Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

This came to me while watching "LET'S MAKE A DEAL" on a new channel my service carries called "Bzzzr" or something like that.  It shows a lot of old game shows.  Anyway.....

 

Somebody won a trip somewhere, and they were getting flown to their destination by PAN AM airline.  And it made me wonder....

 

WOULD it be irony that in the movie 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, the character Dr. Floyd flies to that big space station, before proceeding to the moon, on a shuttle craft with a big PAN AM logo on the fuselage and tailpiece?  But, by the time the ACTUAL year 2001 rolls around there IS no PAN AM anymore?

 

Just wondering.....

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

This came to me while watching "LET'S MAKE A DEAL" on a new channel my service carries called "Bzzzr" or something like that.  It shows a lot of old game shows.  Anyway.....

 

Somebody won a trip somewhere, and they were getting flown to their destination by PAN AM airline.  And it made me wonder....

 

WOULD it be irony that in the movie 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, the character Dr. Floyd flies to that big space station, before proceeding to the moon, on a shuttle craft with a big PAN AM logo on the fuselage and tailpiece?  But, by the time the ACTUAL year 2001 rolls around there IS no PAN AM anymore?

 

Just wondering.....

 

Sepiatone

I wouldn't necessarily call it irony. It's just another example of one of Criswell's predictions that did not come to pass.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This came to me while watching "LET'S MAKE A DEAL" on a new channel my service carries called "Bzzzr" or something like that.  It shows a lot of old game shows.  Anyway.....

 

Somebody won a trip somewhere, and they were getting flown to their destination by PAN AM airline.  And it made me wonder....

 

WOULD it be irony that in the movie 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, the character Dr. Floyd flies to that big space station, before proceeding to the moon, on a shuttle craft with a big PAN AM logo on the fuselage and tailpiece?  But, by the time the ACTUAL year 2001 rolls around there IS no PAN AM anymore?

 

Just wondering.....

 

Sepiatone

 

No, actually Sepia, this would NOT be the result of any "irony" here.

 

Nope, just the result of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.

 

(...and as an old retired airline employee, I should know, RIGHT?!...I mean, the public wanted cheap air travel, and that's certainly what they GOT!) ;)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as I read "Pan Am" in your post, the first thing I thought about was the artwork on the soundtrack for 2001: A Space Odyssey, with that long, pointed, SST-looking Pan Am shuttle coming in to dock with the space station. Although the airline no longer exists, the memory of it continues on today, in part, due to its association with the movie. Perhaps there is a bit of irony in that.

 

Of course, Pan Am was a big name in '68, and (as related to the heated US vs. Soviet Union space race at the time) the "Am" of Pan Am implied the future dominance of the US space program in 2001. So, in that regard, the depiction of Pan Am makes sense. However, purely from a logic standpoint, regarding the meaning of the name, Pan Am always seemed a bit out of place for a space ship. Pan Mundus (or Pan Mun) would have been more in keeping with the theme of space.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This came to me while watching "LET'S MAKE A DEAL" on a new channel my service carries called "Bzzzr" or something like that.  It shows a lot of old game shows.  Anyway.....

 

Somebody won a trip somewhere, and they were getting flown to their destination by PAN AM airline.  And it made me wonder....

 

WOULD it be irony that in the movie 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, the character Dr. Floyd flies to that big space station, before proceeding to the moon, on a shuttle craft with a big PAN AM logo on the fuselage and tailpiece?  But, by the time the ACTUAL year 2001 rolls around there IS no PAN AM anymore?

 

Just wondering.....

 

Sepiatone

Just what we need, TWO channels that show all game shows, all the time. Maybe, though, we'll get to see more of Dargo.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, Pan Am was a big name in '68

 

Why was it such a big deal? Was it seen as some sort of symbol of American "globalism"? The phrase pops up several times on the Monty Python TV show, which has at least one character named "Pan Am".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why was it such a big deal? Was it seen as some sort of symbol of American "globalism"? The phrase pops up several times on the Monty Python TV show, which has at least one character named "Pan Am".

 

I'm not sure what you're driving at.

 

I think the observation that Pan Am was a big name in 1968 is accuate. However, you may have evidence to dispute that. Whether it was a big "deal," as you put it, is not something on which I commented.

 

As related to the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, and as related to the times, I already mentioned one symbolic possibility of Pan Am in the movie. But maybe it also symbolized "American globalism," too, as you put it, or perhaps the possible capitalistic imperialism of the U.S. I don't know. If you flesh out your "globalism" argument for us, we could examine the possibility.

 

Of course, I may be missing your point, but Monty Python, and a character's name, seems to be an non sequitur to anything I wrote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you're driving at.

 

I think the observation that Pan Am was a big name in 1968 is accuate. However, you may have evidence to dispute that. Whether it was a big "deal," as you put it, is not something on which I commented.

 

As related to the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, and as related to the times, I already mentioned one symbolic possibility of Pan Am in the movie. But maybe it also symbolized "American globalism," too, as you put it, or perhaps the possible capitalistic imperialism of the U.S. I don't know. If you flesh out your "globalism" argument for us, we could examine the possibility.

 

Of course, I may be missing your point, but Monty Python, and a character's name, seems to be an non sequitur to anything I wrote.

 

Well, they didn't have any characters named "Eastern Airlines", so even though the naming may have been a simple non-sequitur joke, the fact that they used "Pan Am" in the first place shows it must've meant something to them. Perhaps it was as simple as the phrase sounding similar to "Pam", and a female name in general.

 

Or perhaps it was the fact that there was a Pan Am building. I'm not old enough to remember the '60s, but throw in 2001 and it does seem that Pan Am apparently had some cultural significance that, say, TWA did not have, in spite of the Howard Hughes connection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was just a way of showing that private enterprise was in outer space.  As opposed to a ship that said NASA or CCCP.

Simple.  End of story.

And who would know that CCCP wouldn't be around in 2001?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no expert on irony but I know that irony allows us to see something other than what we're shown. We are prompted to 'read between the lines' and give something a new meaning or an added meaning, such as realizing that something said or shown ostensibly means one thing but in reality means something quite different, even the very opposite in some cases. There is nothing like that going here. This is just the simple realization that Pan-Am no longer exists. Nothing to interpret, a space ship is just a spaceship, regardless of what it's called. No irony.

 

...imho

 

--

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add to what I said at 3:58 - Kubrick could have chosen any name or logo.  NASA or made something up like TSWRA.

But he wanted to tell us that Corporations were in outer space and therefore had to give us a name we recognized in 1968.  Not some imaginary name that would not have meant anything.

'nuff said.  Finito.

No irony.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

...Nothing to interpret, a space ship is just a spaceship, regardless of what it's called. No irony.

 

 

Saaaay, didn't Freud say somethin' like this once???

 

(...oh...wait...he said somethin' like this about a certain object that kind'a sort'a LOOKS like a spaceship, huh...sorry...never mind)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, and now that we have THIS settled, I have another question I'd like to ask you folks here...

 

Is it only me(and perhaps because I'm an "old retired airline employee", as I said earlier), or does anyone else watch an old movie and see well-dressed and well-mannered people boarding or deplaning from a Pan Am or TWA airliner or any OTHER now defunct airline's aircraft, and think to themselves somethin' like:

 

"Aaah, the good ol' days...and before the 'Walmart crowd' in their freakin' tank tops and flip-flops crowded the inside of commercial airliners!"

 

(...talk about "irony", EH?!)

 

LOL

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Pan Am paid many millions of dollars to be advertised in the movie and it ended up causing a bankruptcy then it would be irony. However I doubt they even had to give salty peanuts to make it aboard.

 

In fact, such a usage, whether ironic or not, would not be permitted today unless the company in question ponied up some $$$

Link to post
Share on other sites

It kind of seems you ALL are either missing my point, or overthinking this thing WAY too much.

 

I never intended to imply the irony may have been intended as Kubrick would have had no way of knowing that PAN AM would have dissolved by 2001.

 

I, in NO way intended to start some half-azzed debate about the PAN AM logo on the shuttle being intended to imply America's prowess in global commercialism in 2001.

 

As one pointed out, Kubrick could have used ANY airline's name and image, but possibly PAN AM did put up the most coin, I don't know.

 

MY point as to the query of it all being irony or not was in retrospect .  Also based on the belief(and FACT) that in 1968 PAN AM WAS one of the world's largest and lucrative airlines, and Kubrick likely might have felt they'd be a major player in something like "Earth to Space station" shuttle flights IF and/or WHEN the likelihood ever came about.  Either when 2001 rolled around, or sometime AFTER.

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose this is similar to the Star Trek The Next Generation episode, set in the 24th century, where Picard is studying Fermat's Last Theorem, and states it hasn't been proven. This is understandable, since the theorem had remained unproven since being posed in the 17th century. I'm sure the writers figured this was an easy call.

 

But in 1994, the theorem was proven ... after the episode aired.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

WOULD it be irony that in the movie 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, the character Dr. Floyd flies to that big space station, before proceeding to the moon, on a shuttle craft with a big PAN AM logo on the fuselage and tailpiece?  But, by the time the ACTUAL year 2001 rolls around there IS no PAN AM anymore?

 

 

 

No, it's not irony because, by definition, intent is the crucial element of irony: the intended meaning is different the literal meaning. 

Since the fillmmakers were not aware that PANAM would not be around in 2001, there was no intent on their part to imply otherwise, hence no irony.

 

By the way, rain on your wedding day is not ironic either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not irony because, by definition, intent is the crucial element of irony: the intended meaning is different the literal meaning. 

Since the fillmmakers were not aware that PANAM would not be around in 2001, there was no intent on their part to imply otherwise, hence no irony.

 

By the way, rain on your wedding day is not ironic either.

Nor is a "black fly in your chardonnay, among other things...that song used to drive me crazy.

 

And sort of in line with the original post, Kubric wasn;t the only one who assumed that space travel would be mostly in the hands of private enterprise. In Robert Heinlein's books, several timelines feature corporations winning the space race instead of USA or Russia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea is not dead. Airbus parent company, EADS, has plans for a hypersonic, stratospheric airliner, the Zehst.  Travel time from London to Tokyo in 2 1/2 hours.  It will cruse at 3,000 mph, 20 miles up.  Cost estimated for a one way ticket €6,000.

 

1499627_hypersonique.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not irony because, by definition, intent is the crucial element of irony: the intended meaning is different the literal meaning. 

Since the fillmmakers were not aware that PANAM would not be around in 2001, there was no intent on their part to imply otherwise, hence no irony.

 

By the way, rain on your wedding day is not ironic either.

 

Y'know, I did attempt to look up the definition for clarification, and got more confused.  There are MANY definitions to the word, and in one way, the situation I brought up COULD be considered some form of irony.  But, to whit:

 

There's a TV commercial for 7-up "10" in which there's a scene shown where a truckload of old tires is sidelined with a flat tire, and the voice-over claims, "If you can squeeze THIS much irony in a situation,...." the implication is that then you can get full 7-up flavor in a ten calorie beverage( or some such crap). 

 

Some definitions of irony I've found claim it's synonymous with sarcasm.  I've never considered it thus.

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were too much expectations about the space program after the moon landing.  Most back then (even today) really don't know how hard and dangerous space travel is. The biggest problem to date is escaping Earth's gravity and how do do it efficiently and cheaply as possible.

 

This has been the main hold back and at present if one see's the recent rocket failures very dangerous.  We hate to admit science do have its limitations i.e. creating artificial gravity.  Only constant, gradual acceleration can achieve this.  Spinning in 0g don't work otherwise the ISS would had been design to do so.

 

For the adventurer who want to fly in those space planes?  Make certain you have life insurance and Last Will, Testament filled out.

 

Point is not everything in science fiction comes true no matter how much we wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'know, I did attempt to look up the definition for clarification, and got more confused.  There are MANY definitions to the word, and in one way, the situation I brought up COULD be considered some form of irony.  But, to whit:

 

There's a TV commercial for 7-up "10" in which there's a scene shown where a truckload of old tires is sidelined with a flat tire, and the voice-over claims, "If you can squeeze THIS much irony in a situation,...." the implication is that then you can get full 7-up flavor in a ten calorie beverage( or some such crap). 

 

Some definitions of irony I've found claim it's synonymous with sarcasm.  I've never considered it thus.

 

 

 

Sacracastic remarks are probably the most commonly heard examples of ironic speech (where the intended meaning is different---usually the opposite---of the literal meaning).

 

For irony to exist in created texts (whether literary or media texts) there must be intent on the part of the creators.. Since there is no intent in the 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY example there can be no irony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'know, I did attempt to look up the definition for clarification, and got more confused.  There are MANY definitions to the word, and in one way, the situation I brought up COULD be considered some form of irony.  But, to whit:

 

There's a TV commercial for 7-up "10" in which there's a scene shown where a truckload of old tires is sidelined with a flat tire, and the voice-over claims, "If you can squeeze THIS much irony in a situation,...." the implication is that then you can get full 7-up flavor in a ten calorie beverage( or some such crap). 

 

Some definitions of irony I've found claim it's synonymous with sarcasm.  I've never considered it thus.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

"Sarcasm is verbal irony that is crude rather than clever; it is rightly regarded as inferior because it denies the reader the higher pleasure of discernment and attachment," so says my Cambridge Guide to Literature in English, which I quote only to support what you said above. And you also said that there are "many" definitions. This entry in the Cambridge goes on for a long time and the discussion goes on and on and I find that irony is rather complex. There ARE many definitions and not easily graspable, at least for me. A systematic study is in order. It would probably be worth it, a thorough understanding of irony would facilitate mightily the understanding of movies. I didn't read this but I surmise that if a book or a movie were completely devoid of irony (if that's even possible) they would probably be excruciatingly boring. I haven't even consulted the Wikipedia entry (or other Internet probes) for irony but I would imagine it's a doozy. Probably quite fascinating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...