# "So what really happened to those "2001" FX miniatures...



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

This is a bit on the verbose side, but I thought it might be of interest to "2001" fans.

The following was posted on another site by a friend and fellow "2001" nut who works in the FX industry. Recently, he had a chance to speak with "2001" expert David Larson, author of an upcoming book on the making of the film. Larson has spent several years researching the subject, and has been granted unprecedented access to "2001"-related materials by the Kubrick family.

Here, in a nutshell, is the story of what happened to the FX miniatures used in the film... 

_As with just about anything to do with the making of 2001, the fate of all the models is complicated and the stories that have endured are almost an urban legend.

It's true that Kubrick was a fanatic about security and the releasing of imagery. In eight years of research, Dave Larson has come across only Polaroid exposure shots of the large discovery being filmed...no color transparencies at all. I think we've been spoiled by the photo coverage from ILM/Apogee/BOSS over the years. They had the benefit of a staff photographer whose job it was to cover the making of stuff. People just didn't think that way in the pre-2001 days, so there wasn't a dedicated photographer during the VFX filming. And stuff was still shot on film back then, so you weren't likely to shoot several hundred photos of the model under construction (God, how I wish they did). And Kubrick would likely have disapproved. That, I think, kinda explains the dearth of photos.

As for the sets - the British had a common practice of stripping down any useful parts and reusing them as stock set pieces and then burning the rest on the backlot to get rid of them. For 2001, about the only thing I can think of as being useful for a stock set would be the hotel at the end of the picture. As it is, I'm willing to bet a lot of the furniture from that set was from a rental house. The paintings and urns and lights and vases and table and bed are all fairly common items. (Wouldn't be surprised if they are still there.) All the Space Station, spaceship interiors, and Discovery sets were so highly stylized that doubt they were even considered for stock sets. Even if Stanley hadn't been that secretive, I doubt they would have survived.

Now here's where it gets tricky - during the production of the movie, Stanley Kubrick agreed to *sell* many of the props, costumes, artwork, miniatures, and even some set pieces to a group of people that were trying to establish an International Space Museum & Gallery in Washington, DC. The idea was that these artifacts would form the cornerstone of the museum and would eventually include 'real' artifacts that had flown in space. (At the time, there was no dedicated gallery at the Smithsonian for these types of artifacts. Any/all aviation and space related items were displayed in the main Smithsonian Castle building till the new Air & Space building was constructed around 1976.) Supposedly, Chesley Bonestell had donated some of his artwork for the facility as well. A lot of the costumes and almost all of the models were tagged for this exhibit and were crated up and stored till the movie was finished. A lot of the models were only shot with a large format still camera and those photos were actually what we see on the screen. (All of the weapons satellites, good portions of the Moonbus, Aries, and Orion footage were all shot as stills, retouched, and then rephotographed.) In a way those photos were more valuable to the production than the actual models, and thankfully, a lot of those large format photos have survived. Most of those models would have been boxed up in the summer of 1967.

Kubrick insisted that the items sold to the museum would not be used in other films, as the props from *Forbidden Planet* had been reused over the years (*Invisible Boy*, episodes of *Twilight Zone*, etc). And they agreed to this stipulation. In addition, there were to be many tie-ins with other companies that had supplied information on their plans for the future. All of those were to feature some of the props from 2001 as part of a marketing strategy.

So what happened?

Well, first off, a lot of the companies that agreed to to provide technical and design support to the movie loaned out personnel, but were unable to manufacture anything fast enough to satisfy a movie schedule (even one as glacial as 2001). American Express made a credit card (ultimately unseen), and Honeywell company made a snazzy briefcase, but that was about it. Most of the other futuristic props that are in the film were designed and built at the studio. There were a lot of logos used (IBM, Howard Johnson's, Hilton, Pan Am, Aeroflot), but not a whole lot of actual products. That kinda killed the tie-in deals.

Not helping any was the fact that the movie took something like four years to make. This deal was negotiated fairly early on, and perhaps Stanley just got weary of the idea of a museum by the end of the production. The marketing people and the critics didn't really know what to make of the film and this would just add to the "what the heck are we going to do with this thing" feeling that everyone had once the film was finally seen.

Probably the biggest factor was Stanley just wanting to preserve the mystery of how they pulled it off. I think this quote from Kubrick sums it up - "How could we possibly appreciate the Mona Lisa if Leonardo (Davinci) had written at the bottom of the canvas: 'The lady is smiling because she's hiding a secret from her lover.' This would shackle the viewer to reality, and I don't want this to happen to 2001." That and the not wanting it to appear in another movie (Once out of England and his control, anything could have happened to that stuff.) Whatever the reason, Kubrick reneged on the agreement to send the stuff to Washington, DC. This was some time in late 1967, before the first screenings and just as the stuff should have been shipped to the US from the UK. The museum people were justifiably upset. MGM just kinda went along for the ride. Like any good Hollywood tale, this one wound up in a lawsuit with both MGM and Kubrick being sued for a good sum by the museum people. The suit wound its way through depositions and the like for a number of years. Meanwhile, all this stuff is still in storage over at MGM in London. Finally, when it was realized that they would probably be found liable for breach of contract, Stanley and MGM settled up with the museum people.......in 1974. (The damage was done, however, and the International Space Museum & Gallery never opened.)

The six years in between the release of 2001 and the end of the lawsuit were not good ones for MGM. They were facing a lot of financial difficulties here in the states, and the UK studio operation wasn't in particularly good shape either. In Los Angeles, MGM cleared out most of its prop and wardrobe collection in a series of auctions in the early 70's. After *Soylent Green* wrapped filming in 1972, a good portion of the backlot in Culver City was bulldozed and turned into housing. Since the models and props were part of a lawsuit, the items had to be kept secure. But once the lawsuit was over, Kubrick and MGM were free to do anything they wanted to do with the stuff. MGM had no real interest in keeping the stuff around. The crates took up a considerable amount of space in a facility that they were looking to liquidate. (MGM shipped over a couple of the helmets and some of the costumes, but that was about it.) Kubrick didn't specifically order the stuff's destruction, but didn't want to pay to have the stuff shipped to the states or to have it stored, either. It wasn't too long before the guy running the studio operations at MGM in the UK called up a hauling company and had it all sent away to the dump.

Here's where the tale gets downright bizarre - we've all seen the photos of the Space Station in the field. Apparently, the large Discovery and the full size Pods survived filming and were set up at a children's playground. This was all done on the quiet, without MGM's knowledge. Once they found out about it, they went ballistic and ordered the company to go and retrieve the stuff and made them sign a document saying the items had been destroyed. This was the equivalent of a racehorse being taken to a rendering plant. So, what the kids didn't manage to break off in the few days the stuff was outside was loaded up, shipped out to a dump, and likely burned. 

Rumors and anecdotal evidence suggest that the Moonbus miniature did survive. Depending on which version you hear, either Kubrick wound up with it or another crew member kept it. The sad footnote is that it finally met it's end at the hands of someone's kids and some fireworks. (Dave Larson heard that Kubrick had it. I heard the story about the other crew guy and his kids (for the life of me, I don't know where I heard it, but I thought the person telling me the story at the time to be credible, so I'm repeating it.)) When Dave Larson inventoried the stuff the Kubrick estate donated to the College of Communication, it wasn't amongst any of the inventories. None of the Kubrick family members Dave met with have mentioned it. Likely, it is gone.

I think that because of our fondness of the movie and our desire to see how it was done, as well as the stories we've heard, we all have this idea in our heads of some crazy madman running around the set screaming, "Burn it. Burn it all!" But I don't think that's the case...the reality turned out to be more subtle. It think there was an unfortunate set of circumstances colliding with a very private and secretive man that occurred in an era where these kinds of items just were not valued as much as they are today.

I have to say one other thing - Dave Larson has researched this and passed along this information to me over a series of long chats we've had over the years. I can take no credit for any of the information here. He has really done his homework, and quite frankly, is 'da man' when it comes to 2001._


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I guess we can all develop a greater appreciation for 2010, then.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

Very interesting. Thanks.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Interesting interview, I look forward to Larson's book!


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

It's true that photos of model construction are pretty thin on the ground, but there _are_ some here and there. In Jerome Agel's 1970 book 'the Making of Kubrick's 2001', there's a nice photo of Stanley and Con Pederson holding two different-scaled Discovery antennae up for inspection, with the moonbus on a bench behind them. Also, photos of the lunar landscape table set-up and Trumbull painting the moonbase onto a photo blow-up. Bizony's book '2001, Filming the Future' has two spectacularly fine photos of the large Discovery command module sitting in a foam-padded cradle awaiting final touches.


----------



## maucutt (May 22, 2008)

*2001 FX models*

I will try to find it but I discovered a photo of the 2001 space station rotting
in a field. The person who took the photo, car was too small to take it away.
When he returned it was busted up by local kids.
Very sad indeed


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Yeah, it's not that "2001" photos don't exist; it's that they're relatively rare -- at least by the standards of the miniature work recorded by ILM, Hartland, Boss, and the like.

I've seen some of the stuff Larson has dug up, and it's pretty amazing.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

maucutt said:


> I will try to find it but I discovered a photo of the 2001 space station rotting in a field.


Yeah, that particularly gut-wrenching image is floating around the internet. 

Oh, the humanity. 

Speaking of interesting "2001" shots...










Dig the centerfold on the corkboard, the open box of Airfix kits on the counter, and the guy with the glasses, who bares an eerie resemblance to Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gordon.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

As for filming technique, the models were, indeed, shot with still cameras, and the still photos given "life" on an animation stand. Brian Johnson used this technique on "Space: 1999", mostly on far shots of the Eagles, but you can see this was done heavily in the "War Games" episode with the Mk. IX Hawks.

I recall that one effects technician named Zoran Perisic didn't like how the miniatures looked when 2001 was finished, and, after working on the film, he decided to create a new system for filming miniatures. He finally perfected his system, but the first practical use of it was not with miniatures, but with an actor in a flying rig.

His system was called "Zoptic," and the film was "Superman The Movie." He won an Oscar for his Zoptic system.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> Yeah, that particularly gut-wrenching image is floating around the internet.
> 
> Oh, the humanity.
> 
> ...


And I'll bet that at least one, if not two, of those guys worked for Gerry Anderson at some point in his career.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

I love the smell of methylene chloride in the morning!


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I think we all felt the same wave of nausea when we read that sentence about the pods and Discovery winding up in a children's playground, didn't we?

The size of that model is amazing--I know it was sixty feet but seeing the engine section's true size is staggering. I wonder if the whole thing was built to this scale just to accommodate the pod mechanisms and back projection devices that had to be in the command section? I think any other filmmaker would have just composited the sphere over the rest of the ship in the pod shots if it needed to be built at that scale. I can't imagine the work needed to get that entire miniature's image in the camera on a soundstage...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

jbond said:


> I can't imagine the work needed to get that entire miniature's image in the camera on a soundstage...


There was an even larger section of the command module built for close-up shots.

When your hear Trumbull bitch about how the STTMP Enterprise miniature was way too small, this gives you some idea as to his frame of reference.


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

Carson- PM just sent. Thanks for the terrific picture and story....
Gary:thumbsup:


----------



## Elvis Gump (May 24, 2008)

seaQuest said:


> As for filming technique, the models were, indeed, shot with still cameras, and the still photos given "life" on an animation stand. Brian Johnson used this technique on "Space: 1999", mostly on far shots of the Eagles, but you can see this was done heavily in the "War Games" episode with the Mk. IX Hawks.
> 
> I recall that one effects technician named Zoran Perisic didn't like how the miniatures looked when 2001 was finished, and, after working on the film, he decided to create a new system for filming miniatures. He finally perfected his system, but the first practical use of it was not with miniatures, but with an actor in a flying rig.
> 
> His system was called "Zoptic," and the film was "Superman The Movie." He won an Oscar for his Zoptic system.


Would that be the rig that Reeve does the shot where he 'flies' for the first time in the Fortress of Solitude and does the little banking move as he goes by the camera. IIRC, the commentary said that was also the first shot of Reeve 'flying' that was filmed.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Elvis Gump said:


> Would that be the rig that Reeve does the shot where he 'flies' for the first time in the Fortress of Solitude and does the little banking move as he goes by the camera. IIRC, the commentary said that was also the first shot of Reeve 'flying' that was filmed.


No, no, no, no!

Anytime you see Christopher Reeve "flying" in front of a rear-projected background, that was Zoptic. IIRC, it was a system of zooming and panning the camera on an object in front of rear-projected elements. The Salkinds went to this method when blue-screen mattes weren't working.

The shot you're thinking of was Reeve on wires on the set, "live."


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

For those who have never witnessed the carnage, look on... if you dare...


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Thanks, Carson.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Thats like 2001 meets Cloverfield


----------



## Elvis Gump (May 24, 2008)

seaQuest said:


> As for filming technique, the models were, indeed, shot with still cameras, and the still photos given "life" on an animation stand. Brian Johnson used this technique on "Space: 1999", mostly on far shots of the Eagles, but you can see this was done heavily in the "War Games" episode with the Mk. IX Hawks.
> 
> I recall that one effects technician named Zoran Perisic didn't like how the miniatures looked when 2001 was finished, and, after working on the film, he decided to create a new system for filming miniatures. He finally perfected his system, but the first practical use of it was not with miniatures, but with an actor in a flying rig.
> 
> His system was called "Zoptic," and the film was "Superman The Movie." He won an Oscar for his Zoptic system.





seaQuest said:


> No, no, no, no!
> 
> Anytime you see Christopher Reeve "flying" in front of a rear-projected background, that was Zoptic. IIRC, it was a system of zooming and panning the camera on an object in front of rear-projected elements. The Salkinds went to this method when blue-screen mattes weren't working.
> 
> The shot you're thinking of was Reeve on wires on the set, "live."


It's been a long time since I watched the original, but my memory was that some of the rear projection shots seemed to be timed so that there were zooms or pans in the footage they would duplicate on Reeve to have him bank out of frame. 

I would think that some of that rigging would be the same thing used to make him fly and bank 'live' which I would guess were some sort of carriage like thing on a track they could puppet the wires on him to go up differently on each side of a two wire hip mounted harness. 

I don't know if they did anything with him like the shots they showed in the "Superman Returns thing where the new guy had additional wires on his arms and legs to help him with fatigue. I would guess it wasn't the case with Reeve what with wire removal being a problem back in the old days. I always assumed he was on a two wire hip mount, more or less the same thing 'magicians' like David Copperfield also does his flying illusion with.l


----------



## Kubrick-Legacy (May 31, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> For those who have never witnessed the carnage, look on... if you dare...


Thanks for relaying here the information your friend gleaned from David Larson. By coincidence, this very topic has been recently discussed once again at the long-running Usenet newsgroup, alt.movies.kubrick (whose related website, The Kubrick Site, is the source of the above photographs from 1974), which includes a link to this thread. These two threads, for instance:

Complicated fate of 2001's miniatures

and

2001 in 2008: Academy Screening with Douglas Trumbull and Tom Hanks

A few selections:

The original text by the photographer who captured the above images:


_Trevor Parsons writes: 


I was at college in Stevenage (about 15 miles away from St Albans in 
the early 1970's). Our studio, we were studying graphic art, faced the 
entrance to the local corporation dump. One afternoon in 1974 a truck 
turned up after the dump was closed & left some crates in the entrance 
way. They contained 2 of the models used in 2001, the space wheel & 
one of the pods. Of course they may not have been the only ones but I 
believe they were genuine (the film had been made about 20 miles away 
at Boreham Wood the old MGM studios). By the time I got there the pod 
had been taken, the space wheel damaged & taken out its wooden case. I 
took pictures of it, its surface had been covered with bits of old 
plastic construction kits to make it look more technical when filmed. 
I desperately wanted to take it home, but I only had a motor bike & a 
room 8 feet by 10 so it was not really workable. It was smashed up by 
kids a few days later. " 

Qbrick15 writes; 

Frederick Ordway (technical/scientific advisor to Kubrick) said that 
almost all of the props were destroyed. He said that, at one time, 
there was a plan to donate all of it to the Smithsonian, but that 
Stanley felt uncomfortable about it because he felt that it may 
destroy the illusion of the film for people. 


Then Ordway said that a high school (Borehamwood?) was supposed to get 
all of the artifacts from the film. This never happened and the school 
was upset about it. Ordway said that he believes almost all of the 
artifacts have been destroyed and he hinted that they were destroyed 
when MGM closed their Borehamwood facility in the 1970's. _

Source: http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/index4.html 
------------------------------------------------------------

Another interesting possibility is the location of the 'children's playground', which could actually have been the backlot of one of the Shepperton film studios (now part of the Pinewood Group, which now owns the largest suite of studio complexes in Europe) where the first set-ups of 2001, the lunar TMA-1 scenes, were filmed at the end of 1965). Photos here, with playground visible to the left.




























Some commentary on the Shepperton studio:

_> We saw the TMA-1 set under construction. It was the first sequence 
> shot, and it was done at Shepperton Studios, with the rest at MGM's 
> Borehamwood studios later on. Hanks thought at first the whole movie 
> had been shot at Shepperton, and said to his dismay when he first saw 
> the studio it looked like a gasworks, overgrown with grass and weeds. 
> But it was the wrong place. The set was not a hole dug into the 
> studio, but made to look like it, with fiberglass sheets put up to 
> suggest a excavation site. The ramp went 35 feet up, almost to the 
> stage's ceiling. Soft lights provided overhead ... _


Finally, responding to the post that started this thread:

_ [The post]also reveals how much of the fascination with hunting down 2001 model paraphernalia derives from people working within the fx and model-making and animation film sectors, and not just, in other words, possessive fast-buck memorabilia hunters. 

Of course, the report does not present anything new (at least not for anyone 
who is familiar with the AMK archive, where the lawsuit referred to was 
previously reported and discussed), and as we know Kubrick WANTED all the 
models 'put down' as a conscious and deliberate strategy to enhance the 
movie's status as a 'mythological documentary'. Of course, OBVIOUSLY, if 
Kubrick had realised way back in the 1960s (when the film memorabilia 
industry hardly even existed) that such film artefacts would each decades 
later be worth an absolute fortune do you really think he would have 
destroyed them? Certainly not - he would have simply bought another 'porta 
cabin', plonked it in his back garden along with his other ones, and placed 
them all inside, just as he held onto the vast quantity of material that now 
constitutes the Kubrick Archive. 


[Kind of ironic that some people should criticise Kubrick (using all the 
usual cliches - mad, control-freak, bizarre, etc) for not holding on to some 
artefacts from 2001, a film-maker who in fact held on, indeed hoarded, more 
of his film-related material intact than perhaps any other film-maker in the 
entire history of cinema!!!] 


The interest in the fate of the space-related models reflects the 
professional and artistic interests of these FX people, of course, which is 
why I'm always puzzled and intrigued that when invariably all discussions of 
the fate of 2001's props arise, surprisingly, the fate of the Monolith prop, 
perhaps the most famous of all of 2001's 'props' and so of almost all movies 
(more famous even than the Rosebud sledge from Citizen Kane, for which 
Spielberg forked out over a hundred grand back in the 1980s), is rarely if 
ever mentioned. 


WHERE IS THE MONOLITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!  


Actually, three of these wooden blocks were built. Much like MacDonalds 
fries, a large, a medium and a small Monolith was constructed (Clarke had a 
replica of the 'medium' one made, which he then placed as a sculpture in his 
back garden [though not in a porta-cabin! but on his lawn, as many TV 
interviews with him confirmed, one such doc even having a little pet monkey 
climbing all over it]. 


Surely its fate (or rather, it's public/private status, as it still exists) 
trumps that of all the other props? [hint: the large one was kept by 
Kubrick, residing at Childwicksbury House, right up to his death, but was 
not donated to the Kubrick Archive at the University of the Arts in London]. _

One last snippit of info: The orbiting ferriswheel space station in 2001 was ultimately originally based on NASA's Wernher von Braun's original design first published in Collier's magazine in 1952 (image in link below), and which first appeared on screen in the 1955 SF film, Conquest of Space. It is believed that no actual model of his design was ever constructed, just the illustrations and matte work by seminal space artist Chesley Bonestell.

Third image down: http://home.flash.net/~aajiv/bd/colliers.html


----------



## CaliOkie (Dec 31, 2007)

The large Discovery model was particularly problematic to film in 65mm. Large film formats like that result in narrow depth of field -- that is, the area you can keep in focus is shallow. For example, if you focus the lens on something 10 feet away, anything closer than 9 feet or further than 12 feet will be soft focus (this is just an example, the exact range depends on F stop, lens size etc.)

They could not keep the whole model in focus, so they put the camera on railroad tracks with a heavy push car, and filmed the model in sections. They would cover the front 2/3 of the model with black velvet, make a pass on the film, then rewind the film,(Kubrick demanded "first generation" images whenever possible) cover the front 1/3 and rear 1/3 of the model and make another pass, and finally repeat the procedure with just the front 1/3 of the model exposed. With no motion control equipment available in those days, it was a "best guess" sort of affair to keep all the passes lined up and moving at the same speed. The slightest difference in the passes would result in overlap or black gaps between the various sections. In fact, if you look at some of those shots of Discovery coming toward the viewer, you can get a feel of a minute variation in movement speed between the forward "ball" and the long "neck" of the ship.

I'm guessing that they had to film such shots over and over to get a few that looked right -- I'm sure someone (probably Kubrick) sat through day after day of screenings of those shots to find the few that appear in the film. Now, that's dedication.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Kubrick-Legacy said:


> Thanks for relaying here the information your friend gleaned from David Larson.


You're welcome. Thanks for posting the related links. Great stuff.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

I'll add my thanks for all the great stuff posted here by Kubrick-Legacy and Carson Dyle.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Welcome to the boards GKvfx. :thumbsup:


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

CaliOkie said:


> The large Discovery model was particularly problematic to film in 65mm. Large film formats like that result in narrow depth of field -- that is, the area you can keep in focus is shallow. For example, if you focus the lens on something 10 feet away, anything closer than 9 feet or further than 12 feet will be soft focus (this is just an example, the exact range depends on F stop, lens size etc.)
> 
> They could not keep the whole model in focus, so they put the camera on railroad tracks with a heavy push car, and filmed the model in sections. They would cover the front 2/3 of the model with black velvet, make a pass on the film, then rewind the film,(Kubrick demanded "first generation" images whenever possible) cover the front 1/3 and rear 1/3 of the model and make another pass, and finally repeat the procedure with just the front 1/3 of the model exposed. With no motion control equipment available in those days, it was a "best guess" sort of affair to keep all the passes lined up and moving at the same speed. The slightest difference in the passes would result in overlap or black gaps between the various sections. In fact, if you look at some of those shots of Discovery coming toward the viewer, you can get a feel of a minute variation in movement speed between the forward "ball" and the long "neck" of the ship.
> 
> I'm guessing that they had to film such shots over and over to get a few that looked right -- I'm sure someone (probably Kubrick) sat through day after day of screenings of those shots to find the few that appear in the film. Now, that's dedication.


I believe Trumbull had to use a similar filming technique for the Amreican Airlines cargo ships in "Silent Running."


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

All this just shows how pitiful the new "special edition" of 2001 DVD really is. For years I always thought there was really nothing much left to show about the making of the film beyond Agel's book. Then came the Kubrick Archives and that was astounding..now I'm reading about what the LA screening revealed and I am both happy (to see more exists) and sad(can't wait for an ULTIMATE DVD and book) and that's a rare mixture of emotion. 
I do think 2001 on HD DVD is a relevation and a near -religious experience!! All of you who have only seen it on regular DVD are in for a surprise. Almost a whole new film!!! I went out and bought a HD player and big screen JUST because of the HD release of 2001. I wasn't disappointed.
When will the book be released and how can we get the ULTIMATE DVD version going?
Gary


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

It's a good thing I'm reading this at the public library, because if I was at home, seeing those pics of the space station rotting away, I think I'd be doing my best imitation of Charleton Heston at the end of "Planet of the Apes".


----------



## GKvfx (May 30, 2008)

The biggest problem with any book or "ultimate" DVD is the licensing nightmare that this film is caught up in. I don't think any can say for sure who owns what rights. A shell company of Kubrick's made it, MGM released it, Turner bought the rights to MGM's film library, Time Warner got a hold of that, etc........ And then there is the Kubrick estate, who has the right to review/approve all things relating to Kubrick's films (and presumably, carry out his wishes).

Warner Bros. has an archive of any pre-1968 film over at USC, butnaturally, this doesn't include anything that was part of MGM at the time. God knows where MGM's stuff is (I bought artwork from their archive at the old MGM casino in Las Vegas 15 years ago.)

About the only thing Warner's can do with the film is rent it out and the release it on DVD. Anything else - books, toys, etc, gets muddy.

Who knows when Dave's book will be ready, or if it will even be released. A good chunk of the imagery from Doug's presentation was just discovered this year when Dave went through the 120+ boxes of stuff that was donated to the College of Communication. I don't think there is a full accounting of everything in there yet. (And I should say that there is stuff in there from ALL his movies, not just *2001*.) As with any serious archive, there are use restrictions on anything obtained - that's another hurdle that needs to be overcome and will likely take a serious licensing effort.

Hopefully, the information gleaned thus far will come to light and we'll get a better picture on the making of the film.

Gene

PS - I'll add this - the fact that there is still stuff out there, info that we never knew, is just fascinating.


----------



## CaliOkie (Dec 31, 2007)

I would just like to add my thanks for this effort at documentation. As time goes by facts and artifacts tend to get lost and once these things are gone, they're gone. Preserving this material is a laudable effort and very much appreciated. I remember when this film came out (ooops, just dated myself) and the response of the public. Many of the critics may have talked it down, but what I remember is that it played in one of our local (single screen) wide screen theaters for about 3 years. (The next movie to play in that particular theater was The Godfather and it also ran about 3 years) People went to see this movie repeatedly. I saw it more times than I can remember. When Man finally landed on the moon, while it was very exciting, we were all a little disappointed in the live TV feed, having been spoiled by 2001.

I have to agree with the previous comment. It is fascinating that there is still some stuff out there we haven't seen. This really is documentation of an historical event. 

I applaud those who put so much effort into this.


----------



## Bay7 (Nov 8, 1999)

Its tragic when miniatures end up like the 2001 ones.

Could you just imagine the greebles that could have been salvaged off those ships????

Be like a dream come true for me!

Mike


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

CaliOkie said:


> I remember when this film came out (ooops, just dated myself) and the response of the public. Many of the critics may have talked it down, but what I remember is that it played in one of our local (single screen) wide screen theaters for about 3 years.


I've no idea how long you've lived in OK, but that's where I first saw "2001." 

I was six years old in 1968, and the movie screened at a large, modern, single-screen theater somewhere in Oklahoma City. Needless to say, it made a lasting impression.


----------



## Treadwell (Aug 22, 2002)

Many of you are probably aware of a 2001 pod present in Watto's junkyard in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace.

According to Roger Christian, who was a second unit director for the film and also worked in the art dept. in some capacity (as he did for ANH), he found that pod during his usual pre-production search of UK junk yards and "rubbish piles" to use as set dressing. It was his belief that it was original.

He told this story at a panel I attended during 2000's Dragon*Con convention in Atlanta. Make of it what you will!


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

And so we ask Mr. Christian: where is it now?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

If George Lucas has any brains left, it's back at Skywalker Ranch being restored.


----------



## Elvis Gump (May 24, 2008)

Treadwell said:


> Many of you are probably aware of a 2001 pod present in Watto's junkyard in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace.
> 
> According to Roger Christian, who was a second unit director for the film and also worked in the art dept. in some capacity (as he did for ANH), he found that pod during his usual pre-production search of UK junk yards and "rubbish piles" to use as set dressing. It was his belief that it was original.
> 
> He told this story at a panel I attended during 2000's Dragon*Con convention in Atlanta. Make of it what you will!


I was under the impression that most of the 'junk' in Watto's junkyard were CGI backgrounds, the pod being a CGI element.

If it was real, it would seem more likely it was left over from "2010" I would think. I think I read someplace that those were made out of styrofoam.


----------



## starmanmm (Mar 19, 2000)

This has been some interesting reading.

I was unaware the exent of this... with the blogs and all!

Keep the info coming!

Too bad I will not be attending WF, but the gas prices are keeping me closer to home.


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

Universal HD is running _2001: A Space Odyssey _againtonight (Sunday 6/1) at 8 pm and 11:30 pm.


----------



## miniature sun (May 1, 2005)

It seems to me that if Tom Hanks is such a big fan of the movie then maybe, with his connections, he's the guy that can get all this material released on DVD...anybody got his address?


----------



## GKvfx (May 30, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> .



Something struck me as odd about this photo and a few others of the 55' Discovery under construction that were in Doug Trumbull's recent presentation.

Note the windows in the background. They weren't building this on a stage (like I'm used to) - looks like the Art Dept or something.

How'd they get it *out* of the office when done? I hope they measured the width of the door well beforehand.

Gene


----------



## newbie dooby (Nov 1, 2006)

They probably just used the transporter


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

GKvfx said:


> How'd they get it *out* of the office when done?


Turn it sideways?


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

That thing has to weigh a ton!


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


> It's a good thing I'm reading this at the public library, because if I was at home, seeing those pics of the space station rotting away, I think I'd be doing my best imitation of Charleton Heston at the end of "Planet of the Apes".


Y'mean, "Damn you all to hell?"


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

^ Yup, along with the down on the knees and pounding the carpet.


----------



## Treadwell (Aug 22, 2002)

Elvis Gump said:


> I was under the impression that most of the 'junk' in Watto's junkyard were CGI backgrounds, the pod being a CGI element.
> 
> If it was real, it would seem more likely it was left over from "2010" I would think. I think I read someplace that those were made out of styrofoam.


Christian said he found it in the UK and 2010 was shot in California. Although stranger things have happened, granted.

Watto's junkyard was a set, not CG.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Christian's pulling someone's leg. That, or someone else has succeeded in pulling his. 

If the EVA Pod featured in Ep.1 was indeed a genuine artifact from Kubrick's film its veracity would long since since been authenticated by other more, ah, reliable sources. In case you haven't noticed there's a lot of interest in this sort of thing amongst hardcore sci-fi fans and Kubrick buffs. 

A find of such magnitude would've sent bigger shock waves.


----------



## Elvis Gump (May 24, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> Christian's pulling someone's leg. That, or someone else has succeeded in pulling his.
> 
> If the EVA Pod featured in Ep.1 was indeed a genuine artifact from Kubrick's film its veracity would long since since been authenticated by other more, ah, reliable sources. In case you haven't noticed there's a lot of interest in this sort of thing amongst hardcore sci-fi fans and Kubrick buffs.
> 
> A find of such magnitude would've sent bigger shock waves.


I think it was most likely a CGI element the guys as ILM put in to see if George would notice. He probably laughed and they left it in from there. I don't see George having the brains to think that one up on his own.

Especially after seeing the ending of the new Indy movie. Poor George. That was the turd he's been polishing for 18 years? I know he took some time out to think up all that snappy dialogue in the prequels, but flying saucers was the best thing they could come up with? And we all fell for it plunking down our price of admission. Will we ever learn? Will we?!?


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> Christian's pulling someone's leg. That, or someone else has succeeded in pulling his.
> 
> If the EVA Pod featured in Ep.1 was indeed a genuine artifact from Kubrick's film its veracity would long since since been authenticated by other more, ah, reliable sources. In case you haven't noticed there's a lot of interest in this sort of thing amongst hardcore sci-fi fans and Kubrick buffs.
> 
> A find of such magnitude would've sent bigger shock waves.


While I agree with you that I doubt that was a "real" pod, the _Blade Runner_ "hero" pistol sure shows us amazing props can turn up on occasion suddenly with surprisingly little fanfare.



> Christian said he found it in the UK and 2010 was shot in California. Although stranger things have happened, granted.


Only problem with that theory is there wasn't a "classic" pod in _2010_ if I recall correctly. All three were lost in the events of _2001_.


----------



## spacecraft guy (Aug 16, 2003)

I remember that the Tech Museum in San Jose had a 2001 Exhibition just a few years ago, there was a picture in the SF Chronicle of 2 Museum folks, one with an original HAL eye faceplate and another with the door key to get into the HAL brain room. 

I remember the article saying that 2001 stuff was according to them "coming out of the woodwork."


----------



## spacecraft guy (Aug 16, 2003)

Make that 7 years ago...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...D181599.DTL&hw=2001+tech+museum&sn=004&sc=759


----------



## ukwookie (Aug 25, 2004)

I remember seeing a pic of "Watto's Pod" on one of the official Star Wars sites not long after The Phantom Menace came out (I thought I had it in my archives but so far I haven't been able to find it )

The pic was a 3/4 front view and was shot inside a building i.e. not on set and it was immediately obvious that it wasn't an original prop - much of the detail, particularly on the inset area below the window was either simplified (ie inaccurate) or simply not present at all. If anything it resembled the 2010 pod but without seeing the pic again I couldn't be sure... certainly if it was an original 2001 prop it must have been heavily rebuilt. It was also heavily weathered.

The text accompanying the picture stated that it was George Lucas' personal replica which he had shipped across from the States for filming, and that it would be repainted back to pristine condition before being returned to Skywalker Ranch.

I wish I could find that picture! 

Tony


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

There was at least one pod in the pod bay set built for "2010". It was indeed made of styrofoam and looked horrible in real life (not too bad on screen however). That "Pod" was part of the pre-release promotional material displayed at the LA "World Con" in '84. Unfortunately they had a "no photography" policy which was being strictly enforced.

Phil


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

X15-A2 said:


> There was at least one pod in the pod bay set built for "2010". It was indeed made of styrofoam and looked horrible in real life (not too bad on screen however). That "Pod" was part of the pre-release promotional material displayed at the LA "World Con" in '84. Unfortunately they had a "no photography" policy which was being strictly enforced.
> 
> Phil


That may be, but the math doesn't work. There were three pods. We see Poole's pod float away, as did the one Bowman blew himself out of. If Bowman entered the Stargate in the last one, there shouldn't have been any pods left onboard.

Maybe the ET's returned one!


----------



## ukwookie (Aug 25, 2004)

In the novel _2010_, Clarke explained that Bowman retrieved his pod using remote control once HAL had been neutralised (Clarke obviously wanted to have a pod left in the Discovery, and he had Curnow replace the missing hatch from stores later). 

There's still a problem though - Bowman leaves Discovery for the last time via the central airlock door. The last unused pod should have been behind the _rightmost_ door viewed from the front... so either Bowman was using the retrieved pod (contradicted by Clarke in 2010) or Bowman wasted time, oxygen and propellant rearranging the two remaining pods in the hangar. 

And that *still *doesn't explain how the last pod in the movie _2010 _was located in the wrong bay!

Tony


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Elvis Gump said:


> Especially after seeing the ending of the new Indy movie.


Thanks for the spoiler! I haven't seen it yet. 

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> While I agree with you that I doubt that was a "real" pod, the _Blade Runner_ "hero" pistol sure shows us amazing props can turn up on occasion suddenly with surprisingly little fanfare.


You would describe the fanfare which greeted the discovery of the BR hero pistol as being "surprisingly little?" :freak: Guess you're not on Richard Coyle's mailing list. 

From what I can tell, Richard personally notified every breathing mammal on earth -- at least twice. In addition, news of the BR gun's unearthing made its way to the pages of the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and God only knows how many geek sites -- all of this happening at roughly the speed of light. 

Suffice it to say if that prop had turned out to be a non-screen used replica we would have heard about it _rea_l fast.


----------



## Elvis Gump (May 24, 2008)

sbaxter said:


> Thanks for the spoiler! I haven't seen it yet.
> 
> Qapla'
> 
> SSB


Sorry, but if you cared why have you waited so long? Trust me when I tell you it's a piece of ---. Ford looks tired, old and uninterested in being in the film. And it's a bigger WTF than "Temple of Doom". IMHO.


----------



## Elvis Gump (May 24, 2008)

ukwookie said:


> In the novel _2010_, Clarke explained that Bowman retrieved his pod using remote control once HAL had been neutralised (Clarke obviously wanted to have a pod left in the Discovery, and he had Curnow replace the missing hatch from stores later).
> 
> There's still a problem though - Bowman leaves Discovery for the last time via the central airlock door. The last unused pod should have been behind the _rightmost_ door viewed from the front... so either Bowman was using the retrieved pod (contradicted by Clarke in 2010) or Bowman wasted time, oxygen and propellant rearranging the two remaining pods in the hangar.
> 
> ...


I never thought much about it myself, but wasn't the 'remaining' pod in the center bay in "2010"? I would guess wherever it was placed probably had something to do with where it would be mounted when the set was bay doors down when the two actors enter the spinning Discovery. It would make sense to mount it to the floor which would be in the vertical and hide maybe a couple of apple boxes between the bay door and the pod for support.

It's been a long time since I looked at it and I have no idea how that pod bay set was set up so it could be tipped on it's side for the spacewalk scene and then tipped down for the rest of the shoot or maybe they tore it all apart between the different setups and rebuilt it. But how it was set up for the spacewalk part would seem to matter as to where they placed the center pod for practical reasons.

Most people wouldn't even think about it or remember the pod count from a then 16 year old movie and it looked better for there to be one pod left too.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Guys, if you'd like to debate the merits of Indy IV, or the intellectual capacity of George Lucas, kindly take it over to the Movie forum.

Further comments relevant to "2001" and/ or Stanley Kubrick are, of course, more than welcome.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

My comment about the pod in 2010 was meant to confirm that it existed, not to explain the internal illogic of the film (Which I thought was horrible. However, I did watch it again after the recent "2001" production retrospective at the Academy). Opinion unchanged.

Phil


----------



## ukwookie (Aug 25, 2004)

Unfortunately, *any *rewatching of _2010 _ tends to throw up lots of questions - principally, _why was Hyams allowed to get away with it?_ 

When the film was in production I was eagerly looking forward to seeing new angles and views of the Discovery (both model and sets) and Pod. Unfortunately they were horribly inaccurate in almost every aspect... one of the great missed opportunities in modern cinema IMO.

Tony


----------



## Tony Hardy (Oct 23, 2002)

*Watto's Pod*

Okay, here's the real dope on the Pod seen in Watto's junkyard in Phantom Menace. It was a replica Pod (not original). George thought it would be a good in-joke. The Pod apparently still exists in an off-site (not at Skywalker Ranch) storage facility. However, many large set pieces at the storage facility have been destroyed over the past couple of years, but it looks like the Pod still exists. 

The above info comes from someone who was on-set and had kept tabs on this prop after production wrapped.

I've attached a pic of another replica Pod that was taken a couple of years ago at an L.A. based effects facility. This prop was offered for display at Wonderfest, but unfortunately it was just too expensive to ship cross country. Unless of course, some Sugar Daddy on this board wants to sponsor the booku bucks it will take to get it to Louisville!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

That's great info, and a terrific shot to boot. Thanks for posting, Tony.

Yeah, I traded emails with Lee Staton re: the feasibility (or lack thereof) of transporting that Pod to Louisville. Given the looming airfare crisis we Angelenos are lucky if we can afford to ship ourselves to Louisville. I can only imagine what it would cost the schlep a full-scale pod halfway across the country.

I wonder if you could fill us in on the background of the Lucas Pod, as well as the one found in the above image (that's Greg N's, isn't it?). 

This thread has attracted an interesting cross-section of "2001" fans (a dwindling breed, it seems), and I for one would love to hear the scoop on why/ how the replicas in question came into being.



Tony Hardy said:


> George thought it would be a good in-joke.


Every now and then George gets one right.


----------



## ProfKSergeev (Aug 29, 2003)

X-15A2 and ukwookie, while I agree that the continuity errors and slips in logic in 2010 are numerous, I still find it an entertaining hard sci-fi movie on its own merits. Frankly, an allegorical film like 2001 does not need or ask for a sequel; any attempt to answer the questions of Kubrick and Clarke's masterpiece (literally or otherwise) is unnecessary. To paraphrase Kubrick himself, did Da Vinci paint a "follow-up" to the Mona Lisa to explain her smile?

Even so, one should not blame Hyams. He does his best with the materials, giving us occasional moments of sublime beauty. (The extreme long shots of the Leonov shooting across Jupiter's atmosphere rank as one of the great examples of practical effects, in my mind.)

At the very least, one must admit that Hyams had the good sense not to try to replicate 2001 and its mood - something that would have produced an even worse failure. Hyams was a respectful craftsman (he phoned Kubrick for _permission_ to direct 2010) who took the same thematic motifs and produced a work on his own terms.


----------



## ukwookie (Aug 25, 2004)

Tony, we need more shots of that pod! And more details too, if you have any 

ProfKSergeev, I have no issues with the existence of 2010 the movie... after all I enjoyed the book, and like to dip into the movie from time to time. And as you say it contains some remarkable images. 

It just seems a huge missed opportunity - both in terms of creative choices (the clunky US spacesuits were supposed to be more advanced than the beautiful 2001 designs?) and production shortcuts (the badly-researched Discovery models and interior sets). 

From a personal perspective, I think if Hyams had put just a bit more effort into accurately reproducing the elements remainig from 2001 then I would have been a lot more appreciative of the movie as a whole.

After all, just look at the marvellous reproductions of the 2001 craft that have been made by some extremely talented amateurs and semi-pros in the last few years. Granted, they may not have had to work to movie timescales, but neither did they have the resources of a major movie studio behind them 

Apologies for straying off-topic on this one folks...! To drag us back on topic, the site that contains those sad photos of the space station says that one of the pod models (miniature or full-size??) was also dumped at the same time but went missing fairly quickly. I wonder if it survived?

Tony


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

Carson Dyle said:


> ..."2001" fans (a dwindling breed, it seems)


This might cheer you. I recently showed the film to my girlfriend, who'd never seen it before. She's highly intelligent and likes SF, so I knew I would experience the joy of bestowing on her a rare and beautiful experience (oh, yeah, 'course I do this in other ways on a regular basis, heh, heh...). It didn't fail. She described it as an _event_, a life event, just like you read people saying in that old Agel book. The next night we didn't watch anything, and instead continued discussing '2001' for hours more. And again the next night. We've watched hundreds of film classics, but none of them touched that atavistic something in our souls like this masterpiece can...


----------



## Tony Hardy (Oct 23, 2002)

*Pod Replicas*

Yes, the replica Pod (pic attached in my previous post) was built by effects supervisor Greg Nicotero, and it resides in his personal collection. There is not an interior. Like I said, the pic was taken a couple of years ago while it was under construction at KNBEFX. KNB is a big shop, so Greg just had it against the wall with a plastic tarp over it. He told me about people like Quentin Tarantino or Frank Darabont visiting, and then flipping out when they recognized the Pod underneath the tarp. Greg said everyone immediatley knew what it was, even with the tarp over it.

Greg was very nice in offering the Pod for display at this year's Wonderfest. He's been a big supporter, fan, and friend of the show for years. I just wish we had been able to take him up on the offer.

The "Phantom Menace" 2001 Pod was built strictly because George wanted it done. I thought it was a bit odd that it would be pursued, but I asked very pointed questions about it from someone who is very knowledgable, and even a bit anal retentive about the props in storage at Skywalker and elsewhere. When I asked where it was, the reply was "still in storage off-site." As far as I know, it still is. However, a lot of other full scale "Phantom Menace" set pieces (like several of the Pod Race car sections and set pieces) have been destroyed over the past couple of years.

Attached are two more pics of Greg's Pod under construction. These are the last pics I have.

Enjoy!


----------



## ukwookie (Aug 25, 2004)

Many thanks for the additional pictures Tony... a fantastic replica, even in its (then) unfinished state.

Tony


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

All sorts of fun info in this discussion. :thumbsup:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Yes indeed.



ProfKSergeev said:


> X-15A2 and ukwookie, while I agree that the continuity errors and slips in logic in 2010 are numerous, I still find it an entertaining hard sci-fi movie on its own merits


Although I regard Peter Hyams as an intelligent yet artistically challenged filmmaker (the word hack comes to mind), I find I’m also able to enjoy 2010 as a sort of guilty pleasure. Barely.

In all fairness to Hyams, directing a satisfying sequel to 2001 was a cinematic fool’s errand if ever there was one. I doubt even Kubrick could have pulled it off (not that he would have gone anywhere near that book).

God bless Arthur C. Clarke; like any good sci-fi author (and he was certainly one of the best) he loved to explain things. And while I can’t fault him for trying, his attempts to unravel the mysteries of the universe in his 2001-related novels never came close to capturing the epic awe and grandeur found in the film.



Tony Hardy said:


> Yes, the replica Pod (pic attached in my previous post) was built by effects supervisor Greg Nicotero, and it resides in his personal collection.
> SNIP
> The "Phantom Menace" 2001 Pod was built strictly because George wanted it done.
> SNIP
> Attached are two more pics of Greg's Pod under construction. These are the last pics I have.


Much obliged Tony, for all of the above. I’m going to have to pay a visit to Mr. Nicotero’s shop one of these days.


----------



## ukwookie (Aug 25, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> ...I’m going to have to pay a visit to Mr. Nicotero’s shop one of these days.


On behalf of the rest of us, would you consider taking a camera with you? 

Tony M


----------



## DX-SFX (Jan 24, 2004)

> They could not keep the whole model in focus, so they put the camera on railroad tracks with a heavy push car, and filmed the model in sections. They would cover the front 2/3 of the model with black velvet, make a pass on the film, then rewind the film,(Kubrick demanded "first generation" images whenever possible) cover the front 1/3 and rear 1/3 of the model and make another pass, and finally repeat the procedure with just the front 1/3 of the model exposed. With no motion control equipment available in those days, it was a "best guess" sort of affair to keep all the passes lined up and moving at the same speed. The slightest difference in the passes would result in overlap or black gaps between the various sections. In fact, if you look at some of those shots of Discovery coming toward the viewer, you can get a feel of a minute variation in movement speed between the forward "ball" and the long "neck" of the ship.
> 
> I'm guessing that they had to film such shots over and over to get a few that looked right -- I'm sure someone (probably Kubrick) sat through day after day of screenings of those shots to find the few that appear in the film. Now, that's dedication.


Hmmm, never heard of that before. I know talking to Brian Johnson that they had trouble lighting the large Discovery because the stage wasn't big enough to get a single light source representing the sun far enough away. The model was lit using a series of lights, each one lighting a small section and carefully flagged so that the edge of each illuminated section as it goes into shadow meets the illuminated section being lit by the next light along.

It wasn't 'best guess' either pushing a camera dolley. All the mechanical movements of models, cameras and animation tables were mechanically linked by leadscrews and gearboxes or driven by Selsyn motors (an early cruder version of stepper motors). It gave repeatable moves for multiple passes where everything stayed in synchronisation with each frame of film. Modern motion control systems achieve the same but the mechanical interlocking isn't needed because the stepper motors controlled by the software do the same job.

At f32, even shooting on 65mm film (essentially the equivalent of 120 roll film in a medium format 6 by 7 camera) has a quite remarkable depth of field and there would've been the ability for long shutter speeds to allow f32 to be used again, just as modern motion control passes can take several minutes to shoot.


----------



## Lee Staton (May 13, 2000)

Carson Dyle said:


> Yes indeed.
> 
> Although I regard Peter Hyams as an intelligent yet artistically challenged filmmaker (the word hack comes to mind), I find I’m also able to enjoy 2010 as a sort of guilty pleasure. Barely.
> 
> In all fairness to Hyams, directing a satisfying sequel to 2001 was a cinematic fool’s errand if ever there was one. I doubt even Kubrick could have pulled it off (not that he would have gone anywhere near that book).


I agree completely. Even before 2010, I thought Hyams was a lowbrow hack. Why on earth he'd be chosen for 2010 is beyond me. Even though I don't like the book, a better director could have made something palatable. Every few years I re-watch it and try to like it...but I just can't develop a taste for crap. Syd Mead was a terrible match for the material, but perhaps he was just used poorly. At that time Tony Masters was working on the David Lynch "Dune." Our friend Ron Miller, who worked with Masters on Dune, attended the WorldCon that year with him to promote it. As they walked past the pod replica on display, Masters said to Miller, "Can you believe they didn't even ask me to be involved?"

Nuff said.

Lee


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

DX-SFX said:


> At f32, even shooting on 65mm film (essentially the equivalent of 120 roll film in a medium format 6 by 7 camera) has a quite remarkable depth of field...


This custom depth-of-field calculator might settle the issue:

http://johnhendry.com/gadget/dof.php

I'd enter the data myself, but I'm not too clear on the distances that were involved on that set.


----------



## DX-SFX (Jan 24, 2004)

The lens would be set at the hyperfocal distance. You could calculate it (if you knew the focal length of the lens used) or there may have been depth of field markings on the lens. In rough terms, it would be set aprox 1/3rd of the way from the nearest foreground object distance to the furthest background distance. The focus could also be pulled to match and follow any object as it passed through frame.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

This is true .... but the DOF would have to be enough to cover from the ball to the engines in the full shot. Given the larger format, the DOF would have been low, but the smaller aperture and larger model should have compensated for that. Personally, I think they made a larger model with DOF in mind.

But for the sake of argument, focused at 5 feet, 6x6 format, 50mm lens (medium wide for that format), f32 ... gives us a DOF from 2.45 feet to infinity, with a hyperfocal distance of 4.66 feet. A 40mm lens would give us 1.90 to infinity, with a HF distance of 2.98 feet. 

If those numbers are about right, then the ship could have been shot in one pass ... for depth of field, anyway.

Wasn't that exciting!


----------



## DX-SFX (Jan 24, 2004)

> .... but the DOF would have to be enough to cover from the ball to the engines in the full shot.


My point exactly.


----------



## Tony Hardy (Oct 23, 2002)

*Watto's Pod - Again*

Well, due to this thread, I contacted my Lucasfilm source again to ask about the status of the "Phantom Menace" 2001 Pod replica. BAD NEWS! Due to cost cutting measures (it wasn't George), it looks like all of the big props stored off-site were bulldozed and dumped. So the 2001 Pod recently went through a stargate, otherwise known as a landfill. It was in storage for a number of years though.

Many of the folks at Skywalker were disappointed by the turn of events and didn't understand why the stuff just wasn't sold or given away, but that's pretty much how it goes. Someone in charge looking at the bottom line cost/benefit analysis says lose it!

Too bad. Most studios and film companies have a history of being very short sighted with film used artifacts. After all if MGM had kept their backlots, just think of all the money they could have made over the years by allowing tourists to visit the original Mayberry sets from The Andy Griffith Show, or the Tara facade from Gone With The Wind.

However, the folks at Skywalker did hear a garbled transmission right before the 2001 Pod disappeared. What they heard was, "My God, it's full of dirt!"


----------



## GKvfx (May 30, 2008)

Tony Hardy said:


> ........ So the 2001 Pod recently went through a stargate, otherwise known as a landfill. It was in storage for a number of years though........


And so history repeats itself......

Gene


----------



## Elvis Gump (May 24, 2008)

I have to say I'm very surprised to learn that the pod was a practical prop. Doesn't seem like it was very cost effective if Lucas didn't plan on putting it somewhere around the Skywalker Ranch afterward as a conversation piece. I'm more surprised that someone didn't sneak it off the truck on the way to the landfill.

If one knows the dimensions of the pods from scale model replicas, wouldn't it just be a matter of scaling it up, buying a whole bunch of blocks of styrofoam and getting out the carving tools, sander and making your own in the garage? That is if you really had to have one of the things?

Personally I think it would be simpler to build a do-it-yourself Monolith. Or a TARDIS for that matter. 

Either would be a conversation starter for your nerd sculpture garden. And a TARDIS could double as a tool shed. After all they are bigger on the inside.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I've always had a notion of having a TARDIS in the basement, hiding a door to another room.

A cheeseball way of at least attempting the illusion...


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Elvis Gump said:


> I have to say I'm very surprised to learn that the pod was a practical prop. Doesn't seem like it was very cost effective if Lucas didn't plan on putting it somewhere around the Skywalker Ranch afterward as a conversation piece. I'm more surprised that someone didn't sneak it off the truck on the way to the landfill.


I'm not surprised, look how movie people have been treating props/sets over the years. How so you think dumpster diving around the studios became of big interest. And how long it took the studios to realize that somebody might want the stuff they throw out, and pay for it. 
There is always an exception to this, and studios keep what they think they can use later. 
At least Lucas keeps the stuff from his movies. Not everything of course, but thank God any of the MFs or SDs didn't have the same fate as the 2001 models.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Elvis Gump said:


> If one knows the dimensions of the pods from scale model replicas, wouldn't it just be a matter of scaling it up, buying a whole bunch of blocks of styrofoam and getting out the carving tools, sander and making your own in the garage? That is if you really had to have one of the things?


A full-size replica pod would make a great outhouse, don't you think?


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

If the Enterprise D fetched $500,000 in auction imagine what the Space Station V or Discovery models would have went for if they were still around...the mind boggles...!
Gary


----------



## GKvfx (May 30, 2008)

spindrift said:


> If the Enterprise D fetched $500,000 in auction imagine what the Space Station V or Discovery models would have went for if they were still around...the mind boggles...!
> Gary



Yeah, you're going to see some pretty mind boggling stuff come up for sale later this summer..........

Gene


----------



## Steve244 (Jul 22, 2001)

uh does anyone have a screen grab of the pod's star wars cameo? I missed it.

found it!










um, is that a dead astronaut it's holding?


----------



## Krel (Jun 7, 2000)

You know, I have to wonder if this isn't just an urban legend. SK didn't own the costumes, props, models, or set pieces, MGM did. It is unlikely that SK could order the destruction of property that wasn't his. Some things did survive. I remember seeing one of the space maneuvering packs as set dressing on a few episodes of "Doctor Who". Phil Broad points out that one of the seats from the Moonbus was used on the SkyDiver.

I believe that the studio didn't see where they could use the costumes, sets, props, or models in another production, and so did what studios had done for decades. They trashed it. Later on when questions were asked, the most convenient answer was that SK did it. 

What survived is what managed to walk away from the set, or was overlooked.

David.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Krel said:


> It is unlikely that SK could order the destruction of property that wasn't his.


Uh... he didn't.

You might want to re-read the first post.


----------



## GKvfx (May 30, 2008)

Actually, Stanley Kubrick was so well respected then, that yeah, he could order the destruction (or retention) of anything he chose - ownership was not an issue. 

The studio was extremely cooperative with him on this film. They basically turned over the entire London lot over to him just for 2001. That was the real impact of the long schedule - MGM couldn't use the facilities for other films since they were busy on 2001. This overhead and lack of income went above 2001's 8-10 million budget.

Dave Larson knows about the odd prop/set pieces that showed up in later BBC shows. Likely, that was stuff that walked off just as the principle photography was wrapping (and probably one of the reasons why Kubrick insisted the stuff be kept under lock and key).

Gene


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

GKvfx said:


> The studio was extremely cooperative with him on this film. They basically turned over the entire London lot over to him just for 2001. That was the real impact of the long schedule - MGM couldn't use the facilities for other films since they were busy on 2001. This overhead and lack of income went above 2001's 8-10 million budget.


This is an interesting point, as far as the film's initial "failure" at the box office is concerned. By allocating so many of its resources so intensely to one film the studio set itself up to take a severe financial hit if the picture under-performed. These days the conglomerate-owned studios can weather a disaster like _Evan Almighty_, but back then one expensive flop could take an entire studio down with it. 

Come to think of it, the same thing just happened to NewLine in the wake of _The Golden Compass_ debacle. 

Anyway, in this instance I'm glad MGM rolled the dice. It may not have paid off in the financial short term, but in the artistic long term results have proven priceless.


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

This post is so full of priceless facts it makes a 2001 nut like me pretty happy...
I would LOVE to see a full list of props and other things and what shows/movies/episodes they made an appearance in. Didn't I read somewhere a STARFIELD from 2001 appeared in the Prisioner episode "Chimes of Big Ben"? If that is really true...
What about rumors of miniatures showing up in Space 1999?
Gary


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Floyd's ID badge from the Clavius base, storage containers, control sticks and passenger seats from the Moonbus interior all appeared in Gerry Anderson's "UFO".


----------



## ukwookie (Aug 25, 2004)

So did the gutted and redetailed remains of one of the Clavius spacesuit backpacks :-(

Tony


----------



## Steve244 (Jul 22, 2001)

Started watching 2010 the other night.

What happened to the recreated discovery props made for this movie?


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Steve244 said:


> Started watching 2010 the other night. What happened to the recreated discovery props made for this movie?


Planet Hollywood's?


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

2010 makes me shudder. An OK movie if taken OUT of context as a sequel to 2001 but barely that. What makes me angry is the lack of attention to recreation of the Discovery sets. Shoddy, sloppy very FAKE looking compared to the original. Way they were lighted and shot I'm sure, but they also aren't well reserarched and fabricated correctly. Even the spacesuit Bowman wears looks alittle ill fitting and stiff- as if he moved too much in one direction it might fall apart! Don't even get me started on the story and other parts of the film which are so pedestrian it makes me angry, too.
Which brings me to the "new" spacesuits used by the American astronauts...WHY? What in the world was Hyams thinking? I think they cut corners and bought some old spacesuits made for another movie and used them. Nothing like a future nine years AHEAD of 2001 that steps back to the old 1960's Apollo suits, eh? Ridiculous and just a focal point of what is wrong with 2010. Frankly I wish it were never made .
Gary


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

spindrift said:


> 2010 makes me shudder. An OK movie if taken OUT of context as a sequel to 2001 but barely that. What makes me angry is the lack of attention to recreation of the Discovery sets. Shoddy, sloppy very FAKE looking compared to the original. Way they were lighted and shot I'm sure, but they also aren't well reserarched and fabricated correctly.


The Discovery in 2010 model looked cool until I saw they botched the cockpit windows. They are way too wide and arent supposed to follow a circular curve. They have a more slanted U-shaped cross-section in 2001. Here is an early pre-production floor plan from 2001 that I got from a Yahoo group. The red markup lines are not mine:

http://photos.hobbytalk.com/showfull.php?photo=29171

Yeah the Discovery interior sets in 2010 looked like they were made for a low budget TV show instead of a movie. They put a lot of attention to detail on the Russian ship interior and they didn't put as much effort into the Discovery sets in 2010.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, it didn't help that Kubrick had the set blueprints tossed along with everything else. The 2010 crew had to work from still photos from 2001 to recreate those sets, and with a budget and schedule staring them in the face, they're probably lucky to have gotten as close as they did.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

spindrift said:


> . . . Which brings me to the "new" spacesuits used by the American astronauts...WHY? What in the world was Hyams thinking? I think they cut corners and bought some old spacesuits made for another movie and used them. Nothing like a future nine years AHEAD of 2001 that steps back to the old 1960's Apollo suits, eh?


A lot of people complained that the space hardware, including the vehicles and spacesuits, in _2010_ actually looked less advanced than the stuff in _2001_. Much of _2010_'s production design was based on the creative input of visual futurist Syd Mead, and the rather clunky appearance of the spacecraft _Leonov_, as well as the cramped and cluttered spacecraft interiors, are definitely typical of his work. Since the _Leonov_ and all its ancillary hardware were supposed to be Russian-made, I can accept the more "primitive"-looking spacesuits as a product of Russkie technology. Ever see photos of the inside of the Mir space station?

Of course, the concept of the looming threat of a shooting war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union totally dates the picture, but who could have known . . . ?


----------



## Steve244 (Jul 22, 2001)

well the 2010 discovery spine appears weak.

I like that the Leonov looks different in a pre-Soviet breakdown industrial kind of way even if I don't care for the design (apparently the B5 designers did).

When I first watched 2010 back in the 80's I didn't like it as the look and feel of the movie was so different from 2001. Roy Scheider was a great actor, but was miscast as Heywood. John Lithgow should never be allowed in a non-comedy.

Viewing it now it isn't half bad.

My major fault is the director found it necessary to add sound effects to passing spacecraft. That always insulted my intelligence. Well, after viewing 2001 back in '68 anyway. Don't care for the cheesy soundtrack, but I guess it would have seemed too derivative to use classical music again.


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

*Pod in Wato's Junk Yard*

Here is a scan of an image of the pod from the Phantom Menace. This must be a publicity/set documentation shot, since it was never this clear in the movie.

From:
Star Wars Episode 1 - What's What
Running Press 1999, ISBN 0-7624-0520-1


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

That's a great shot, thanks for posting.


----------



## DX-SFX (Jan 24, 2004)

spindrift said:


> What about rumors of miniatures showing up in Space 1999?
> Gary


Urban myth I'm afraid. Space 1999 was cearly heavily influenced by 2001, including the name, but everything was built afresh.


----------



## GKvfx (May 30, 2008)

Every six months or so, I get a mail regarding 2001 researcher Dave Larson and the now legendary 2001 book he's writing.

Just spoke with him this morning and, just as it was back when this thread was fresh - he's still working on it. The licensing is a mine field and anything 2001 seems to move at a glacial pace because of this. Please keep the faith.

Now, this gets a bit interesting - VFX Supervisor Steve Begg recently posted this photo on a stop motion site along with the following comment:

_*"Interestingly, I've been screening 2k dailies at a facility in London on Hollen St called 'The Hat Factory' and next to their reception visible in the front window, is this 20ft model which they say is a prototype mock-up for the Discovery from 2001..

I wouldn't take this seriously as it looks nothing like some of the concepts from that film, however the owner of the company is one Joe Dunton who supplied Stanley K with camera gear over the years and was a good friend of his. The spaceship model was found in a huge case in Stanley's garage..
Also in their reception is a few more bits of SK paraphernalia such as his home 35mm movie projector and some other pieces...."*
_









OK, so what the heck is it? I mean, it doesn't look like anything _I've_ seen regarding the Discovery. Looks more like a variation on something from "Event Horizon" to me.

So I forwarded this to Dave Larson and asked for his opinion. If any of you doubt the thoroughness of his research - read on........
_
"The design of this model doesn't match any early concepts of
the Discovery I'm familar with...drawn or built. Many
prototype models of the Discovery were sketched and built
out of foam and cardboard. Con Pederson did a number of
drawn designs of the Discovery and built a 3ft model of it.
Harry Lange did numerous drawn versions of it. All the
designs had to use a locked-in round Command Module with
three openings in the front (Pod Bay) and the Command Module
window...due to the fact that the full scale sets were based
on a round shape...and the filming model would have to
conform to the full scale sets...as with all the spaceships
in 2001.

The exterior detail "look" of the 2001 spaceships was
largely Harry Lange's input. His experience and knowledge of
working with NASA...along with Fred Ordway's technical input
and research with a wide variety of NASA and aerospace
contractors allowed for the design of the ships. The
production design expertese of Tony Masters along with Art
Director John Hoesli worked out the interior look of the
ships...especially contributing to the "tuck and roll"
padding of the cornered surfaces and the coloration of the
surfaces inside.

The drafting crew in the Art Department of MGM contributed
in actualizing the exact surfaces, construction details, and
blueprints for the MGM prop and set crews.
Bob Cartwright along with Harry did some surplus yard
rummaging for parts that would have the correct look for
detailing sets like the Pod Bay.

There were blueprints that detailed the exterior and
interior items...including seams, panels, attachments, and
surface detail made for all the ships.

The original shapes of the Moonbus, Orion, and Aries were
done in fiberglass by Laurie Barr of Mastermodels. When
delivered to the studio, it was decided by Kubrick and Doug
Trumbull that the plain models needed convincing details.
Doug worked on the Moonbus first...adding frisketed masked
airbrushed pannels of varing value and shade and with small
amounts of color to give the panels different appearences.
Next, he added various kit parts for detailing...modifiying
these parts by cutting and combining as he went along.
Annimation Artist Roy Naisbitt worked on the weathering of
the surface detail...at one point going a bit too strong on
the dark airbrushed paint...to the concern of Doug. This
darkness was muted by lightly sanding some of the weathering
off.
The photography of the models utilized polarized filters to
cut down on unwanted reflections that might indicate a
model.

Doug went on to supervise, along with Brian Johnson and
Harry Lange, the detailing of the rest of the models.
Special Effects assistant Rodney Fuller detailed the Aries.
Kubrick reviewed the work constantly ordering certain "over
detailing" to be taken away from the models and asking for
painting changes to be made. The Discovery's Command Module
sphere, tankage boom, radio antenna, and engine module was
fabricated in the MGM modelshops. A rotating group of
college art students and archtectual model makers were used
to detail the large 55ft model of the Discovery. There were
many changes to the models regarding detailing and painting.

The model shown in your email, even if found in Kubrick's
storage area, might have been made sometime after the
production of 2001. The "tankage" boom area bears a
similarity to the orginal Discovery model...but this is hard
to know without seeing it in person. Also, many people in
the past have sent Kubrick presents and tributes to
2001...this may be one of them. Another possibility is a
proposed model for a possible sequel to 2001...which Kubrick
had considered...but later rejected.

One must consider that the sets for the Discovery were
already designed, blueprinted, and under construction,
especially the Centrifuge set being engineered by Vickers
Armstrong (a UK military contractor) before the models were
finished...so, the models would have had to conform to the
sets that were built. This model doesn't.

Another thing I may add...the model pictured shows a high
degree of finsh and detail to it...very much like a model
ready to go before the cameras...all the 2001 prototype
models were built very basically in an undetailed fashion.
This alone makes me think it is not a 2001 related model.

Finally, newspaper reports in the UK indicate that the
Discovery and the three full scale dummy Pods (from the
Podbay) were to be junked around the '73-'74 timeframe.
Reports were that they were taken to a children's playground
in Stevenage (near MGM in Borehamwood) and set up by the
cartage firm hired by MGM. The discriptions of the items set
up can only be the large Discovery model and the full scale
Pods. MGM was made aware of this and the items were taken
down and trucked off to a local dump to be distroyed. MGM
had the cartage firm responsible for the disposal of the
models and props sign a paper stating they were distroyed.
I've been trying to assertain the exact nature of the
items...and have found the people involved...but there was a
certain amount of "bad blood" regarding the incident and no
one is talking.

I know of Mr. Dunton, and I think he is being truthful in
his assertion of this model's provence...but after 40 years
many people...even those connected with the production of
2001 can mistake a set or model for something else. I might
add that Joe got involved with Kubrick after 2001 on A
Clockwork Orange."_

... makes me want to read his damn book all the more.......

Gene


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Interesting stuff, Gene.

Thanks for the update.


----------



## Lee Staton (May 13, 2000)

Thanks Gene! I can never get enough of 2001 stuff.

Lee


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

so that a pic of a guy standing next to the space pod building one or is that the original?


----------



## EDDIE.BC (Jul 11, 2010)

Hello! I am new to this site and this is my first posting. I have two questions: 1)Any news on David Larson's 2001 book and 2) can members direct me to any source/ info on the construction of the 60 ft Discovery model. The large Discovery studio models were amazing studio works and, as time goes on, whatever information left is disappearing.
Thank You 
Eddie.BC


----------



## stargazer (Oct 13, 2001)

"can members direct me to any source/ info on the construction of the 60 ft Discovery model"

trust me there is not much.

But what sort of info, photos? sizes?

I did some stuff here http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/2001_a_space_odyssey.htm

that might help

Ian


----------



## GKvfx (May 30, 2008)

Certain legal hurdles have just (like this week) been overcome (ie: licensing agreements signed) for the book. There's still quite a ways to go, but this is a VERY positive step.

Keep the faith.....

Gene


----------



## idMonster (Jun 18, 2003)

Hey, Gene!

Thanks for all of the information you and the others have contributed to this topic.

I have only recently discovered this thread and I found the post below from you very interesting but, frustratingly, the image is no longer there. Could you possibly re-post it - I'm dying to see what that model looks like!

Thanks,

Gordon




GKvfx said:


> Every six months or so, I get a mail regarding 2001 researcher Dave Larson and the now legendary 2001 book he's writing...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## GKvfx (May 30, 2008)

Gordon - 
Yeah, I deleted it to save some space. It was a shot of a spaceship that was hanging in the front lobby of a London area FX house. The owner claimed it was from '2001', but it was plain to see that it wasn't. I'll see if I can dig it up again, but it's no big deal, really. (It was a crappy cel-phone camera picture that Steve Begg sent me.)

Gene


----------



## idMonster (Jun 18, 2003)

Ok, Gene. In that case don't work too hard to find it.

Thanks!

Gordon


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Here is an early pre-production floor plan from 2001 that I got from a Yahoo group. The red markup lines are not mine:
> 
> http://photos.hobbytalk.com/showfull.php?photo=29171


This is fantastic! What Yahoo group was this?

M.


----------



## stargazer (Oct 13, 2001)

the drawing is not accurate though !!!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

It certainly differs from the cross section set plan in Filming the Future. I'd like to know more about it. If the Ordway marking is legitimate it would imply it is a production document of some type, preliminary or otherwise. The headline at the top, and the "real" windows and exterior details make this seem doubtful.

That's why I'd like to know what Yahoo group it was posted on, and what claims were made about it there...

M.


----------



## stargazer (Oct 13, 2001)

MGagen said:


> It certainly differs from the cross section set plan in Filming the Future. I'd like to know more about it. If the Ordway marking is legitimate it would imply it is a production document of some type, preliminary or otherwise. The headline at the top, and the "real" windows and exterior details make this seem doubtful.
> 
> That's why I'd like to know what Yahoo group it was posted on, and what claims were made about it there...
> 
> M.


 
I dont know about the Ordway part... it might well have been collected by him.
but it is NOT a 'production document'


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

MGagen said:


> This is fantastic! What Yahoo group was this?


I'm trying to find out. I thought it was from a 2001 a space odyssey group that I belonged to but it's not showing in my list of Yahoo groups anymore. I'm still looking in case it was recreated under another name. I found an old 2007 email that I sent with this drawing to another 2001 fan where I said to him at the time, "from the Ordway Collection showing a pre-production plan of the Discovery cockpit interior." Apparently I got that info from the picture description where I found it at the time.


----------



## stargazer (Oct 13, 2001)

I have a copy of the full deck drawing that it was taken from, actualy 3 drawings,

I have had them for many years and cant remember the source... but it was not Ordway


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

stargazer said:


> I have a copy of the full deck drawing that it was taken from, actualy 3 drawings


Can you post them? I guess the image description where I found it was in error.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Can you post them?


Ditto!


----------



## stargazer (Oct 13, 2001)

Ok here you go http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/temp/

The pics are well drawn, but sadly not correct...

I found the Discovery II picture... the model is about the same size as the 'smaller' Discovery 1 model as I recal.

The spine modules have more than a passing nod to the original. Two heat radiators and a radio Dish? where you would have to move the whole ship point it.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Very nice drawings though, thanks!


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Cool - thanks!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Are these the ones Shane Johnson did? Now that I see them complete, I believe they are. You're right, a very nice attempt, but not totally accurate.

Thanks!
M.


----------



## EDDIE.BC (Jul 11, 2010)

To; Ian- STARGAZER & members
Thank you kindly for your link reference and your reply. I have seen on the net actual BW pictures of the 60' Discovery model in the studio. The pictures were of very poor quality, possible taken with a Polaroid camera. 
Would it be OK to start a thread devoted to the actual 2001 Discovery model? It would include pictures, diagrams, and if possible actual testimony from the people who actually built the ship.

Having comments from the actual model-builders would be incredible !!

Thank You
Eddie.BC


----------



## stargazer (Oct 13, 2001)

MGagen said:


> Are these the ones Shane Johnson did? Now that I see them complete, I believe they are. You're right, a very nice attempt, but not totally accurate.
> 
> Thanks!
> M.


yes... Shane...now you jogged my memory.

But I still have an idea that though they were based on Shane's these were re-drawn by someone else...I may be wrong though!


----------



## stargazer (Oct 13, 2001)

EDDIE.BC said:


> To; Ian- STARGAZER & members
> Thank you kindly for your link reference and your reply. I have seen on the net actual BW pictures of the 60' Discovery model in the studio. The pictures were of very poor quality, possible taken with a Polaroid camera.
> Would it be OK to start a thread devoted to the actual 2001 Discovery model? It would include pictures, diagrams, and if possible actual testimony from the people who actually built the ship.
> 
> ...


 
Yes that would be good but would only work as a 'sticky' as the Orion and moonbus ones, e.g. added to over a long period


----------



## GKvfx (May 30, 2008)

Well, here's one to kick it off (though I believe it's been floating around the 'net for a while....) - 










Gene


----------



## stargazer (Oct 13, 2001)

its worth mentioning that the above engine reactor unit is upsidedown
(while the bottom surface is being detailed)



My turn ....

Attached

Two Pix of the other end !


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

stargazer said:


> My turn ....
> Two Pix of the other end !


I have a tastier version of one of those I'd like to contribute.

M.

Click for "hi-res, geeky goodness":


----------



## stargazer (Oct 13, 2001)

Yep MGagen...good picture.:thumbsup:

Full size Dish....


----------



## moonbus01 (Jun 4, 2010)

Cool shot!! If you look down in the lower left hand corner, it looks like maybe a ship model kind of sticking up.


----------



## starmanmm (Mar 19, 2000)

Very nice shot! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


----------



## EDDIE.BC (Jul 11, 2010)

*Incredible pictures!*

To; Stargazer & Members

Thank you for all the references.

Amazing pictures of Discovery! I have seen so many Sci-Fi spacecraft over the years. Nothing matches the 2001 Discovery spaceship. There is something about the ship. It is so realistic, so plausible. The dimensions and detail were so incredible, I found it unbelievable that it was hand made.

*Lastly, there is something about that ship that sets it way apart from other space craft. There is an aura, an image, and a haunting-dark sense about that ship that no other craft has. *

I quess that is why the 2001 film is so special. Every element of that film is special, and like the Mona-Lisa, it will be considered to be an incredible work of art.

Eddie.BC


----------



## hal9k (Jul 29, 2008)

*Discovery XD-1: Haunting, indeed.*

_Lastly, there is something about that ship that sets it way apart from other space craft. There is an aura, an image, and a haunting-dark sense about that ship that no other craft has._​
I know what you mean. It's been haunting me for 42 years. Not so much because it was the end result of so many brilliant visionaries and craftspeople. Not so much that the blueprints and sets were burned, leaving nothing but these ghostly behind-the-scenes photographs and the final film print. Not so much because it was the scene of a mass homicide. But mostly because this ship represented a future that should have happened by now. A future that was squandered. We had functioning nuclear propulsion prototypes in the early sixties. We could have been to Saturn by now. Instead we have a NASA whose Director considers outreach to technologically-backward countries to be NASA's prime objective. An ill-conceived Shuttle program that turned out to be really good at one thing: killing astronauts. Yeah, I'm haunted too.


----------



## Dave P (Jan 5, 2005)

Not to derail the thread, but I take great exception to your comments about NASA. The government's funding cuts (which started at the end of the Apollo program) and desire to engage private industry in the exploration of space have forced NASA into a situation where the only way for the U.S. to put a man into orbit for the foreseeable future, now that the shuttle fleet is retiring, is to hitch a ride with the Russians. To quote _The Right Stuff_, "no bucks, no Buck Rogers." The heady days of the space program that essentially began with President Kennedy's mandate to reach the moon within the decade sadly may never come again.

The Cold War also sparked a competitive (and political) climate that doesn't exist today. Nowadays we don't seem to care if we take a back seat to other nations.

Granted, NASA, like any government agency or private sector contractor, has had it's share of problems. But to declare that the shuttle program has been only good at "killing astronauts," to be polite, is a very narrow view. Space exploration is an extremely hazardous undertaking, and like it or not, things go wrong. The loss of life, whatever the cause, is always heartbreaking and not to be taken lightly, but frankly I find it amazing that more haven't died since the first Mercury flight. The shuttle program has fulfilled its mission for orbital payload delivery and scientific research. The Hubble is the first example that comes to mind. We should be expanding and improving the fleet rather than retiring it.

I do agree that we should be "out there" by now, at least back to the Moon if not already on Mars. But, politics trumps imagination and the desire to achieve. 

"2001" is a dream that may never become reality.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Bravo! I wholeheartedly agree.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Dave P said:


> I do agree that we should by now we should be "out there," at least back to the Moon if not already on Mars. But, politics trumps imagination and the desire to achieve.


These two sentences are so sad but unfortunately very true. Somehow this needs to be changed. We should always be looking to expand our horizons. Government only serves to keep our heads in the sand, especially if we keep letting them become our master.


----------



## Steve244 (Jul 22, 2001)

At the risk of making it worse, have you seen what SpaceX is doing? You might have noticed Elon Musk the man (not government) behind SpaceX make a cameo on _Iron Man 2_. Downey's character is based on him. They even used his rocket factory as the set for the eeeeevil ironman knockoff suit factory. And it's new designs, not recycled military hardware.




















Have a look. Private enterprise is alive and well in this ol'capitalist country. Their Falcon 9 heavy lifter just had it's first flight. They'll be running cargo to the ISS next year (this year?). Their Dragon capsule, capable of holding 7 people will be human certified within 3 years if/when they get the go ahead. All it requires is the escape mechanism.

By the way, Elon Musk is also making cars, ever heard of the Tesla Roadster? How about paypal? That's how he's financing his companies. This is the stuff of science fiction becoming science fact. And it's not happening in Russia or China where governments are supporting the programs.

From SpaceX's FAQ:

Q: What is the SpaceX mission?
A: SpaceX develops rockets and spacecraft for missions to Earth orbit and beyond. We are committed to becoming the world’s premiere space services company by substantially improving both the reliability and cost efficiency of space transportation, ultimately by a factor of ten. SpaceX was founded with the long-term goal of enabling humanity to become a space-faring civilization.

Now back to the future (2001).


----------



## EDDIE.BC (Jul 11, 2010)

*Discovery in the Studio !*

To; Members

The attached is a grainy BW photo of the 60' Discovery in the movie studio. Look at the size of the model. Note there is a technician at the bottom of the prop. His arm can be seen stretching upward.


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

Can this photo be posted as a .jpg? I don't have Word.

Scott


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Isn't that a shot of the slide presentation at Wonderfest '08?


----------



## idMonster (Jun 18, 2003)

CaptCBoard said:


> Can this photo be posted as a .jpg? I don't have Word.
> 
> Scott


Here you go:


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

I remember seeing the movie when it first came out, I loved that huge curved screen back then , the story line lacked a lot, not having read the book until after seeing the moive but the realisum of the ships was mind blowing.


----------



## starmanmm (Mar 19, 2000)

idMonster, not sure what it is I am looking at here. 

Is the model infront of a curved screen with the pod coming out of the model?


----------



## Dave P (Jan 5, 2005)

That's shot during a slide presentation. The photo is being projected on a screen. You can the the audience's heads.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I'm pretty sure Scott snapped that the Academy screening a year or so ago (correct me if I'm wrong, Scott).

UPDATE: The shot is from the Academy screening, but Scott didn't take it.


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

Yes. You are wrong.

Scott


----------

