Is Making the one with the copy of the instructions for how to use the space toilet? The audience can’t see it, but the scene shows Poole looking closely at a sheet of instructions, printed in tiny type, set into the wall.
Typical of Kubrick’s attention to detail, someone wrote an entire page of instructions, which is printed in the book.
Yep. That’s the one. I have two copies.
For years, a copy of the “Zero Gravity Toilet” instructions were posted on one of the cabinets at the MIT Science Fiction Society.
Of course, one has to love Clarke’s comment about the film
Wow. All of this feedback, especially the essay by the 15-year-old, has been really enlightening. I guess for me it’s like James Joyce; I can’t really understand it unless I hear other people’s thoughts and theories about it. However, I hold fast in my belief that the transition from space to the room was pointless by virtue of being way too long. Still, nice to know I didn’t waste those 2-3 hours of my life like I thought originally.
Isn’t that about 2010?
Super Gnat
You are coming around. Soon, you too will grow old in a hotel room at the end of the universe. A monolith will appear, and then you may join us…
Yeah, it’s a hotel room. The aliens knew we had such things by intercepting television transmissions, just like in the Jodie Foster movie. (“Contact” by Carl Sagan) The aliens obviously thought Dave would be comfortable in familiar surroundings. He no longer really needed them, but to ease his transformation into the Star Child, they coddled him.
One last thing. This seems pretty obvious at this point, but this film is very deep. I think about it and it’s message often. I hope you learn to enjoy it more.
Cal,
I’ve got that book too! It has the short story, “The Sentinal” in it IIRC.
This movie is just too neato, I keep returning to the thread.
I like the movie better than the book BTW.
2010 absolutely sucked.
Where the first focused on (or perhaps, didn’t focus at all?) life, it’s meaning, the universe, etc; the second was directly concerned with politics, the president, and so on.
Horrible!
Heywood Floyd, actually, on the Earth-orbit-to-Moonbase shuttle.
I think in the past three decades or so, we have come to expect more simplistic endings to films. We have come to demand a clearly declared solution at the end of each film. This was made at a different time, by a film maker who wanted his audience to think and it was based on a short story by an author who wanted his readers to think.
Perhaps films have moved beyond that. Perhaps films now are created to keep audiences from thinking too much. I don’t know.
But no, it does not hand you a simple wrapped-up ending where a good guy blows up a death star and lives happily ever after. It asks questions. Maybe that was what film making was all about for a different generation. Looking at the film selections this week. It certainly isn’t today.
I read all of the books before I saw the movie, and I really liked them.
A few years later I rented the movie.
I fell asleep the first two times I tried to watch it. The third time I got through it, but was just waiting for it to be over so I could move on with my life. I hated it. I thought it was lame as hell and sucked.
YMMV
I liked the movie a lot. The first time I saw it was in 1997, and one of the guys I was watching it with quipped “So this is what it’s gonna be like in four years, wow.” I just thought that was pretty funny.
I was at The Computer Museum in Boston on Hal’s birthday in 1992 (The book and the movie give dates that differ by 5 years – this was the date given in the book, IIRC). To my surprise, no one there knew that this was Hal’s birthday until I pointed it out.
Perhaps it was this lack of attention to detail (and the possibility of “cashing in” on what could have been a good publicity op) that caused the Computer Museum to disappear before Hal’s next birthday in 1997. MIT press, however, celebrated with the release of a new book, “Hal’s Children” or something like that, with a party at MIT on Hal’s birthday.
Of course, if you really want to understand the movie, locate and read the Mad Magazine satire. One of the best ever done by the usual gang of idiots.
On the other hand, the University of Illinois threw a huge birthday party for HAL in 1997 (just before he sings “Daisy,” he says he was “born” at the HAL Laboratories in Urbana, Illinois).
U of I alum Roger Ebert hosted a 70mm screening of the movie, and led a discussion afterward that was joined by Arthur C. Clarke via computer link from Sri Lanka.
I still have my “Happy Birthday HAL” t-shirt.
Z-z-z-z.
I’m no big fan of films that require owner’s manuals.
Slight hijack-- I can’t wait to see the latest incarnation of Solaris. I was disappointed with Andre Tarkovsky’s attempt at it, because I’m a big fan of Stanislaw Lem and loved the other Tarkovsky films I’d seen.
(Imagine something similar to 2001, as shot by a Russian auteur, but with no flashy special effects. And much, much longer. Opal, you’d love it! )
Or what would be reallly cool… a dark room with a chair lit by a bare bulb, with a guy sitting there, reading the book in monotone!
Pity Andy Kauffman’s dead, as I’m sure he’d love to do it!
TV Time,
well said! I appreciate your thoughts in this thread! 
Your conclusions are one reason I love and respect this film.
Global Citizen
Solaris has the potential of ranking right up there with 2001, if they don’t dumb it down. A big if.
Let’s see, it’s directed by Steven Soderburg, and is being billed as a love story. Having sat through that wretched, drawn out piece of crap that Soderburg did called Traffic, I think that the only way I’ll go to see this thing is if Roger Ebert felliaties a dead bear to express his love for the film.