5 ms·

What I find interesting is there were 2 cuts of that movie. One to show investors and the gov, and the one he released into theaters. He wanted to show that s

What I find interesting is there were 2 cuts of that movie. One to show investors and the gov, and the one he released into theaters. He wanted to show that space is wildly dangerous, empty and lonely. However, the people paying the bill which he needed wanted a different movie and more upbeat and hopeful about space travel. I just recently learned about that interesting bit of trivia about the movie.

jedberg 4y ago
Oh wow, I didn't know this! I'd love to see the other cut.
dredmorbius 4y ago
I've never heard this despite following the history of this film for most of the 50+ years it's been released. Source?
- jfreitas 4y ago
  Not sure if it's accurate but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxiB3qtMRHc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxiB3qtMRHc has a discussion about it
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    What that video says is that there are two narratives in the film. Not that there were two separate versions (different edits) produced. Kubric did spin the investors by having A.C. Clarke talk up his version of the story, which was strongly techno-optimistic, whilst Kubrick's version was much, much darker. Who's the speaker? He's uncredited and the video doesn't identify him. There seems to be mention of an alternative introductory scene that was shown to studio execs here: According to Wikipedia's page on 2001, an early cut of the film was shown to MGM studio executives and featured a ten minute black and white opening. This sequence featured interviews with scientists about the possibility of extra-terrestrial life, but after the screening Kubrick had the interview sequence removed from the film. <http://www.collativelearning.com/2001%20chapter%209.html http://www.collativelearning.com/2001%20chapter%209.html> Clarke mentions this version in his book about 2001, The Lost Worlds of 2001: One of the problems facing any science-fiction writer who is aiming for the general public is how much to explain, and how much to take for granted. He must try not to leave his readers baffled, but at the same time must avoid those disguised lectures which are all too typical of the genre (“Now tell me, Professor….”). At one time, Stanley hoped to get around this problem — as far as the movie was concerned — by opening with a short documentary — type prelude, in which noted scientists and philosophers would establish the credibility of our theme. With this idea in mind, he sent Roger Caras around the world, to interview, on film, more than twenty authorities on space, computers, anthropology — even religion. They included the astronomers Harlow Shapley, Sir Bernard Lovell, Fred Whipple, Frank Drake, Dr. Margaret Mead (who was a space bug long before Sputnik) and the great Russian scientist A. I. Oparin, the first man to point out (in the 1920’s) a plausible way in which life could arise from the simple chemicals of the primitive Earth. These interviews, many of them quite fascinating, were never used — a fact which understandably upset some of the distinguished and busy men involved. (Transcripts of several interviews may be found in Jerry Agel’s The Making of Kubrick’s 2001.) But as it turned out, to have incorporated them in the film would have been aesthetically impossible; it also proved to be unnecessary. We did not have to educate the public, as the headlong rush of astronautical events did it for us. - Arthur C. Clarke, The Lost Worlds of 2001, Ch. 13, "The Birth of HAL". Wikipedia's source for the similar description is from Agel, Jerome, ed. (1970). The Making of Kubrick's 2001. New York: New American Library. ISBN 0-451-07139-5
    - pncnmnp 4y ago
      Wow! This is fascinating. Thanks!
      - dredmorbius 4y ago
        Clarke wrote a bunch of non-fiction / essay-collection books, which I read as a kid. This and a few related topics are odd bits of trivia I'd picked up from those. There's another wonderful bit about "the servant problem, Sri Lankan style", which I'd like to track down. It's ultimately about the challenges and risks (to both employer and employee) of vetting and rating house staff. Memorably, Clarke describes one assistant who'd filched "flim" (film) on numerous occasions for a side project. The postscript is that despite that, Clarke ended up re-hiring him as a long-term member of the household staff.
        pncnmnp 3y ago
        Hey! I did some digging and found out some details about the "servant problem" that you mentioned earlier. It's chapter three from his book "The View from Serendip" and named "The Servant Problem - Orient Style". You can buy the book or borrow a copy from the Internet Archive. Although Clarke did mention Jinadasa, who stole some film rolls from him, Jinadasa left and never came back. However, Appuhamy, another employee, left after four years but later returned. I think you might have gotten the stories mixed up. Anyway, it's an interesting read.
    - jfreitas 4y ago
      The speaker is Rob Ager. That was his channel the video was posted on https://www.youtube.com/@collativelearning https://www.youtube.com/@collativelearning and who wrote the post you linked to.
      - dredmorbius 4y ago
        Thanks!

jedberg 4y ago

Oh wow, I didn't know this! I'd love to see the other cut.

dredmorbius 4y ago

I've never heard this despite following the history of this film for most of the 50+ years it's been released. Source?

jfreitas 4y ago
Not sure if it's accurate but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxiB3qtMRHc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxiB3qtMRHc has a discussion about it
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  What that video says is that there are two narratives in the film. Not that there were two separate versions (different edits) produced. Kubric did spin the investors by having A.C. Clarke talk up his version of the story, which was strongly techno-optimistic, whilst Kubrick's version was much, much darker. Who's the speaker? He's uncredited and the video doesn't identify him. There seems to be mention of an alternative introductory scene that was shown to studio execs here: According to Wikipedia's page on 2001, an early cut of the film was shown to MGM studio executives and featured a ten minute black and white opening. This sequence featured interviews with scientists about the possibility of extra-terrestrial life, but after the screening Kubrick had the interview sequence removed from the film. <http://www.collativelearning.com/2001%20chapter%209.html http://www.collativelearning.com/2001%20chapter%209.html> Clarke mentions this version in his book about 2001, The Lost Worlds of 2001: One of the problems facing any science-fiction writer who is aiming for the general public is how much to explain, and how much to take for granted. He must try not to leave his readers baffled, but at the same time must avoid those disguised lectures which are all too typical of the genre (“Now tell me, Professor….”). At one time, Stanley hoped to get around this problem — as far as the movie was concerned — by opening with a short documentary — type prelude, in which noted scientists and philosophers would establish the credibility of our theme. With this idea in mind, he sent Roger Caras around the world, to interview, on film, more than twenty authorities on space, computers, anthropology — even religion. They included the astronomers Harlow Shapley, Sir Bernard Lovell, Fred Whipple, Frank Drake, Dr. Margaret Mead (who was a space bug long before Sputnik) and the great Russian scientist A. I. Oparin, the first man to point out (in the 1920’s) a plausible way in which life could arise from the simple chemicals of the primitive Earth. These interviews, many of them quite fascinating, were never used — a fact which understandably upset some of the distinguished and busy men involved. (Transcripts of several interviews may be found in Jerry Agel’s The Making of Kubrick’s 2001.) But as it turned out, to have incorporated them in the film would have been aesthetically impossible; it also proved to be unnecessary. We did not have to educate the public, as the headlong rush of astronautical events did it for us. - Arthur C. Clarke, The Lost Worlds of 2001, Ch. 13, "The Birth of HAL". Wikipedia's source for the similar description is from Agel, Jerome, ed. (1970). The Making of Kubrick's 2001. New York: New American Library. ISBN 0-451-07139-5
  - pncnmnp 4y ago
    Wow! This is fascinating. Thanks!
    - dredmorbius 4y ago
      Clarke wrote a bunch of non-fiction / essay-collection books, which I read as a kid. This and a few related topics are odd bits of trivia I'd picked up from those. There's another wonderful bit about "the servant problem, Sri Lankan style", which I'd like to track down. It's ultimately about the challenges and risks (to both employer and employee) of vetting and rating house staff. Memorably, Clarke describes one assistant who'd filched "flim" (film) on numerous occasions for a side project. The postscript is that despite that, Clarke ended up re-hiring him as a long-term member of the household staff.
      - pncnmnp 3y ago
        Hey! I did some digging and found out some details about the "servant problem" that you mentioned earlier. It's chapter three from his book "The View from Serendip" and named "The Servant Problem - Orient Style". You can buy the book or borrow a copy from the Internet Archive. Although Clarke did mention Jinadasa, who stole some film rolls from him, Jinadasa left and never came back. However, Appuhamy, another employee, left after four years but later returned. I think you might have gotten the stories mixed up. Anyway, it's an interesting read.
  - jfreitas 4y ago
    The speaker is Rob Ager. That was his channel the video was posted on https://www.youtube.com/@collativelearning https://www.youtube.com/@collativelearning and who wrote the post you linked to.
    - dredmorbius 4y ago
      Thanks!