EVA Pod Greeblies

The undersides of the EVA (extravehicular activity) space pods from the film 2001: a Space Odyssey are barely seen in the movie. In fact, the bottom of a pod is only visible in two brief scenes. And both times the underside is shown at an angle, and in shadow. So you can’t really see clearly what’s down there.

Continuity

I’m making a model of the pod for exhibition purposes, but I have a problem: there's a continuity error between the two appearances. Both shots show a large recessed rocket cone under there, but the first view shows a bunch of small fiddly details (greeblies in Star Wars parlance) whereas the other, on-screen minutes later, does not.

They're narratively supposed to be the same vehicle in both scenes – the pod Bowman uses to rescue Poole. The images below are movie screengrabs, brightened to show the underside detail better.

Now, there are no photos of any pod anywhere that I've seen that show the underside. I’ve also visited the Stanley Kubrick Archives in London and searched their photographic record, but sadly they have nothing that sheds any light on this part of the pod. (incidentally isn't the only pod-related continuity error in the film. The front panel under the window differs between certain shots, most notably the presence or absence of the HAL 9000 red camera eye.)

Anyway. I need to decide whether or not to include the greeblies on my model.

Greeblies Yes!

• they’re in the first underside shot (and the closer one of the two), so they exist in the film. They’re canon.

• they look sort of cool and make the underside less boring.

• nobody (Moebius or garage kit makers) has ever modelled them so far as I know, so they’d be a unique feature.

• the pod will be exhibited such that the bottom is highly visible. So may as well make it more interesting.

Greeblies No!

• they don’t make much sense as devices. They protrude out, so maybe they’re sort of latching or locking mechanisms for docking. But there’s nothing obvious on the pod bay turntables that can accommodate them.

• they’re hard to see in the film, especially the ones furthest from the camera, and thus difficult to model accurately. (They’re notably not symmetrical so you can’t just mirror them)

• nobody seems to have modelled them so people will assume I made a mistake.

• it’s equally canon to omit them as include them.