidden original analysis.

I would suggest that, if this topic were worth including in a Wikipedia article, it'd be more appropriate to detail in 2010: Odyssey Two, where the relationship is at least suggested. But that article currently doesn't even mention Curnow or Brailovsky, let alone their relationship. We must remember that Wikipedia articles should remain focused on their subjects, not become opportunities for writing mini-essays about subtopics. Not everything that is true or plausible needs to be included. We're better served by attempting Saint-Exupérian perfection. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Both questions strike me as subsets of the wider issue of whether or not the two differences and discontinuities sections are worthwhile parts of the article. If it is worth examining the differences between the novel and the film, the removal of the physical relationships between characters seems an important part of that, if however the section itself is a digression it should probably be entirely removed Splateagle (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Most Sci-fi writers were erotica writers. The only writer who made any attempt to NOT include any sex at all in his writing was AZIMOV. HE had plenty of sex in real life and was a notorious flirt with the young women around him (read his essays, he admits to it.) Everyone from Niven (straight male human/female human sex) to Heinlein (all sex possible including genderbending and self-incest) inserted some sex somewhere. The best thing to do is simply ignore it and just enjoy the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.22.132 (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Discontinuities Section

This section is currently flagged as trivia which strikes me as unproductive and inappropriate (hence the (reverted) removal of the tag). The Guielines specify a trivia section as "one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list.", the current list is selective, though admittedly not organised. Some of its content substantially adds to that of the article, and surely some should be retained? This thread is thus opened in the hope of sparking discussion on how better to structure this information (rather than simply tagging the section with a finger wagging banner which accomplishes very little.) and in order to avoid engaging in an edit war.

Any suggestions for a better structure and/or specific "trivia" which could be removed to improve the section? (for example the change in location of the monolith from Saturn to Jupiter seems a significant detail, the missing blue suit helmet is arguably less so?)Splateagle (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

reception section?

this article needs one of them. 24.68.62.185 (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Its not true that it is inaccurate that there is no sound in space. Sure vacuum does not transmit sound in a conventional way, however explosions in space still create pressure waves, the particles of the explosion hitting the hull of the ship would vibrate noise into the ship thus transmitting sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.3.252 (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is accurate that there is no sound in space, but you are confusing the cause with the effect. Using your example of an explosion in space, the particles or debris of an explosion in space would not carry sound with them. They simply can't. Should debris from such an explosion actually hit the hull of a spaceship with a significant force, then it might be heard inside the ship as, like you said, vibrations from the hull. Therefore it is not the explosion itself that is making the sound, but the effect of debris hitting the ship. If something hit a ship in space, there would be no sound heard on the outside of the ship. And you would not hear a spaceship whooshing past the camera in space as if it was flying through the air....simply because there is no air. We can easily transmit signals (that may be decoded as sounds) through space, but they would have to be "formatted" for such transit (such as radio waves for example). However, such waves aren't actually heard in space itself. The radio waves would have to be decoded by a radio receiver that picked up the signal, and it would be the speaker on the receiving equipment that would be making the actual sounds. 80.41.27.163 (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong difference

One of my edits was reverted, but I found proof that the sentence "In the novel, Chandra never reveals to HAL the real reason behind their hurried departure from Jupiter" is simply wrong. In chapter 47 you can read: "Although Chandra, as agreed, had carefully explained what they were trying to do, did Hal really understand what was happening?" So Chandra does explain everything to HAL - as in the movie ... Normen Behr (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I had also removed the part wich says that a difference is that in the original movie all three pods are lost and that one is pressent in 2010. Actually in the movie Curnow states "There is one pod here.. hatch is missing" .. that makes clear that that pod is the same Bowman used to recover the body of Poole and in wich he had to blow the hath to enter Discovery throught the emergency door. In the novel is further explained that Bowman recovered that pod since it still could be used as a remote control probe.. and in the 2010 novel they even use it as an unmaned probe (in the movie they changed that part for the fatefull maned mission of Max in the russian pod). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.165.183 (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Centrifuge Section

Having recently watched the film again, ironically in 2010, I was reminded the entire centrifuge part of the ship is not shown. The obvious answer is it was simply to expensive and to complicated to rebuild for a gimmick effectively used in the previous film. It is a noticable absence though given the large volume of habitable space it contained for the ship. There are other minor differences between 2001 Discovery and its 2010 version though. The keyboards that appeared in the pod bay and brain room, also a large red 1 and blue 2 painted on doors. The CRT displays versus flat panels has already been mentioned in the article and was an unfortunate step backward in set design. Skywayman (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of centrifuges: see https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2010_(film)#Special_effects  : the scene mentioned occurs at about 1 hour and 24 minutes into the film.[Timings from the UK DVD version.] From about 1:22, the two characters, Dr. Floyd and the commander, have been rushing around and walking about in the room where the floating pens trick takes place. They are obviously meant to be located in one or other of the spinning wings of the Leonov which emulate gravity. Under gravity, or the rotating frame substitute, the floating pens would fall to the floor, or the desktop they came from. In short, the film-makers spent an inordinate amount of time, money, thought and effort in creating a demonstration that could never happen in a real spacecraft. I'm unsure whether this should be mentioned in the main page. Qordil (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Only if you can find a reliable third party source which states this. Chaheel Riens (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Depends on what you think qualifies as reliable. In my view, a first-semester beginner physics course is sufficient to substantiate it. The Pen would fall to the floor, though not absolutely identically to how it would in an identical room resting on the surface of the Earth. There would be a measurable coriolis effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

2010:The Year We Make Contact (1984) Bluray Dolby re-mix

Upon since buying the Bluray region B / UK version, where image is maximized for optimum performance fair enough.

Sound as become an issue with me since noticing the original Dolby stereo film mix has been re-mixed as and who did the re-mix? It’s now got part of the (left and right front stereo) or (centre phantom signal folded onto the centre discrete channel). Thus this no longer makes the Dolby film mix original to its 70mm Road Show release Dolby format 42.

Also the surrounds have been re-mixed with fake split-stereo surround where the original surrounds where produced in monaural surround hence the Dolby format code (Dolby format 42)

LFE.1 has also been re-mixed and this is evident with the first edition DVD release if carefully listened too or monitored discreetly (with each or one of the channels muted for closer inspection of the DolbyTrue Dolby digital mix).

This doesn’t reflect the original mix as heard in (1984) on 70mm / 35mm Dolby stereo would be near to impossible to notice this because of the common crosstalk that folds onto centre and surrounds.

Start of chapter 17 DVD Centre channel has a few neighboured mechanical car effects in the distance that sounds like (hover vacuum cleaner).

The left and right has (centre phantom dogs barking and slight atmospheric ambiance). Surrounds remain mute until the scene cuts to inside a home of Widow, Mrs. Bowman where the sound of announcer on the centre channel is heard for a Pan Am advisement.

The sound of dogs is then heard distance on the monaural surrounds. That should be enough for those who may not even notice this.

Bluray Region B Same as above except the centre has partly the centre (left and right phantom sound folded onto the centre mildly of the dogs barking).

The left and right still has the (centre phantom sound of the dogs barking).

Surrounds has partly the left and right same centre phantom dogs barking (thou there seems to be some sly panning to the right surround with 1/3 of the same sound heard on left though you’d have to fade off the right surround to hear this)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBListening (talk • contribs) 20:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. How is this related to the article? 80.47.64.168 (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

References

Greetings, folks. The third footnote in the References section is wrong. I'd appreciate your fixing it. The material supposedly from The Odyssey File is actually an expanded version of a chapter from The Silicon Jungle (Ballantine Books, 1985). I should know. I'm the author of this particular Jungle. For my Chapter 14, "As the Jungle Thickens: AKA the Great Modeming," I connected with Peter Hyams and Arthur Clarke via a 300-bps modem. I helped them line up the Kaypros used during the scriptwriting and provided them with some technical advice, as the chapter makes clear. I can understand the confusion about the two books, but those are the facts. Ballantine Books published both The Odyssey File and The Silicon Jungle. David Rothman / 703-370-6540 / davidrothman@pobox.com / dr@solomonscandals.com Davidrothman (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Hello! I'm hoping someone can expand upon the first reference cited: "LoBrutto 1997, p. 456". I'm assuming LoBrutto is the author, what is the publication? Jedikaiti (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming they meant Vincent LoBrutto's "Stanley Kubrick - A Biography" but it was published in 1999 not 1997, so who knows if this is what they meant. LoBrutto has written several film-related books so whoever included this source needs to clarify it. 80.47.64.168 (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Release section needs work.

The release section seems very odd. It is focused on comic books and DVD / BD. I think this section should be much more like the RELEASE section of 2001: A space odyssey. That is, about the theatrical release and rereleases, as well as home media including VHS et al.67.2.145.52 (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Unlike 2001, this film didn't really have much in the way of re-releases because it wasn't seen to be as "important" as 2001 (ha! what do they know?). There were 70mm screenings though, so perhaps if someone can dig up all the relevant dates, etc. VHS information might be harder to find, but someone out there might have some film mags from the 80s that include those details. 88.104.21.71 (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't Discovery destroyed in the first novel?

Been a while since I read the original, but I seem to recall that Bowman "put forth his will" and destroyed the Discovery at the end of the first novel. So the sequel had to work around that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.149 (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

He never returns to Discovery until the events in 2010. The bit you're referring to takes place when Bowman (as the Star-Child) is looking down on the earth, and destroys the orbiting nuclear weapons. But it has just occurred to me that both the book and the film of 2010 ignores that bit. Halmyre (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Special Effects / Pens

Could someone correct the item about the special effects and the pens being used by Heywood to plan the escape from orbit with the Leonov. I have seen a making-of documentary about 2010 and it clearly shows the pens stuck to a sheet of transparent film which could be moved and rotated to make them appear to float in space. (I was specifically looking for how they achieved this effect). This is the same technique used in 2001 when Heywood's pen drifts out of his pocket and the stewardess on the Pan-Am Orion catches it and replaces it while Floyd is sleeping. There was no CGI involved here - just some very nice technical solutions to make it appear like magic.

- Sam, Helsinki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.181.36 (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The making-of documentary does show Scheider trying to get the prop pens to stick to the glass. The technique didn't work; the pens kept falling off the glass. In the end the technique was abandoned and the pens were added during post-production as a special effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Not right...

I noticed that the first sentence in the plot section basically ruins 2001 for anyone who is just looking to see the plot of 2010... It should be put more around the lines of "Nine years after the events of 2001[...]" instead of giving away the ending to the first movie... Spoilers for previous movies should either not be included in the article or put in further down so people don't necessarily see them if they're just trying to get an idea about what the movie is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.220.168 (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think you can word a plot summary for 2010 without giving away what happened at the end of 2001 because the events in the sequel take place because of the events in the first film, so it needs to be made clear what happened. 88.104.28.16 (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Reception

Movie is from 1984. Article states:

"Critical reaction to 2010 has been mixed to positive, with the film holding a rating of 66% of Rotten Tomatoes, based on 32 reviews"

Rotten Tomatoes came out in 1998. So how did it receive this review? Also..."based on 32 reviews"? Is that really relevant? 24.117.62.13 (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing to say that the Rotten Tomatoes review was at the time of release, rather than contemporary?

The number of reviewers is important because it gives an indication of how much an average the rating is. Obviously the greater the number of reviews the more stable the rating. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yVVEEY09?url=http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1995-hugo-awards-2/ to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1995-hugo-awards-2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved. There was no consensus to support the move. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 06:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

---

2010: The Year We Make Contact → 2010 (film) – "2010" is the film's name, as per the opening credits. "The Year We Make Contact" is a tagline on the posters. Serendi^podous 12:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose same format as the other films in the sequence In ictu oculi (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

But it's name is just 2010 in the title sequence. "2001: A Space Odyssey" is called that in the title sequence. Serendi^podous 16:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:SUBTITLE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Zxcvbnm, true, but it's not the subtitle. It's an advertising hook. As I say below, it's like calling Poltergeist Poltergeist:They're Here which, if you look at the poster image on the article and the poster image on this article, could use the same reasoning. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support, I'm going to go with the nom and Roger Ebert on this. The film's name seems to be 2010, with no subtitle. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:NATURALDIS; per WP:SUBTITLE subtitles can be used used to disambiguate Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Galobtter, it's not a subtitle. It's an advertising hook on the poster. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Eh, whatever it is, it is still better as a disambiguator Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

But wouldn't the nom, 2010 (film), which already directs here, be the accurate descriptor? Kind of like calling Poltergeist Poltergeist: They're here per the advertising campaign. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Referred to by this title in reliable sources, including some that call this the "promotional title." If it is known by this title, whether the subtitle is an official part of the title isn't the central concern. Sources using "The Year We Make Contact" include The Los Angeles Times, SyFy, The A.V. Club, Engadget, Gizmodo, Entertainment Weekly, Fandango, Billboard, and a variety of others. Dekimasuよ! 01:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"2010" is title of movie.

~~This movie is called "2010" at start and end of film. The words "the year we make contact" NEVER appear on the screen. These words were used to promote the film but the movie's true title is "2010". I suppose it's like when people refer to "Superman The Movie", which is also called only "Superman" on the screen (the words "the movie" don't appear on the screen). Unlike, say, "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", which has those exact words on the screen. I have no idea why people refer to "2010" as "the year we make contact". Abbythecat~~

I worked in video for decades, and that tag line has frustrated me for almost 40 years. A couple of people have mentioned it here; I really don’t understand why it remains here, as it’s extremely non-“encyclopedic.” PacificBoy 04:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

That motion was detected on Europa prior to them sending a probe

@P Aculeius: You undid this edit. Did you look at the moments I cited in my edit summary? Marcus Markup (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't need to look at them, because it doesn't actually matter whether it's in the scene. The reason for not including "and motion" in addition to the detection of organic molecules is that it's cumulative detail in a plot summary where every word counts—it's been edited down multiple times, cutting out seemingly significant details because they weren't necessary to explain the plot, and Wikipedia's guidelines regarding the length of plot summaries—despite being only advice—are very strictly enforced. Listing all of the reasons why the characters do anything isn't necessary to explain the plot. If absolutely necessary, there's room for about one more sentence—but every other addition makes that less feasible, and more likely that if anything needs to be added or explained in future, the section will have to be scoured for words to cut before it can be done. So you have to ask yourself—are the added words necessary to explain this point in the plot? I don't believe they are, but I guess I'll leave it to you to decide. P Aculeius (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't need to look at them, because it doesn't actually matter whether it's in the scene.Their reason for sending a probe down in absolutely important. That there was motion down there was a big reason... it was stressed in the dialog which you would know had you looked at the source I provided (which is still available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nNiUBVwF-o , 24:35 and 26:05). They devoted two separate takes to the issue. I actually came to this article for this very reason... I was researching Clarke's ideas on extrateresstrial life, and how he played with those ideas in his books, and I found this article had incorrect information about the very subject of the movie: extraterrestrial contact. The nature of those extraterrestrials is VERY important in a sci-fi novel, and the fact that they were moving on Europa was a big deal to the Roy Scheider character, it was a big deal to me, and it was a big deal to the screenwriter. Not to you, though. Marcus Markup (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

So you didn't read the part of my reply where I said I would leave it to you to decide whether the added words were necessary—if you had, you wouldn't still be arguing about it here, much less making half a dozen separate edits to say so. There wasn't "incorrect information about the subject of the movie". It simply mentioned that the detection of chlorophyll was the reason for sending a probe, rather than the fact that the whatever contained the chlorophyll also appeared to be moving toward the sun at the rate of one meter per minute. Which is what the dialogue says—nothing about "extraterrestrials", unless by that you mean "chlorophyll", which at best implies "plant matter growing at an improbable rate of speed". It's not called anything other than "chlorophyll" in the dialogue, and even later, when we see the camera footage just before the probe is destroyed, all we see is a blurry patch of green.

In the subsequent conversation about what happened, Dr. Floyd says, "something wants us to keep away from Europa." He doesn't say "you all saw the aliens moving around down there!" The discovery of chlorophyll on Europa is important because it implies the existence of life there. Floyd even describes it, after the probe's destruction, as "the possibility of life where it never existed before" (emphasis mine), without attempting to describe just what kind of life there might be, or mentioning any "extraterrestrials". Presumably if something inorganic—water, ice, lava, boulders—had been detected moving, it wouldn't have been very important. The detection of chlorophyll, moving or not, was a big deal. Is it worth noting that whatever contained the chlorophyll was detectably moving toward the sun? Perhaps. But that's less crucial than the fact that there was chlorophyll detected in the first place. P Aculeius (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I've now changed "organic molecules" to "chlorophyll" and added the words, "moving toward the sun at the rate of one meter per minute", which by my count means the plot summary is now at 694 words, out of a strictly policed 700. That doesn't really leave enough room to mention that the probe's cameras depicted a blurry patch of green just before it was destroyed; I suppose I could say that it "sees green", but that'd be noticeably sloppy writing. I also considered cutting the added words to "moving toward the sun" or "moving sunward", but either of those formulations (as well as "moving") would seem to require more information to explain what kind of motion is involved—and if I said "chlorophyll and movement" were detected, it might imply that something other than the chlorophyll-containing thing or things was moving, which is not what the dialogue says. Now the plot summary has inched closer to the limit at which any further additions or changes will require other parts to be cut or reworded—likely awkwardly, since it's already quite economical with words. So I sincerely hope that this wording is satisfactory. P Aculeius (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It's like pulling teeth to make even the slightest of improvements to this encyclopedia sometimes. It's wearisome. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

List of stars in infobox

Earlier today, another editor noticed that Douglas Rain, the actor who voiced HAL 9000 in both 2001 and 2010 was missing from the list of actors who started in 2010 in the infobox, and added him. Another editor then undid the edit, because Rain's name isn't on the original movie poster. Reviewing the edit and reversion, I restored it because HAL 9000 is one of the main characters, and Rain's role in the film is significant. The reverting editor claims that the documentation for Template:Infobox film precludes Rain's appearance in the list. The relevant language for the "starring" parameter is:

In general, use the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release as a rule of thumb for listing starring actors. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. An alternative approach may be determined by local consensus. Use either the {{plainlist}} or {{ubl}} template for multiple entries, and link each actor to their article if possible. Don't add additional text (such as "with" or "featuring") or punctuation to the list.

I don't read this as a rule forbidding the inclusion of the main actors in a film, simply because they're not listed in the fine print at the bottom of a poster. Besides the fact that the paragraph begins with "in general" and suggests alternative methods of determining who belongs, template documentation is not Wikipedia policy. As I noted multiple times, John Lithgow is included in the list as one of the main actors, and isn't listed on the movie poster; the editor in question doesn't seem to think this is a problem. In fact I think it would be hard to justify excluding him, as he appears in more scenes and has more lines than most of the others. I fail to see why Douglas Rain shouldn't be treated the same way, given that his role is crucial to the film.

2001 really had just three major characters, and Rain portrayed one of them—arguably one of the two most important. The return of Rain, along with his co-star, Keir Dullea, for 2010 was important to the film, and both of their characters were essential to the plot. The movie poster only lists four actors, but there are six major characters, and I see no reason to exclude Lithgow and Rain. Nor does it make sense to include one, but not the other. Both are mentioned in the article's lead paragraph, and 2010 is mentioned in the lead paragraph of the article on Douglas Rain. Excluding Rain, but not Lithgow, from the infobox solely because his name does not appear on the movie poster is arbitrary and pointless. P Aculeius (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

As always, when it comes to questions re who should be in an infobox and who should not be, I am happy for a concensus to be reached. For clarity, the edit that I reverted was made in April 2023 and not yesterday. Quentin X (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced content in lead

P Aculeius, please stop restoring unsourced content to the lead as you have now done three times without any attempt at a talk page discussion [3]. You need to gain consensus to include this disputed material as required by the policy WP:ONUS. – notwally (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The content is obviously sourced, since the section to which it refers cites numerous sources that support it. This is the article lead and it is supposed to summarize what the article says! Please stop citing policies that you clearly do not understand, as you have already done here and multiple times on my talk page, along with that absurd 3RR warning that, as someone engaged in an edit war, you are not entitled to hand out to your opponents in order to intimidate them. You could have brought this issue here when you found out that your edits were controversial, and discussed it before restoring your preferred text for the fourth time today, but you chose not to. You could have dealt with the specific facts instead of just posting links to policies that do not concern this issue. Since you're just carrying on this war across multiple fronts, I must conclude that you have no interest in resolving it—you're just bludgeoning your way to victory. P Aculeius (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

There are individual reviews cited in the article body. You cannot take those individual reviews and summarize them as representing all reviews generally. That is WP:SYNTH. The only standard you are using is the reviews you decided to include because you think they represent the overall consensus. That is more WP:OR. You have to find sources that directly and explicitly summarize the overall critical consensus. The MOS guideline for WP:FILMLEADs also directly says this: "Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources" (emphasis added). There have been multiple discussions by editors reaching this same conclusion, which is why that language is in the MOS. If you do not agree with the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, then you should open discussions to change those. I look forward to you finding actual sources supporting your views so that they can be discussed here and a consensus can be formed. – notwally (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Æ's old account wasn't working, the issue raised by notwally is that the claim in the lead that the reviews were "generally positive" requires a source in the lead, even though the majority of critics cited in the body gave generally positive reviews, and the film has positive scores from the two review aggregators cited, is synthesis, and thus original research.

I happen to think that his interpretation is forced and wrong, but instead of bringing the topic here for discussion as soon as it became clear that we disagreed, he reverted up to the three-revert limit and then began posting on my talk page, warning me that I was about to be punished for edit warring as though I had broken a rule, and he were entitled to sanction me. If you do the same, expect the same treatment. Can you find a reliable source—not one that's based on this article, obviously—that says "the reviews were generally positive"? At least, the lead ought not to give the impression that the reviews were generally negative, as it did when he restored the previous text for the fourth time. P Aculeius (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:FILMCRITICS, we cannot look at individual reviews and claim an overall consensus from that. (An editor could easily cherry-pick individual reviews in their favor and make a claim one way or another.) That would be WP:SYNTH. Rotten Tomatoes's percent is not reliable for writing out an overall critical reception since it only ever marks a review as positive or negative. The average review score it reports, 5.8 out of 10, is closer to reflecting the consensus. Metacritic also shows more mixed reviews for the film than positive or negative. We can look at books too to see how they report the overall critical reception. But we can't use individual review to make broader claims. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I've attempted a more neutral phrasing than either of the two alternatives. This ought to avoid the issues involving alleged original research or synthesis. P Aculeius (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

A claim in the lead of "some critics praising the story and special effects, and others regarding it as dull and uninspired compared to its predecessor" needs to be directly supported by cited sources, rather than based on individual editors' interpretation of the reviews included in the body. If there aren't sources that directly comment on aspects of the film that were praised or criticized by critics generally (as opposed to individual reviews), then that type of content should be left out of the lead. – notwally (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

You have now restored your preferred text five separate times, in spite of strong objections from other editors, and have made no attempt to achieve compromise or consensus in favour of any alternative. The text you replaced this time is neutral and says nothing more than what the sources cited in the body of the article say: some critics say A, others B. You do not need a source to say that other sources say what they explicitly say, and are quoted saying. I strongly advise against continuing to revert to your preferred version without establishing consensus for doing so. P Aculeius (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want to remove the critical reception summary from the lead entirely, then feel free to do so. But you need to stop restoring your WP:OR to the lead. Erik has also explained the MOS to you above, but you apparently want to ignore both me and him. As the MOS explicitly says, you do in fact need a source that explicitly summarizes the critical reception, rather than your personal interpretation of the sources you chose to include in the review section. The MOS says: "Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources". Please stop your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. – notwally (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You cannot logically make the argument that "some critics reviewed the film positively, and others negatively" is synthesis, when the body of the article cites positive and negative reviews. The text you have just replaced says nothing about an overall consensus. It literally reports what the sources say, without editorializing, or drawing any conclusions that are not in the sources. The current text, which you have now restored six times over the objections of other editors, is synthesis in the sense that it describes an overall view that is not cited to anything—and which is contradicted by the sources that are actually cited in the article. P Aculeius (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You can keep going with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT angle, but the MOS is clear, and Erik also explained it nicely. Also, please note that you are the only person who has reverted my edit (unlike yours), and the content that I retained from prior edits, that critics found the film inferior to the prior film, is directly supported by the RottenTomatoes critical consensus summary, which says the film "struggles to escape from the shadow of its monolithic predecessor". Which reviews dispute this and say that 2010 was superior to 2001? – notwally (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure where you keep getting these arguments from. Nothing I've written has ever claimed that any reviewer declared the film superior to its predecessor. However, you're reading a lot into your quotation—"struggles to escape from the shadow of its monolithic predecessor" does not mean that the critics "found it inferior to its predecessor". Instead, we have quotes such as, "a good-looking, sharp-edged, entertaining, exciting space opera", "a tense space drama with excellent performances from Helen Mirren and John Lithgow, and glorious special effects", "a worthwhile effort", "a better film than anyone could have dared to expect", and "space fiction of a superior kind". But somehow, the article lead blithely summarizes the critical opinions as that they "found it inferior to its predecessor".

If you read Erik's comment, it says, "we cannot look at individual reviews and claim an overall consensus from that." That accurately describes what the article's current text—which you keep restoring—does, not "some critics reviewed the film positively, and others negatively", which is not a claim of overall consensus. You are also incorrect about me being the only person to revert your edit—unless you only count edits that are tagged as "reversions", ignoring the fact that "AE's old account wasn't working" attempted to describe the critical response twice—once after you had reverted my previous text.

Erik also says that Rotten Tomatoes is not a good source for overall reception—but apparently Metacritic is, because it's more negative—yet you seem to be fine with citing Rotten Tomatoes for something that it doesn't even say! So there's a lot of cherry tomato picking going on here: how reliable a source is depends on its opinion; synthesis is fine when it says what you want it to; an accurate and neutrally-worded description of individually-cited contents is synthesis when you don't like it, but actual synthesis is not; other editors' views are important when they support your position about different text than that currently under discussion, but their views can be ignored when they conflict with your argument; other editors are edit warring, tendentious, and pretending not to understand you, but you're not edit warring, tendentious, or ignoring them.

Since you own this article, I will go find some other hill to die on. P Aculeius (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You can make up whatever falsehoods and bad faith arguments you want. That doesn't change what the MOS says or what the sources say. – notwally (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ironically, that contested sentence in the lead is unsourced. I feel like this dispute has become a paradox. All three of us demand different wording of the sentence. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

What bothers me is that it's apparently not synthesis to say that critics disliked the film or why, but it is synthesis to say that any critics liked it—even though the body of the article quotes a number of major critics who gave positive reviews. Unfortunately, that's what the article's owner wants it to say, having reverted any attempt to fix the lead seven times now. P Aculeius (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)