The lip synch was done very specifically anytime we were hearing their voices
over the radio versus hearing them inside the spacecraft, so there was good
rhyme and reason to how they accomplished that.

I agree that I was surprised at the quality of the film and I think it will
stand up better as time goes by. Sort of like in 2001: How many of us thought
the very first time that we heard it, that just hearing breathing all the time
was annoying. Yet we now can't imagine that it could be done properly in any
other way.

They did screw up a couple things here and there, but overall they definitely
stuck to the "script" and they should get a lot of credit for that.

Michelle

From: Collin R. Skocik

> Last night I watched the new TV movie Moonshot, the latest small-screen
> dramatization of the historic flight of Apollo 11.

My impression is much the same as yours.  One thing I seriously questioned,
though, was the depiction of Mrs. Armstrong getting to read the speech prepared
for Nixon in case the astronauts were unable to return.  As far as I knew,
nobody outside of the Whitehouse was aware of that speech until it was released
in 1999.

> The questionable decision to have
> the actors lip-synch over the actual voices of Neil Armstrong and Buzz
> Aldrin is appropriately respectful, yet somehow annoying - especially since
> I could detect no rhyme or reason as to when or why that was done.

I found that a bit distracting.  To me it would have been sufficient to have the
actors saying the lines, but closely following the cadence and rhythm of the
original.


Regards,

Mike Combs

Excellent.  That is the coolest and most alarming alarm in existence.

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, "Collin R. Skocik" <collinskocik@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, "farkle.freddy" <farkle.freddy@>
wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone have an mp3 of the klaxon that sounded in the pod before Dave
blew the bolts to re-enter the Discovery?  Thanks.
> > FF
> >
> I don't have mp3 capability, but I posted a wav file in "files"...if that
helps.
>
> Collin
>

Earwax, on Bedford Ave., is apparently a fan as well.

Mark McKennon
The Location Station
Brooklyn NY  11215
718.768.5539 (ph/f) / 917.744.8730 (c)
www.scoutman.com
www.globalproducer.com/ID11526

I would not think this would be a continuity error. Remember that when the first
EVA took place, they had to take an AE-35 unit out of storage, then went EVA,
pulled out the old unit and replaced it with the backup unit, returning the
original to the pod bay test bench. Once they discussed the idea of testing HAL,
they would have then had to take the old unit from the test bench, go EVA,
remove the backup unit, then replace it with the original to see if HAL's
prediction of failure would come true. In the end, they would also most likely
replace the backup AE-35 to its original spot in storage, unless and until it
was needed.

Michelle

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, "Collin R. Skocik" <collinskocik@...>
wrote:
>
> No, this shot isn't in the film -- I know, the entire film is impressed onto
my brain in precise detail -- but I suspect in was in the footage that was
deleted (and probably no longer exists).  I know there was footage of Bowman
going into the storage area and retracting the replacement AE-35 (I've seen
photos of it), and I also have heard that originally Poole's EVA was a perfect,
shot-for-shot duplicate of Bowman's, until he's killed, so it stands to reason
that the same shot of Bowman retrieving the AE-35 was duplicated by Poole.
>
> If so, this would have been a continuity error, since Poole was putting back
the AE-35 that Bowman had retreived, and that unit was on the workbench in the
pod bay, not in the storage area.  I've always been curious to see the original
cut, but from what I've heard, the final version is an improvement.
>
> Collin

No, this shot isn't in the film -- I know, the entire film is impressed onto my
brain in precise detail -- but I suspect in was in the footage that was deleted
(and probably no longer exists).  I know there was footage of Bowman going into
the storage area and retracting the replacement AE-35 (I've seen photos of it),
and I also have heard that originally Poole's EVA was a perfect, shot-for-shot
duplicate of Bowman's, until he's killed, so it stands to reason that the same
shot of Bowman retrieving the AE-35 was duplicated by Poole.

If so, this would have been a continuity error, since Poole was putting back the
AE-35 that Bowman had retreived, and that unit was on the workbench in the pod
bay, not in the storage area.  I've always been curious to see the original cut,
but from what I've heard, the final version is an improvement.

Collin

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, Mark McKennon <scoutman12001@...>
wrote:
>
> Are you sure this is not in the film? I haven't watched 2001 in a
> while but I recall that this was a brief shot when Poole is
> prepping to go out to get the AE-35.
>
> Mark McKennon
>
>
>
>
> On Mon Jul 20 12:06:32 CDT 2009, Christian Bobak
> <kubrickrules2001@...> wrote:
>
> > Great to have that wav file of the klaxon. Now here's a question
> > I've been meaning to ask for ages. I've been using the following
> > picture as the group home page photo on both my Yahoo and
> > Care2.com groups:
> >
>
> > I love this thing and have used it for years. Trouble is, I can't
> > actually find the scene in 2001 where this would have appeared.
> > The closest I could find was a scene where Bowman was facing the
> > other way and the corridor certainly wasn't this yellow. Is this
> > even a photo or screen capture to begin with, or an elaborate,
> > life-like painting? I thought it was a frame from the film but it
> > isn't (unless it's part of the missing 19 minutes of footage).
> >
> > Anyone know the origin of this picture/painting?
> >
> > Christian
>

Are you sure this is not in the film? I haven't watched 2001 in a
while but I recall that this was a brief shot when Poole is
prepping to go out to get the AE-35.

Mark McKennon




On Mon Jul 20 12:06:32 CDT 2009, Christian Bobak
<kubrickrules2001@...> wrote:

> Great to have that wav file of the klaxon. Now here's a question
> I've been meaning to ask for ages. I've been using the following
> picture as the group home page photo on both my Yahoo and
> Care2.com groups:
>

> I love this thing and have used it for years. Trouble is, I can't
> actually find the scene in 2001 where this would have appeared.
> The closest I could find was a scene where Bowman was facing the
> other way and the corridor certainly wasn't this yellow. Is this
> even a photo or screen capture to begin with, or an elaborate,
> life-like painting? I thought it was a frame from the film but it
> isn't (unless it's part of the missing 19 minutes of footage).
>
> Anyone know the origin of this picture/painting?
>
> Christian

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the 2001aspaceodyssey
group.

   File        : /alert klaxon.wav
   Uploaded by : collinskocik <collinskocik@...>
   Description : 2001 space pod alarm

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/2001aspaceodyssey/files/alert%20klaxon.wav

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/general.htmlfiles

Regards,

collinskocik <collinskocik@...>

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, "farkle.freddy" <farkle.freddy@...>
wrote:
>
> Does anyone have an mp3 of the klaxon that sounded in the pod before Dave blew
the bolts to re-enter the Discovery?  Thanks.
> FF
>
I don't have mp3 capability, but I posted a wav file in "files"...if that helps.

Collin

Does anyone have an mp3 of the klaxon that sounded in the pod before Dave blew
the bolts to re-enter the Discovery?  Thanks.
FF

It is not a problem of wanting to deorbit the ISS in 2016, it is simply that
this administration has not made any commitment to it past that point--yet. So
there is definitely a difference in making plans versus just saying they don't
know about funding yet.

The real thing to worry about is that the way things are going, human
spaceflight capability from the United states may completely disappear under
this administration. Funding has already been reduced for the 2010 budget. The
Orion/Ares program is years behind schedule and billions underfunded, and the
capabilities of the system have been curtailed to the point that, at best, it
will only ferry astronauts back and forth to the ISS and never go anywhere else,
like the Moon or Mars, as intended by the original design. Any follow-on
programs, such as Ares V heavy lift launcher and Altair lunar lander are on
indefinite hold.

Things are truly falling apart right in the space program at the moment, but the
ISS is the program least affected.

Michelle

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, "Collin R. Skocik" <collinskocik@...>
wrote:
>
> For those of you who do not yet know, NASA now wants to de-orbit the
International Space Station in 2016.  Personally I think that's absolutely
ridiculous, and I just sent a letter to the president asserting my position on
the subject:

And your question or thesis in this posting is....?

You may be posing less of a thought experiment than a daymare that
tempts me to have several happy beers and continue thinking of
exploding nukes purely, solely in the context of movies.

Although the mad, aggressive detonation of at least one nuke is
somewhere in our future, given the supply of poorly guarded or
loose and soon to be expanding fisionable material there is in the
world.  Or, for that matter, the brazen, ingenious hijacking of a
Pakistani weapon outright.

I read Alas Babylon. And The Fate of the Earth. And Fail Safe.
And other titles. All compelling fiction and morality plays but
about as heartening as having a sleep-over in a dank morgue.

It's not clear from the trailer that the narrative of this new
movie, The Road, is sparked by nuclear war, but the practical
effects of the unspecified event(s) (sudden climate catastrophe, a
la Day After Tomorrow ?) are indistinguishable from H bombs:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0898367/

Watch the trailers.  Very compelling.  Perhaps, at the rate the
human race is going, every day this becomes slightly less fiction
than prophesy.

I too doubt the possibility of deliberate, full scale nuclear war.
  Ignorant and selfish we are collectively, but I don't see our
current management problems rising to the level of mass suicide.
Especially as now some smarter heads of state seem to have
concluded that the best way short of military action to convince
Iran and N. Korea to cease nuke development is for US-USSR to
permanently remove half of all their arsenals, as Obama and Putin
may be discussing by year's end.  If we decrease our stockpiles
they will have zero legit excuse to increase theirs.  On the other
hand, that is a logical chess move requiring people of reason and
compassion to gain and hold power, which is far from assured, not
even in this country, given the low lucidity of shrill right-wing
media and the 2nd Amendment fanatics arming themselves for WW IV.

But the operative word in that first sentence is "current" -- from
now to 10 or 20 years out.  After that...all bets are off.
Climate change however wherever it occurs will become the very mad
monster.  If sea levels rise 2 feet and drought ravages
crop-growing regions and water supplies shrink and unchecked
disease rises to levels of the 1918 flu -- that's an apocalypse in
itself.  The UN recently estimated that "less-than-severe" climate
change could create up to 200 million refugees.  That's extreme
disruption on the way to anarchy and genocide that would dwarf
WWII.

We need to start getting off this planet.  For it's own sake, but
also as a matter of survival elsewhere.  Just in case.

I think I'll go to buy a six-pack now.  Cheers!


Mark McKennon



On Tue Jun 16 15:27:08 CDT 2009, "Collin R. Skocik"
<collinskocik@...> wrote:

> Some years ago I became rather irrationally obsessive about the
> possibility of nuclear war.  I had my fallout room picked out, my
> alternate bathroom, my canned goods and water, I'd worked out how
> much damage my town would suffer depending on megatonnage, etc.
> etc....I don't know how I fell into that morbid state -- oh, yes
> I do...I read Pat Frank's Alas Babylon...
>
> Well, anyway, supposing some Strangeloveish scenario were to
> trigger a full-scale nuclear war; I often hear it said that not
> only is it possible, but it's more likely today than it was
> during the Cold War.  (Actually, I think a nuclear war is
> inevitable; as long as the weapons exist, someday someone will
> use them, but I think a global nuclear holocaust a la The Day
> After is unlikely.)  But supposing some computer glitch or sudden
> international crisis or crazed general were to trigger a nuclear
> war which devastates a large percentage of the East and West --
> I've heard nuclear winter is out, we'd more have a "nuclear
> autumn," but I think that's a small consolation in light of the
> mass destruction, wildfires, lethal radioactive fallout, and the
> end of our prosperity and way of life...  Given the cold, the
> plagues, the radiation, the complete loss of the technological
> infrastructure we've come to rely on for everything, the loss of
> medical care, waste disposal...well, you know the drill...would
> anyone survive in the long term?  Would the human race face
> extinction?
>
> I personally don't think so, though all the humans might die in
> the affected lands.  I think the southern hemisphere and the
> Third World would rise to power...but I wonder who, how long it
> would take, and whether a modicum of modernity would be restored
> to the world...the Internet, satellites, cars.
>
> Collin
>
>

Some years ago I became rather irrationally obsessive about the possibility of
nuclear war.  I had my fallout room picked out, my alternate bathroom, my canned
goods and water, I'd worked out how much damage my town would suffer depending
on megatonnage, etc. etc....I don't know how I fell into that morbid state --
oh, yes I do...I read Pat Frank's Alas Babylon...

Well, anyway, supposing some Strangeloveish scenario were to trigger a
full-scale nuclear war; I often hear it said that not only is it possible, but
it's more likely today than it was during the Cold War.  (Actually, I think a
nuclear war is inevitable; as long as the weapons exist, someday someone will
use them, but I think a global nuclear holocaust a la The Day After is
unlikely.)  But supposing some computer glitch or sudden international crisis or
crazed general were to trigger a nuclear war which devastates a large percentage
of the East and West -- I've heard nuclear winter is out, we'd more have a
"nuclear autumn," but I think that's a small consolation in light of the mass
destruction, wildfires, lethal radioactive fallout, and the end of our
prosperity and way of life...  Given the cold, the plagues, the radiation, the
complete loss of the technological infrastructure we've come to rely on for
everything, the loss of medical care, waste disposal...well, you know the
drill...would anyone survive in the long term?  Would the human race face
extinction?

I personally don't think so, though all the humans might die in the affected
lands.  I think the southern hemisphere and the Third World would rise to
power...but I wonder who, how long it would take, and whether a modicum of
modernity would be restored to the world...the Internet, satellites, cars.

Collin

Does this sound more and more like "someone" we know?


http://www.technewsworld.com/edpick/66912.html?wlc=1245072364


IBM Supercomputer to Match Critical Thinking Wits With 'Jeopardy'
Wonks

By Richard Adhikari
TechNewsWorld
04/27/09 11:59 AM PT

IBM has already developed a supercomputer capable of beating human
chess champions. However, things get much trickier when a game
involves answering trivia questions as they're spoken by a human
being. The company hopes Watson, a supercomputer it's currently
working on, will be ready for the "Jeopardy" challenge sometime
next year.


Free Classifieds - New from TechNewsWorld
Post job opportunities, resumes, event notifications, services
offered, goods for sale and more. No charge to view or post ads.
Visit classifieds.technewsworld.com today!

Having developed Deep Blue, the supercomputer  that famously beat
out world chess champion Gary Kasparov back in 1997, IBM (NYSE:
IBM)  is now working on a computer built to compete in the TV quiz
show "Jeopardy."

It will use a system based on Question Answering, a computer
science approach that tries to build software systems that can
provide accurate, useful answers to questions people ask using
natural language.

IBM researchers have been working for two years on the system,
code-named "Watson."


Not So Elementary, Watson

Watson will use semantics and massively parallel processing to
understand complex questions, decide how confident it is in its
answers, and provide links to supporting evidence.

"Being able to disambiguate meaning is at the core of this
technology," IBM researcher Eric Brown told TechNewsWorld. "The
system must be able to decide, when you input the word 'bank,'
whether you mean a financial institution or an aircraft turning or
the bank of a river."

IBM may use one of its Blue Gene supercomputers running Linux to
participate in Jeopardy. Blue Gene supercomputers are used in
higher education and government. (On a sweeter note, they're also
used by candy maker Mars in collaboration with the U.S. government
to study the genetic code of cocoa trees in order to safeguard the
world's supply of chocolate.)

IBM will probably participate in "Jeopardy" sometime next year,
according to Brown.

Still More On Technology

IBM is evaluating various data sources, including encyclopedias
and dictionaries, to create a database for the "Jeopardy"
challenge.

Its researchers are still wrestling with various technical
problems as they prepare to tackle an appearance on "Jeopardy."

"There are lots of data scale issues -- how to partition the data
to best support parallel processing and how to manage that so you
avoid disk I/O (input/output) issues as much as possible," Brown
said.

The researchers are also trying to ensure that the raw data they
collect is useful and accurate. "If all you have in your
underlying data is garbage, that's another problem, and it's still
a challenge we're working on," Brown said.
Getting Ready for Business

The technology being used in Watson could potentially be used by
enterprises to better analyze their data.

Most importantly, it will enable machine-to-machine communication
so businesses can directly query and analyze the raw data residing
on their computers.

"We're now looking at the computer as more than a calculating
machine," Rob Enderle, principal analyst at the Enderle Group,
told TechNewsWorld.

"When you can analyze what lies under the numbers and make
educated guesses at what the causes are, that's a powerful tool.
That capability is [critical] in order to get a response from an
artificial intelligence  system without having to go through a
human," he said.
What Is Truth?

The Question Answering technology at the heart of Watson is still
in a state of flux. The language processing community has yet to
develop a clearly articulated and commonly accepted grading
framework and research methodology, according to the organizers of
Open Advancement of QA (OAQA).

OAQA is a workshop launched jointly by IBM and several
universities, including Carnegie Mellon University, in 2008.

The workshop will be part of the 21st International Joint
Conference on Artificial Intelligence, to be held in Pasadena,
Calif., in July.





Mark McKennon

The other day I was in a used bookstore and stumbled across a hardcover first
edition of 2010.  Even though it was pricey for a used book -- $10 -- I bought
it.  So now I have all four in hardcover.  It's a very attractive collection,
very pristine.  And with the exception of my new 2010, they all have special
meaning for me -- I bought the hardcover 2001 on my honeymoon, my grandmother
bought me the hardcover 2061 when it first came out, and my girlfriend (now my
wife) bought me my hardcover 3001 for Christmas when it was published.  (I've
got a long and complex history with the Odyssey series.)

Collin

Yes, the IMAX conversion is fairly recent, but it really looks like the movie
was shot originally in IMAX, so it is wonderful to have that technology now
available. The up-conversion of 2001 would theoretically be even better than
70mm Cinerama, which would be pretty awesome.

Some drawbacks of IMAX is that it is a standard ratio format--in other words it
would fit your regular TV screen. It is not widescreen in its standard
incarnation. This is bad for everyone converting to LCD or plasma screens as I
did years ago.

The Apollo 13 IMAX version is also edited differently than the original movie.
At the time, the longest allowable run time was 2 hours and Apollo 13 was longer
than that, so if you watch both versions you will definitely see differences.

As for 2001 in 2001, we had some great things here in southern California at the
Egyptian. Only problem was that they were at the end of the year, not the
beginning. One nice thing about that though was that we ended up having the
final showing of 2001 anywhere in the world during the year 2001, so that was a
huge celebration that night.

Some photos from that event can be found on my 2001 display page at:
http://www.mach25media.com/2001display.html

Take care,

Michelle

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, "Collin R. Skocik" <collinskocik@...>
wrote:
>
>  Guess it would require a conversion.didn't think of that.  I wondered why the
Apollo 13 DVD had the standard movie as well as the IMAX version - I mean,
unless you have an IMAX screen in your living room, what's the point? (I just
bought a DVD called Hail Columbia which is an IMAX movie, and I could quickly
see that it would look better on that huge screen; most of it is presented in
tiny little squares that fill about a fifth of my screen.)
>
> It just seems to me that IMAX is the closest thing we're likely to get to the
Cinerama experience; I think that's been discussed on this list before. I was so
disappointed when the year 2001 came and went with virtually no attention paid
to the movie.at least in this country.
>
> Collin

Unfortunately IMAX is a totally different system than 70mm so it would not be
showable in that format. There is however a process to digitize a movie and
upgrade it to the IMAX format, which has been done with numerous films. The
first one to do this was Apollo 13.

http://www.mach25media.com/movieapollo13.html

Always seemed like 2001 would have been an obvious candidate for this treatment,
but so far it hasn't happened.

Michelle

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, "Collin R. Skocik" <collinskocik@...>
wrote:
>
> I sure wish I could make it.  Totally impossible.
>
> Y'know, they've got an IMAX theater at Kennedy Space Center; you'd think one
of these days they would show 2001.  That I could do.
>
> Collin

I sure wish I could make it.  Totally impossible.

Y'know, they've got an IMAX theater at Kennedy Space Center; you'd think one of
these days they would show 2001.  That I could do.

Collin

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, "Michelle Evans" <mach25@...> wrote:
>
> Just to let the group know that this coming Sunday at 7:30 pm, the Egyptian
Theater in Hollywood will be showing a 70mm print of 2001: A Space Odyssey. If
anyone from the group is interested in going, maybe we could all meet up? Let me
know.
>
> Michelle
>